[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

My second hand comments on the putting surfaces at Rock Creek and the follow up comments from several people re:the greens at Ballyneal, makes me wonder if there really is any difference in the architects mind when designing a course as per the prospective playing requests of the "members"

If Rupert had intended Ballyneal to be a top notch tournament venue versus a members retreat would Mr Doak have designed the greens differently?


Should there be a difference?

Are good players simply too score oriented to truly enjoy the "fun" aspect of less forgving green undulations ?

Just some thoughts to stimulate the synapses on hump day afternoon....

[George Pazin]

I personally would never allow the opinions of those in tournament play affect decisions regarding my golf course.

I think there is a gigantic gulf between seeing a problem and understanding the solution. I would have faith in the architect that he considered both in far greater depth than those playing in a tournament.

In my limited discussions with "better" players, they tend to see putting like the late model Hogan - an annoyance that screws them more than rewarding them. If they have short shots into greens and don't end up going low, it was simply because of "goofy greens". For some reason, it seems easier to accept "unfairness" if it means a brutal carry, or an omnipresent water hazard, than if it means a difficult green to putt. That illustrates flawed thinking on the part of the golfer, imho.

Interesting topic, hopefully some real players will see it and chime in.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

"If Rupert had intended Ballyneal to be a top-notch tournament venue instead of a members' retreat," I might not have signed up for the job.  Because (a) that would be a ridiculous mission statement for a course in Holyoke, Colorado, and (b) it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun to build.

In contrast, at Rock Creek I had a different client and I understood that his close friends included some good players who would yap about difficult greens.  So the greens at Rock Creek are nowhere near as severe as Ballyneal's.  However, they're maintaining them very fast and the property does have 400 feet of elevation change, so there was no way flat greens were going to work there.  [That is one thing most people fail to understand ... a hilly course like Augusta or Pasatiempo or Kapalua or Rock Creek HAS TO have greens with a fair amount of tilt to them, or it's just going to look stupid standing in the fairway looking up to a blind green or down to a flat green that looks like a ski jump.]

So, all Rock Creek has to do is slow down the greens a tad.  But apparently some guys would rather have them fast so they can complain that they are too severe.  Not all good players are like that, but some are.

PS  I hope Shivas sees this thread.  He must not have thought the greens were too severe at Rock Creek, and he carries a long putter, for God's sake.

[Garland Bayley]

....
PS  I hope Shivas sees this thread.  He must not have thought the greens were too severe at Rock Creek, and he carries a long putter, for God's sake.

Please don't wish that Tom. We don't want to read about either the cheater line, or carrying both a long and a short putter again!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom, Very good points that I will be sure to pass on!

I agree that as "good" players we do tend to bitch and moan too much about severe greens and the Hogan anology of thinking putting is too much of the game on severe greens is so accurate!

That been said how do you or anybody feel about the scenario when somebody hits a shot marginally off line on severe greens and the ball ends up  as badly  off as somebody who hit it way offline, because of the nature of the greens contours?

I believe this is the pet peeve of better players.

Having  played Ballyneal a few times, one thing that has certainly hit me is that you can really learn to play courses with severe greens.
That may sound like a duh statement, but what I mean is that the more you play the courses, the less severe the contours become , on the basis of litteraly learning to play the course and planning ones lines of attack.

I understand anybody reading this is thinking...well of course, you idiot.....but...many people dont play a course often enough before they make judgement.
As such many comments about the severity of greens are made prematurely and decisions to cghange perhaps made too hastily.

As I said earlier, personally the greens at Ballyneal were the most fun greens I have ever played..and to have played them with Rupert explaining his and Tom's philosophy an extra thrill.

I look forward to playing at Rock Creek and having my own opinion

[Jim Colton]

I think this gets back to my point that for a lot of golfers, a water hazard of well-protected green is an acceptable and valued form of resistance to scoring.  The possibility for multiple three putts means the course is 'tricked up'.

I went to Ballyneal last year thinking they were going to be really severe based on what I had read here, but didn't find them to be that bad at all.  The breaks are for the most part, pretty obvious, and in many cases, there are multiple ways to get the ball close to the hole.  The golfer just has to solve the puzzle.  I enjoy it because one of the few strengths of my game is lag putting.  I couldn't make a 10-foot birdie putt to save my life, but give me a 60-foot double breaker anyday.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim C:

I think what you were trying to say above is one of the most clever things Bill Coore ever said to me.

I had met Bill a couple of times previously, but hadn't got to know him very well until I was visiting Kapalua once with my wife, and Bill happened to be there re-working the second green.  It's a Redan-ish par-3 hole [reverse, i.e. left-to-right tilt] and he was taking a bit of tilt out of the green, because it was so severe that when players missed it to the left, even PGA Tour players could not consistently get a chip or pitch shot close to the hole.  Many of them just rolled right off the green.

After we'd talked a bunch I asked him if he really thought the hole needed to be changed, or whether he was just acceding to the wishes of the Tour and his client.  And he said:

"You know, if there was a water hazard to the left of that green, and you pulled it left and had to take a penalty stroke, none of those guys would call it unfair.  But if it is open grass and you pull it left and can't make three, for some reason they think that's unfair."

[Bill Brightly]

After we'd talked a bunch I asked him if he really thought the hole needed to be changed, or whether he was just acceding to the wishes of the Tour and his client.  And he said:

"You know, if there was a water hazard to the left of that green, and you pulled it left and had to take a penalty stroke, none of those guys would call it unfair.  But if it is open grass and you pull it left and can't make three, for some reason they think that's unfair."

So, did he change the green?

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

Yes, he was in the process of changing the green as we spoke.  Sometimes, you've just gotta give up, if the client has given up ... that's why it is critical to try and keep the client involved while you are building the course, so they are a defender of the design instead of listening to the first two-handicap to suggest a change.

If the latter were the operating standard, by the way, every green in America would be flat.  Guys complain all the time, about whatever screwed them out of their two-putt par.  You've got to listen very carefully and challenge their initial report to find out if there is any truth to what they are saying ... sometimes there is, but often they just put themselves in a terrible position, and then didn't figure out the best lag putt to boot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I had a similar discussion up at Firekeeper earlier this week, when initiating construction of a "Valley of Sin" type green....and I had those when building road hole greens as well.  Same logic applies -

Them: "If I come up short, I need to make a putt through some goofy contours"

Me: "Would you expect a chance to hole it if that were a sand bunker on the front left of the green?

Them: No

Me: What is the difference in expectation then, just because you are putting from just off the green, or even on a portion of the green that is not cuppable?

Them: Silence, Stutter, Ems, Ahs, walk away.....

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm a little puzzled by the thread (maybe the replies) in that my experience running a golf operation is exactly th eopposite of what is generally being espoused.

 If the greens are too slow , the good players scream .....when the golf course is firm and fast , the ultimate in fun for me , the average member ( higher handicaps)  don't enjoy it as much.

 It's a real challenge to get it right on a daily basis , to  A0 maximize fun ,  B ) pace of play and revenue .....which is contingent on  A & B .

[Michael Dugger]

Discussions of this sort always make me think about the notion of a championship vs "sporty" course.

I suppose championship courses really should be insanely long with narrow tight fairways, deep rough and flat circular greens.

Because that way, when the pro "just misses" they are not "overly" punished, at least not to the degree the hack "should" be punished for missing by a mile.

And I suppose only the expert golfer thinks in these terms.  

Yet I harken back to something Tom wrote in Anatomy, and that is the Scots seem to have a much better attitude when it comes to the "rub of the green"

Golf is much like life.  Often times you do not get what you may have thought you deserved.

Hence we are all familiar with the term "I played a lot better than I scored, and vice versa"

Of course this notion goes both ways, too, and I like to believe that over a long enough time line it all works out in the end.  Sometimes you hit an absolute dog of a shot.  The dreaded "foozler" which barely gets 10' off the ground but could run 200 yards on a fast and firm fairway.  

The very next shot may have "just missed" and fallen into the Devil's Bunghole.

I think the expert players have a much harder time accepting the rub of the green, and it's why they often prefer the championship style course to a "sporty" course because the sporty ones generally lead to many more weird and wild things happening to your ball, both good and bad.

[Rich Goodale]

....one thing that has certainly hit me is that you can really learn to play courses with severe greens.

This is a very important point, Michael, and not at all obvious to most players.  The more complex the putting surface (and its surrounds) the more knowledge (i.e. repeated play) you need to score well.  This is perhaps the main reason why some "good" players don't "get" (at least initially) courses like Ballyneal (I assume), Dornoch, the Old Course and Castle Stuart.  An interesting corollary is that such courses tend to enthral the less than "good" player in that they are both more fun to play and offer more of a chance to win holes (and even matches) from better players through chance.  I posited in an ancient thread that wild greens favor (relatively) the less skilled player, and threads like this make me think that I was right, despite the opprobrium I received saying so several years ago....

Thanks

Rich

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I never did agree with your old position that wild greens favor the less skilled golfer, but I was looking at your statement in a narrow context [ie a putting contest] instead of a larger one, and I think many others back then did the same.

I would agree with you, if you intended to include the fact that wild greens reduce the need for other hazards, thus making it easier for the less skilled golfer to scrape it around and still post a bunch of bogeys but not much worse, while still making it hard for low-handicappers to reel off a string of pars.

Additionally, you have to define what you mean by the "less skilled golfer".  As Shivas notes correctly, there are lots of low-handicap golfers who just don't want to admit that chipping and putting and strategy are also "skills" which they maybe should learn.

[Tom_Doak]

Shivas:

Believe me, I understand.  I was just saying to a shaper friend today what I've said on this site once or twice before:  most really good players seek to reduce the game to two dimensions [length and width], and they have a hard time coping with contour which alters how those dimensions play. 

As architects, most Tour players do the same ... they flatten out the edges of a green and the approach, instead of working with the natural contours.  So if there is a slope feeding into the right of the green, instead of just making the green bigger to allow the shot to run out, they level out the right hand side -- because they think they should always be able to get up and down to a right-hand hole location.

[George Pazin]

I posited in an ancient thread that wild greens favor (relatively) the less skilled player, and threads like this make me think that I was right, despite the opprobrium I received saying so several years ago....

You are free to believe it and even feel like this thread confirms it, but that doesn't make it true.

Wonderful thoughts on this thread, especially Shivas' first post on it.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom D

By "less skilled" I mean less skilled, the best indication of which is one's handicap (assuming it is honestly attained).  Michael W-P is less skilled at golf than any tour pro and shivas is less skilled than MW-P and George P. is less skilled than shivas.  In all of those pairings I would bet that the less skilled player would have a better chance at match play at, say, Dallas National than Brook Hollow.  The less skilled player would almost always lose (assuming that no handicaps are involved) but he would have a better chance at the wild course than the more subtle one.  IMHO, of course.

George

The fact that I have an opinion does not make it false, either.  Feel free to continue to disagree.

Rich

[JMEvensky]

 The less skilled player would almost always lose (assuming that no handicaps are involved) but he would have a better chance at the wild course than the more subtle one.  IMHO, of course.


Rich

Agreed.I would think that of all the possibilities on a given hole for wide scoring disparities,putting would have the narrowest.

Length,rough,hazards,OB's are going to present opportunities for the less skilled player to make an X.No matter how wild the greens,any less skilled player can at least finish the hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

Okay, although 2-handicaps have different strengths, as you know.

Now the fun part -- I am TRYING to build a course where the 15-handicap has a better chance against the 5, so the 5 will really have to play well instead of just winning by default.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Come to Aberdour some day.  As an ~5 I can wax any 25 handicap here in match play (due to their physical weakness and/or inconsistency) and win more than I should against the scratch players, but have relatively no chance against the 15s.  Why?  Most 15s can hit the ball almost as far as I can, and the greens are tricky enough to make birdies very difficult but pars and bogies fairly easy, as the course is short (~5500 yards, par 67).  Our average winning net score in stroke play competitions is ~6 under.  I (and other lower handicap players) only do that every few years.

Can you get a client who wants to build such a museum piece these days?  I hope so.

Slainte

Rich

[Phil_the_Author]

In reading through this thread I was struck by how unique golf is in comparison to other sports. The playing fields of baseball, football, basketball, soccer, etc... are incidental to the game being played. When was the last time anyone heard a ball player walk into Fenway Park and say that they should cut down that large wall in left. Yet that is what happens in golf all the time.

Telling to me was Tom's statement that it is important to have ownership involved "while you are building the course, so they are a defender of the design instead of listening to the first two-handicap to suggest a change." Doesn't this clearlky show not only that this type of "informed criticism" ghapperns but that we expect it?

So what is unique about golf that has created this atmosphere of everyone believing they know better than the creator of the playing field they are playing on? With Tom's background and course resume' why would he still plan for defending against criticism as a natural part of the design process?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

If you are going to design something controversial you had better have your reasoning well thought out, or, have a deaf client. 

I can't imagine it was any different back in the Golden Age, but perhaps so.  The main difference is that design is SO standardized now and golfers are SO entitled to fairness, in their own minds.  Back in the old days there was less "retail golf."  You either joined a club and accepted the course you were joining, or you stayed away.

[George Pazin]

The fact that I have an opinion does not make it false, either.

Of course it doesn't - it's just so much more fun to point out when I think you're wrong.

Your problem sounds more like a shortcoming of the handicapping system - of which I am under the impression you have never been a proponent - than an indictment of wild greens.

It also sounds like you feel the lower handicap should always win, but that's an argument for another day...

[Rich Goodale]

George

We know you are a math genius, as you tell us so every few years , but I am shocked that you have forgotten the difference between probability and actual outcome.  All handicap systems (GHIN, CONGU, etc.) are biased towards the lower handicap (which they should be, IMHO, to foster a desire for improvement) but this "bias" just means that in any one individual match the lower handicap player is more likely to win.  That's all.  In a stroke play field, however, given the greater spread of possible scores for higher handicap players, it is not at all surprising that an individual higher handicap player will win the event, given the laws of probability.

Rich

[henrye]

Their 300 yard drive down the middle needed to be right or left.  

I dunno Shivas.  Are you talikng about Tiger Woods?  If you can whack it 300 yards and be in the fairway I think that's pretty good.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()