[Jim Nugent]

Tom Doak -- I see you left out several courses that got 10s in the CG, from your "great greens" list.  Do those courses (Shinnnie and CPC, to name two) also have great greens?  If not, what other qualities does a course need to have, to reach 10 status, if it does not have great greens?   

[Tim Leahy]

The best set of greens I have ever played were at LACC North in the mid 1980's. You really had to think about aproach shots and then once you got on you still had to read every putt. Pebble Beach greens were also some of the best that I have ever played.

[Josh Smith]

Am also curious as Jim is..........wouln't Cypress Point greens be considered very good.  Very tricky and some are quite unique.  9, 11, 13. 

[Bill_McBride]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (or I've missed if it has) is contours on some of the greens that you can use to access the hole by less than a direct play.

A couple of the best modern examples I've seen of that are at Black Mesa.  On #7 you can play a pitch even off the hillside behind the green and the slopes will bring the ball back around the pin.  There's a big swale across the 18th green where you can chip or putt beyond the hole and wind up back by the cup when it's in that swale.

Other examples - putting around the bunker in the green at #6 Riviera using the slopes.  The circuitous route from a the upper tier to lower tier on #10 at Yale.

That kind of special fun is what makes for a great set of greens to me!   Any other good examples?

[Matthew Petersen]

I agree that variety is hugely important. I want them to be interesting, but not all similar.

As an example, I played last weekend at a strange little course in Surprise, AZ called Arizona Traditions. It is a very short course and as a result the majority of the greens have some substantial slopes.

At the second hole, I was happy to see a green that was sort of inspired by a Biarritz. (The difference being that the low middle section didn't run through the entire width of the green--more like 3/4 of it.) I thought that was a good touch. And many of the other greens on the course had real slope and character. However, by the end of the day, we had played 3 greens with that semi-Biarritz feature. By the third time it showed up, it was far from charming.

[Tim Gavrich]

I love greens with significant enough back and side slopes that the ball can roll down them and potentially near hole locations that might not have been accessible otherwise.  I can think of very few shots that are more fun than those around the green where one can or should hit the ball up a side slope in order for it to run back down near the hole.  SO much fun, and not common enough on golf courses, IMO.

[Richard Hetzel]

Sean:

Here's my list of sets of great greens from the back of The Anatomy of a Golf Course, c. 1991:

Augusta National
Ballybunion
Camargo
Charlotte CC
Commonwealth
Crooked Stick
Crystal Downs
Detroit GC
Forsgate
Garden City
Harbour Town
High Pointe 
Hollywood
Long Cove
Merion
Morfontaine
National Golf Links
North Berwick
North Shore (L.I.)
Oakland Hills
Oakmont
Paraparaumu
Peachtree
Pebble Beach
Pine Valley
Pinehurst #2
Prairie Dunes
Prestwick
Rockport, TX
Royal Dornoch
Royal Melbourne
Royal Worlington & Newmarket
Somerset Hills
St. Andrews
TPC at Sawgrass (guess I've changed my mind there)
Westhampton
Winged Foot
Woking
Yale

Tom,

If you had to place these in order from best to least best, what would it look like?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ths also begs the process question - if variety is the key to a great set of greens, how do you achieve that on an "average site"

Would The Old Course fit this bill?

And Richard I'm pretty sure Tom would put The Old Course first.
I would.

[Kalen Braley]

I would put the greens at Indian Canyon in Spokane, WA up against nearly anything I've played....even CPC!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike (N)

I would say yes to both your points re TOC - but then I would because it has what many other (and perhaps better) courses do not a give, a deep inward feeling of warmth and of being one with the game. The spiritual glow of knowing you are at home among loved ones.

Melvyn

[JNC Lyon]

How much variety is there among the Old Course greens.  Are there any small greens that force an all-or-nothing approach?  I am only asking because I have not seen the course.

Mark Pearce, I would agree from my one round that Huntercombe contains a great set of greens.  I enjoyed the greens there more than the greens at Garden City.  In fact, I am not sure that Garden City qualifies as a great set of greens.  There are few clunkers in there that bring it down a notch for me, notably 7, 12, and 17.

[Scott Warren]

I just got home from 36 holes at Huntercombe and, in one of the coolest bits of luck I've ever had, the greens staff went out while Giles and I were having lunch and moved all the pins!

That is definitely one of the best sets I've played, with a great mix of wild, slightly zany and sedate but still requiring concentration.

I'm still in that slightly euphoric "I just got home from a date and I think I want to marry that girl" state, so I best not ramble further.

[Tim Nugent]

Great greens are just a part of great green complexes.  The flow and tie-in (fit and finish) of the putting surface to the immediate area around them must be seamless.  Also, the movement of the putting surface should immulate the nature of the couse in general.  Flat greens on tumbling land or heavily contoured greens on flat terrain can give one a disjointed feel. 

A great set of greens is one where a common set of principles have been applied to a big variety of complexes.  In addition to the surfaces, the surrounds (hollows, bunkers, ridges, swales) need to reflect the strategy of the hole and compliment the siting, shape, angle, size and internal contours of the putting surface.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I agree but I think the question is, "Which set of principles?" Expound, please.

[Michael Whitaker]

I can't believe that Tom Doak has never played Huntercombe!!!

We need to start a special "Tom Doak To Huntercombe" petition campaign to encourage Tom to complete his architectural education. Every architect worth his salt should be required to play Huntercombe before being allowed to turn his first spade of dirt.

Tom, why don't you join us for the Buda Cup in September and let some of these knuckleheads take you out to Huntercombe. I'd buy a ticket to follow you and Sean around that course!

[Sean_A]

I can't believe that Tom Doak has never played Huntercombe!!!

We need to start a special "Tom Doak To Huntercombe" petition campaign to encourage Tom to complete his architectural education. Every architect worth his salt should be required to play Huntercombe before being allowed to turn his first spade of dirt.

Tom, why don't you join us for the Buda Cup in September and let some of these knuckleheads take you out to Huntercombe. I'd buy a ticket to follow you and Sean around that course!

Whitty

I tried to get Tom to Huntercombe a year or two ago and nearly pulled it off.  I do think more archies should see Huntercombe just to see it doesn't take re-inventing the wheel or a huge budget to create wonderful golf from a mediocre site.  

Mark

When i mentioned Park Jr in a earlier post I had Huntercombe in mind.  Though I am not sure they are a great set of greens unless they fall under the category of fitting the course beautifully.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

Thats an interesting idea.  Given Tom visits the west coast so much, we need to get him to stop in and see the greens at Indian Canyon in Spokane after he visits Wine Valley in Walla Walla.

[Tom_Doak]

I can't believe that Tom Doak has never played Huntercombe!!!

We need to start a special "Tom Doak To Huntercombe" petition campaign to encourage Tom to complete his architectural education. Every architect worth his salt should be required to play Huntercombe before being allowed to turn his first spade of dirt.

Tom, why don't you join us for the Buda Cup in September and let some of these knuckleheads take you out to Huntercombe. I'd buy a ticket to follow you and Sean around that course!

Michael:

If I am in Europe in September, I would love to take you up on your offer.

If I do, I suspect that I would be the FIRST American golf course architect ever to see it.

[Michael Whitaker]

If I do, I suspect that I would be the FIRST American golf course architect ever to see it.

I don't know about that... I've heard rumors that Paul Cowley was once spotted in one of the posh coffee shops in Henley-On-Thames! 

I do hope you in are in Europe in September. I can picture a gaggle of about 20 of us following you and Sean around Huntercombe! 

Just make sure Sean doesn't take a wrong turn... last time I played there with him we missed three holes! I discovered it's a lot easier to break 80 when you only play 15 holes!!! 

[Jim Nugent]

Great greens are just a part of great green complexes.  The flow and tie-in (fit and finish) of the putting surface to the immediate area around them must be seamless.  Also, the movement of the putting surface should immulate the nature of the couse in general.  Flat greens on tumbling land or heavily contoured greens on flat terrain can give one a disjointed feel.  

A great set of greens is one where a common set of principles have been applied to a big variety of complexes.  In addition to the surfaces, the surrounds (hollows, bunkers, ridges, swales) need to reflect the strategy of the hole and compliment the siting, shape, angle, size and internal contours of the putting surface.

Tim, any examples of greens you consider great?   e.g., what about Pinehurst 2? 

[Rob Miller]

How about good courses that aren't great because of mediocre greens?  Any examples?

[Sean_A]

How about good courses that aren't great because of mediocre greens?  Any examples?

The two courses which immediately jump out to me are Delamere Forest and Stoneham.  The greens are just too flat which I just can't understand given that both sites have plenty elevation changes.  I also think Woodhall Spa's status as a great course is somewhat threatened due to its flat greens, but probably just enough is going to overlook what are certainly no better than  a mediocre set. 

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

I think that the entire area is part of the green, including the bunkers. So in addition to having great contours, great greens are bunkered and mounded in a way that works with the putting surface.

It seems like many of the great greens are larger, but there are great small greens too.

Great greens begin affecting your shots before you are actually on the green. So you really think about where you want to be hitting from to get to the pin, and that could change from day to day.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It occurs to me that:

Tim Nugent says a great set of greens is one where a common set of principles have been applied to a big variety of complexes.

Sean seems to be saying that its where a common set of grees has had a wide variety of design principles applied...........

I'll stick to the "I know one when I see one" theory on this one, rather than go all "scientific architecture" on it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I would add (someone may have already...I didn't read every response) that I really like greens that look like an extension of the fwy. I know for practical reasons we often end up with raised greens on courses with heavy soils but I just love the look of a green when it appears to have been just mowed out and not constructed.

Tim also made a great point about the green’s surface reflecting what is happening on the rest of the golf course. This modern approach to try and be a “minimalist” and make everything look like it’s in the sand dunes has given us courses with pushed up choppy “native” areas, smoothed out fwys with just a bit of movement and flat greens. I like a bumpy, edgy course as long as it’s carried all the way through.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()