[Jerry Kluger]

A friend of mine recently played the Pete Dye course at Hilton Head which Dye had recently renovated ( No, not Harbourtowne) and he complained that the firmness of the greens made the contours too severe and unfair - my response was that you cannot always fly the ball on to the greens if you are trying to get close to the hole.  My question is whether contours of the green can be enough of a challenge so that soft greens which allow approach shots to hold are the proper conditions in those circumstances or should the greens be firm even if they have significant contouring? 

[Jerry Kluger]

No thoughts? 

[Chris Cupit]

Ok, here's one:

I love greens with large bold contours.  The firmer the greens the better up to a point.  Usually firmness and speed go hand in hand.  Clearly greens with tremendous slope can't be running over 11 and be playable for most people.  An ideal is firm greens that can somehow run around 9.5 to 10.

With soft greens it forces players to carry the ball into many of the nooks and crannies of the greens that were meant to be accessed by the ball rolling out or feeding into that area.  To have to fly the ball and stop it on a dime is usually way to hard for 98% of the golfers and leaves them with damn near impossible putts/chips and they can pretty much spend all day taking 3-4 shots to get down from 40 feet away from the flag and that sux for them.

So, in one bad way I actually think in many situations soft greens accenuate the contours as it is more likely the golfer is unable to access the hole under those conditions and is now forced to deal with the intervening contour for his chip or lag putt.

Unfortunately, the softness takes away the joy of using the contours and slopes as I think the architect often intended in order to work the ball closer to the hole.  Softness can actually be a "double-whammy" of bad for the golfer

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

Soft greens frustrate and negate the architect's intent where contours exist.

So many great old greens allow the golfer to "feed" the ball to the hole.

A redan is an extreme example.

Soft green prevent any feeding of the ball.

They also impede a number of shots the golfer may find attractive.

In terms of playability, I can't think of a prudent reason for maintaining soft greens, can you ?

[Scott Warren]

The front nine at Royal Zoute is a very good example of what you speak of, Pat. It is contoured similarly to the back nine holes, but the softer ground there meakes it nigh on improssible to use Colt's contours as they appear to have been intended.

[Jerry Kluger]

I must admit that I was thinking of soft greens allowing players to use a shot to reach a hole location which was not intended by the architect.  Instead, I find that the reaction is that the soft greens do not allow players to use the approach shot necessary in order to get to the particular hole location.  But firm fairways with soft greens would allow the player to get to the hole via the ground - correct?

[Lou_Duran]

Not necessarily; when combined with the speeds common when these styled greens were introduced, they become more playable to the average golfer.  Heavily contoured firm greens favor the excellent, strong ball striker, but are the bane of most golfers, particularly those who aren't strong enough to impart spin and control the trajectory.  Add speed to the mix and golf becomes tedious.  Outside of this group (GCA.com), I seldom come across golfers who extol the virtues of heavily contoured greens.  I suspect that if these type of greens were kept around 8' on the Stimp and receptive enough to take minimal spin, that more golfers would accept them.  However, slower green speeds aren't in vogue.

[Jerry Kluger]

Lou: When we make this evaluation there are those who feel that firm and fast conditions give more options when playing into contoured greens.  Don't great architects, whether it is Tillinghast or C & C, allow for the ground game when there are significant contours in the green? So if that option is taken away, a significant design feature is negated.  The problem seems to be the unwillingness of most of today's players to use the ground game or for that matter, even learn how to use it. 

[Lou_Duran]

Jerry,

I think the game has changed a lot since the Golden Age.  Golfers today prefer the faster green speeds that the new grasses, maintenance equipment, and cultural practices provide.  With 10'+ greens, steep slops and large internal contouring make getting the ball anywhere close from many angles nearly impossible for most players.  Golf is an extremely difficult game for the vast majority.  Variety of shots to provide "interest" and challenge is more of a discussion topic among a few of us here than a desire or need among the masses.  If I took the average member at my former club to National, Sand Hills, or even Prairie Dunes, he would have little inclination to return.  Take him to Colonial in Fort Worth and he automatically knows greatness.

Soft greens along with slow speeds reduces the effect of heavy contouring.  I don't really know just how firm the greens were back in Tillie's day, but I think green speeds were more in the 6'-8' range.  While I don't think that today's golfer would tolerate that slow speed, I am fairly sure that very firm greens would be rejected, particularly with the frequency of water and sand hazards that frame the modern green.

[Sean_A]

Soft greens don't eliminate contour on quick greens, but then this begs the question of why should we speed up the greens if contours can work well running at 9?  It doesn't make any sense to me to have quick running greens if it means we take character out of those greens, but I seem to be in an extreme minority.  That said, where the bigger problem lies is soft greens for approaching.  This is a situation whereby options are limited AND I think the game is heavily compromised for the better players.  People may want this sort of setup, but it shouldn't be given to them because it goes against nature, costs more money to fight nature and it makes no sense from an architectural PoV.  If we are going to rely on the aerial solely, there is very little need for the field of golf architecture to exist.  

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

That said, where the bigger problem lies is soft greens for approaching.  This is a situation whereby options are limited AND I think the game is heavily compromised for the better players.  People may want this sort of setup, but it shouldn't be given to them because it goes against nature, costs more money to fight nature and it makes no sense from an architectural PoV.  If we are going to rely on the aerial solely, there is very little need for the field of golf architecture to exist.  

Ciao

Huh?  How soft are you talking about?  Molasses?

The problem with firm greens is that most golfers can't handle them and they favor the strong player who can impart spin and control the trajectory.  It may be different in the UK because of the weather and soil conditions, but in Ohio as in Texas, golfers complain much more often about not being able to hold the greens than about them being too soft.  There is nothing more discouraging than to finally hit a nice shot with some elevation and watch it bounce over the green into a bunker or a lake.  I think that the optimum meld is firm fairways and approaches with receptive (not soft) greens.

As to not giving the customers what they want but what you think they should have, well, that's a recipe for economic suicide.  Come to think of it, there is probably a Czar position in the current administration with your name on it.  Thinking about repatriating?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Yes.

[Scott Warren]

in Ohio as in Texas, golfers complain much more often about not being able to hold the greens than about them being too soft.  There is nothing more discouraging than to finally hit a nice shot with some elevation and watch it bounce over the green into a bunker or a lake.

I'd suggest those golfers should stop aiming at the base of the flag stick as their landing point!

[Sean_A]

That said, where the bigger problem lies is soft greens for approaching.  This is a situation whereby options are limited AND I think the game is heavily compromised for the better players.  People may want this sort of setup, but it shouldn't be given to them because it goes against nature, costs more money to fight nature and it makes no sense from an architectural PoV.  If we are going to rely on the aerial solely, there is very little need for the field of golf architecture to exist.  

Ciao

Huh?  How soft are you talking about?  Molasses?

The problem with firm greens is that most golfers can't handle them and they favor the strong player who can impart spin and control the trajectory.  It may be different in the UK because of the weather and soil conditions, but in Ohio as in Texas, golfers complain much more often about not being able to hold the greens than about them being too soft.  There is nothing more discouraging than to finally hit a nice shot with some elevation and watch it bounce over the green into a bunker or a lake.  I think that the optimum meld is firm fairways and approaches with receptive (not soft) greens.

As to not giving the customers what they want but what you think they should have, well, that's a recipe for economic suicide.  Come to think of it, there is probably a Czar position in the current administration with your name on it.  Thinking about repatriating?

Lou

Know one thing, I don't care what players complain about.  Golfers are natural whingers that need to be checked.  To me, well conditioned greens are those which will hold if a player knows what he is doing.  This means most golfers can't hold well conditioned greens.  In other words, ideally, a good player (I am a 9 and I consider myself marginally good) can hold the green (in normal wind conditions and with "normal" sized greens) if he gains the correct angle and therefore is rewarded with the largest area of green to land his ball.  Because of his position he usually should have the option of flying for a safe shot (easiysh 4) or grounding one onto the green to take a risk and go for birdie.  Approaching from the rough and holding the green is reserved for the very best of players in benign conditions and even then should leave a tough two putt.  Approaching from the fairway from the wrong angle over a bunker should require a very good player to place his ball very well with spin to hold the green and have a good shot at a 2 putt.  Of course, there can and should be variations on all this, but this is the basic jist of what I consider well-conditioned greens so far as firmness is concerned.  Additionally, fairways have to be in tune with the greens for a proper ground game to work.  With this ideal maintenance meld it becomes very important for designs to offer alternative routes and width is the key to achieving this.  There is absolutely no point in creating great conditions yet offer 30 yard wide fairways and/or bunkers (other hazards) surrounding greens.

IMO, it is very rare for this to be achieved in the States for a variety of reasons and when it is achieved it tends to be in the spring or fall.  For instance, I thought Yeamans Hall was in very good condition when I played in April.  The greens were fairly firm (could have been a tad firmer), they rolled true and not too quick - maybe 8ish.  I spose with more firmness they would have been at what I consider the ideal speed of about 9.  The course was rough around the edges (which is why it reminded me of an English course), but that has to be expected if grasses are to be left to take care of themselves as much as possible.  Much is blamed on climate, but I don't think this is the full picture.  US golfers like softer than ideal conditions because its what they are used to and its easier to predict the outcome of shots.  Despite the climate and therefore the use of certain grasses, there is still plenty of scope for reaching toward ideal conditions at least part of the year as well as making progress in high summer.  It is my understanding that some courses are making great progress in this area (Huntington Valley is often mentioned in this regard) and so it shows that it can be done if there is a willingness to do so.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

in Ohio as in Texas, golfers complain much more often about not being able to hold the greens than about them being too soft.  There is nothing more discouraging than to finally hit a nice shot with some elevation and watch it bounce over the green into a bunker or a lake.

I'd suggest those golfers should stop aiming at the base of the flag stick as their landing point!

"Those golfers" are not aiming at the hole, they just hope to hit something that gets close to or on the green.  If we want to make golf fun- and I agree with Mike Young on another thread that for many it is no longer a game played for sheer enjoyment- we may want to consider what factors in gca contribute to that end.  Very firm, greatly or steeply contoured greens with modern speeds do not get there.  Firm up the fairways and entries and make that part of the game- shots on and around the greens- that most us can improve with some practice a bit more manageable and we're heading in the right direction.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()