[Joe Bausch]

Here is the best pic I have of the 8th green:

[cary lichtenstein]

A friend ,an excellent golfer and architecture buff recently  mentioned that the incredibly complex , and miniaturized , internal green contours of a highly ranked and respected architect were overdone....I agree and prefer the broad brush strokes of greens with larger flowing contours ,   what say you?

I totally agree

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I had never thought of micro breaks as replacing grain.....

As to the green above, if these are the random contours in question, they don't work at a public course, because there are only a few pin spots on that green - maybe 3-4 around the pin as shown and some more to the far left of the photo.  On a limited play private course, there is probably no problem.

That said from a maintenance perspective, imagine a pin just in front of (as we look at it) the largest hump in the middle of the green.  It appears the best approach is to the area near the camera where you are putting into the backstop.From the left of the photo or anywhere beyond the green as we look at it would result in a putt that you couldn't get close becaue the slope is too much away from you.

That may be accpetable to most here, but most good golfers would complain that they have hit the green with the approach shot and then have an unmakeable putt for birdie (not the worst thing to happen) The real complaint is if the green speed is such that they might degreen a putt after hitting the green.  That violates the old Colt axiom of a putt never running away from the putter like a swine possessed by the devil......

So its a good illustration of whether the green contouring should be such as to almost force a bogey from the wrong part of the green vs not allowing an easy birdie?   Like others, I am a big CC fan and actually think this is a pretty severe green for them.  I could be wrong.  If it was one of only a few, and on the right holes, I would be fine with it.  I put that kind of contouring in the "once in a while its okay" camp. I don't care but know that many, many good golfers do. They, starting with Jack Nicklaus are of the opinion that the course should never really cause a bogey if the player plays well enough and these contours have the potential to do just that with a decent approach and half decent putt.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Isn't 8 the short par 4 with the Volkswagen buried in the front of the green?
Or is the Volkswagen just to the right of the pic?
Because the picture looks tame.
#8 was one of the more memorable holes there.

Archie -
Are you complaining about the big hump or the smaller stuff?

[Tom Dunne]

I walked Hidden Creek last spring with Bill Coore before playing it for the first time, and remember him pointing out a couple of small spines about 20 or 30 yards short of the green. Those are probably the most significant "micro-contours" on that particular hole in the sense that this is an eminently drivable par-four and they are positioned where many tee shots will land, producing some unpredictable kicks. The green itself I thought was actually one of the wilder ones on the course.

Though there's always room for exceptions, I generally disagree with the notion that public courses should feature less subtle contouring than private ones. Those courses have regulars, too. The designers of Rustic Canyon didn't water their features down for the public golfer, and I'm glad for that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I would also agree with you, publics shouldn't be overly dumbed down, but a private course has the capacity to feature more pronounced greens due to many factors, like less play, more dollars for maintenance, players who are more ready to pick up, etc.. 

Jeff,
It always seems that it's the very good player who objects to stuff like this, and it's pretty easy to see why. If you're putting for money or hardware you don't want to deal with complexities on the green.

I look at the green in the photo and I see some contour, but I also see a green that doesn't have any appreciable tilt, and some of what is seen is created by Joe's camera which isn't held square to the green (line the edge of your browser up with the flagstick, or a few of the trees in the background).

The learning curve on this green might take a while to master, but it surely doesn't look impossible. Put it alongside Yale's 10th and it's a pussy cat.

[Sean_A]

I am totally lost why the bumps in the green below are unacceptable for a public course.  I think it is more a case of archies trying to design for the masses rather than bringing the masses to a design.  More is the pity because these sorts of features are exactly what archies should be building to create interest and variety. Put me down in the camp that strongly disagrees with J Brauer and A Struthers.  That sort of architecture is what I don't mind paying for.  It sure beats the usual "two bunkers on the inside of the dogleg architecture".


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

I have just got back from three days at Askernish, the links course in the Outer Hebrides that was recently revived on the site of an original, Old Tom Morris layout from 1891.

I think I can safely say that you (and your friend) would hate those greens.  None of them were "built" by modern standards at all ... they did not even strip the turf, they've just mowed out greens in the best natural spots they can find.  And they have much more in the way of micro-contouring than any greens I have ever seen anywhere, by Coore and Crenshaw or myself or Perry Maxwell or anybody else.  They are not very fast (especially in the winter months) and were quite frustrating to putt on this week, but still a revelation.

After playing there for three days, I began to wonder what the hell people are talking about when they tell me my modern courses over-emphasize the putting game.  Askernish is as close as I've seen to an 1890's golf course, and based on this week's practical experience, I would guess that putting back then must have been a HUGE part of the game, fraught with three-putts and frustrating misses due to the general unevenness of the surfaces and of the turf.  It is no wonder the Scots didn't want to count all their strokes, but just to play one hole at a time.

[archie_struthers]

 

Probably on overload a little here and might miss a couple questions ...but here goes

Sully , to compare *8  at Hidden Creek and 16 at the Valley is almost sacriligious....cmon mate  ...16 doesn't have littlle bumps and humps that break 6 inches in two feet !!!!!!  lots of ridge lines perhaps but not micro contours , sixteen is absolutely the same genre as the rest of the greens .....can't say the same for eight

Don't feel that public need to be dumbed down any more than private club greens ....they just need to be good



Tom Doak  .....if golf evolved from a croquet like game, which seems logical , putting was probably more integral to the game than it is today, which makes sense ...........golf has evolved and the new game is more fun, for me at least ...not to say I wouldn't love Askernish for a game and some grog ...Hogan took his loath of putting to an extreme, but there needs to be a balance.....if you built weird greens which no one could putt , which you surely could  , they might not be fun 

 
MIke N   don't like either hump on that green    LOL 


If greens are breaking left right left on five footers ...wouldn't Hubie Green chip it in  .....get it??

[Jeffrey Stein]

Flat greens are boring.  Flat green surrounds are also boring.  There are some very enjoyable greens at Old Macdonald, for example, which tie into the surrounding bumps, hills, and hollows from the edges of the green inward.  Many of the greens have slopes and tiers and small mounds whithin the green, but there are many pin locations that have a constant slope that allow makeable putts within 10 feet of the hole.  Chipping or putting through several breaks is just part of the fun of getting to the hole.  These are greens made with the spirit of the links.

Another example in contrast would be Bethpage Black.  I can remember a lot of tv coverage from the Open talking about how subtle the contours are in these greens, etc.  When I played there I don't remember the greens being particularly exciting. In fact they were pretty flat, with "subtle" or small breaks, I didn't find them hard to read, it just required that you actually look at the putt from both sides.  I am a walker and I actually will read the putt on my walk up to the green, place my bag down, and then read the putt from the other side, or whenever possible.  This speeds up play, unlike many cart riders who may or may not take the time to read the putt and instead stand behind their missed putt whining that the greens are too difficult to read.

The hardest greens I have seen and played on consistently are those at Cape Kidnappers, there is a general drain to the ocean that seems to slow down any putt away from the water.  That being said many putts that appear downhill are deceptively slow, the opposite is also true on some holes.  There also seems to be a myth about the grain of these greens affecting the speed of some putts, it then becomes very difficult to describe a putt to someone when they start to think about slope, ocean effect, and grain.   I am not necessarily frustrated when I mis-judge a putt out there, I'm only looking to get a little bit closer to a tap-in.  I don't know if the same can be said of the average golfer.  When in doubt stop thinking!

The bottom line is that any green can be read with some effort and a little course knowledge (from your local caddy).  Good greens should require a balance of touch and imagination and the ability to hit an agressive putt to the back of the cup. 

[JESII]

Sully , to compare *8  at Hidden Creek and 16 at the Valley is almost sacriligious....cmon mate  ...16 doesn't have littlle bumps and humps that break 6 inches in two feet !!!!!!  lots of ridge lines perhaps but not micro contours , sixteen is absolutely the same genre as the rest of the greens .....can't say the same for eight

If greens are breaking left right left on five footers ...wouldn't Hubie Green chip it in  .....get it??

Arch,

Notice that I excluded the hump(s) on #8 at HC from the question...yet included every other bit of greenspace there, and I think it's a fair question. #16 at PV is great. I picked it because it seemed to have the least surrounding terrain to dictate an overall slope, so it was all created...much like the little humps and swales at HC were.

I wouldn't put the greens at Hidden Creek in Pine Valley's class (which are the best set I have seen, by a wide margin), but I think you're taking your too frequent three-putts a little too personally. It's OK...spring is coming.

By the way, the guy at Huntingdon Valley likes to use more aggressive/borderline hole locations during the "off-season" when the greens are slower...could this explain the extreme breaks you dealt with? Would the hole be in the sames spots when the greens are at regular speed?



By the way, I'm no good next week, unfortunately. Talk to you soon.

Sully

[cary lichtenstein]

The golf course that comes to mind with interanl green contours that are too small is Jack Nicklaus' redo of North Palm Beach Golf Course. I couldn't make an 8 footer with 3 breaks, totally unreadable and unputtable.

The course has some nicely bunkered holes but so if you are a good putter, it takes that away from u

[TEPaul]

Archie:

I don't know about too small but I fear a green concept and design that Gil Hanse and I came up with at Gulph Mills may have two contours that were done perhaps too close together.  

They even have a fairly well known name at this point----eg "The Boobs and the Cleavage."

Personally I've always like them because to a few pins on the lower section the golfer has three basic putting lines or direction options----off the right boob, off the left boob or right straight through the middle of the cleavage.

The problem is if the putter gets the ball on the wrong side of the nipple on either boob, well, "Hold onto your boots Hoss" cuz you'll be going way on out to either right or left field and a three jack is virtually inevitable!

[Mark Pearce]

The 10th green on Hanse's Craighead course at Crail has, as its main feature, a small round(ish) pimple in the front left of the green.  It is absolutely essential to be the same side of that pimple as the flag, or risk three putting.  Since it's a short par 4 (I guess driveable by some) any approach should be with a wedge or less.  I think it's a good green, others hate it.  I guess the diameter of the pimple is 6 feet, maybe a little more.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

This answer may be too simplistic..but my answer us when the golfer cannot detect it!

Large, overdone contours like the one discussed at Dallas National are no better but wouldnt those be classed as large internal contours..at least the ones I saw at Dallas National were large and certainly not subtle by any stretch of the imagination.
 Those are to me often unfair, and leave the player with a ataste of being screwed...whilst small subtle contours just leave you scratching your head at why on earth you didnt see that break...

but perhaps I am missing something here in the discussion..
when I think about Ballyneal for instance, the thought of conturs being too small is not one of the images I have of that wonderful place...

[Jim_Kennedy]

MWP,
What's missing, and will probably remain AWOL, is any definitive criteria for what we're talking about, and even if there was it would produce more 'camps' than the number of subtle breaks that are being decried.

I remember a medium length putt I once had on the 10th green of the Pine Needles course that looked relatively easy, yet when I stroked it and watched it make it's way to the hole I was surprised to see that the one break I was playing was only about 25% of the total action.  That was 25 years ago, on a green that wouldn't strike fear in anyone's heart and would never be compared to the 8th at Hidden Creek.

I've never heard anyone complain about that green, yet the four breaks in a medium length putt is somehow being looked on as placing too much emphasis on putting.


My criteria: Smaller complex internal contours are not offensive on greens that stay within an acceptable overall pitch and those contours  must be able to be mowed without scalping (too convex ) or leaving areas that are longer (too concave) than all the other grass on the green.

Feel free to disagree or make the criteria 'more better'. 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

So I guess my real question is..
Who likes the scale of contour of greens at say Ballyneal/Augusta/"Fazio like courses"/Cuscowilla..
or who like the more subtle greens that do not look like they have things hidden underneath the putting surface?

Is your like or dislike based upon the importance you think putting should have within the context of scoring ?

[archie_struthers]

 

Jim Kennedy , great question. Think this might work. 

All of us have run into the occasional putt where there is only one line that works . It's really unusual for this to happen but having read four putts per hole from age 11-24 years old it does happen.  This is what the miniaturized counter lines appear to be to me .....so random that only one line can work , short of flying it into the hole ala Hubie Green .

The superintendents out there will definitely appreciate this. When you cut the hole every day there is a natural tendency for the edges of the cup to raise up as  cup cutter is pulled out of the ground. Good supers alleviate this by having a tamper or kick plate to level the edge by standing on this device after the cup is cut. When this doesn't happen and the cups are cut improperly the "raised edges" willl severely impact putting. you can't make anything in the side door as the microundulation of the improperly cut cup repels the ball.  Only 100 MPH putts will go in (lol) or dead center straight on .....I've seen this problem first hand and anytime the general populace is monaing about the greens being untrue this is the first thing a good super will check...


This random contouring , minituarized aorund the hole ,works similar to raised edges ,  I absolutely think it makes putting too imortant and is definitely different that Tom Doaks description of the wildly contoured greens at Askernish.   Think of RAISED EDGES anyone who has putted on them or caddied on them knows how awuo they can be to the psyche of a good putter. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Archie,
I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote, or perhaps I didn't make it clear. There wasn't just one line to the cup on the Pine Needles #10 green, I read the putt to have one break, but it curled four times on its way to the hole. The reason: small, unseen rolls in the green.

It doesn't take long to recognize a cup that's working its way out of the ground, it doesn't take long to recognize small undulations on a green, and it doesn't take long to understand how to deal with either one.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, I just hold a different one. I enjoy the challenge presented by highly undulating putting surfaces in compact areas but I also enjoy highly undulating putting surfaces over broader areas. I don't think either one is bad for golf in any way, and my opinion is that they make the game more interesting, which is a good thing.

[TEPaul]

"#16 at PV is great. I picked it because it seemed to have the least surrounding terrain to dictate an overall slope, so it was all created...much like the little humps and swales at HC were."



Sully:

It's interesting you say that about PV's #16 as there is some material in the archives from way back that refers to that green as the only truly "natural" green on the golf course. I'm not completely sure what was meant by that but I suppose it may not be that hard to guess what it means.

On the other hand, if one simply looks around the natural grade outside that green on the front, left and back it's pretty hard to imagine the green itself and its contours was not created.

Perhaps what they meant is they just floated the natural soil some rather than build in any core or base to that green as its grade sits so close to the water level of the lake.

[archie_struthers]

 

Jim .....I love bold contours on greens if they are big enough....don't like them over small areas....

Small pertubutions created  by random floating don't do it for me , plain and simple.  If the designer tries to make it ganrly right arond the hole , and eliminate 50% of possible putting options so be it... I just think it puts too much emhasis on putting

Personally the harder it is to putt the bigger the advantage to me as putting is one of the best parts of  my game....but if I want to putt on goofy greens lets go to the boardwalk and play mini golf .....it'a great fun but not great golf for me

[Sean_A]

Jim .....I love bold contours on greens if they are big enough....don't like them over small areas....

Small pertubutions created  by random floating don't do it for me , plain and simple.  If the designer tries to make it ganrly right arond the hole , and eliminate 50% of possible putting options so be it... I just think it puts too much emhasis on putting

Personally the harder it is to putt the bigger the advantage to me as putting is one of the best parts of  my game....but if I want to putt on goofy greens lets go to the boardwalk and play mini golf .....it'a great fun but not great golf for me

Archie

How often do you encounter this boardwallk golf?  Is it enough to be considered a problem in design generally or specifically to a particular archie?  I ask because in my 25 years of playing I can't recall a single instance of boardwalk greens.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Archie,
Do you think that the 8th green at HC is goofy?  

Each and every one of us has our own ideas as to what is or isn't a mini-golf green, but the memberships at clubs sporting such greens would have softened them by now if they didn't like them.  

Many, many moons ago I brought a girlfriend home for Sunday dinner with my family. There were a dozen or so of us at the table, lot of chattering and hand waving going on, and then 'Nonna' brought out her home made ravioli. My girlfriend says: "No thanks, I don't like ravioli".....

.....At least on this site people will still talk to you if your ball is on the fringes.  
 

[JESII]

Archie,

I misinterpreted "micro-contours"...you're really talking MICRO...sort of like Plinko it sounds like. Not sure any architect intentionally designs that although I may be misinterpreting again...I've played Hidden Creek 5 or 6 times and never noticed what you're referring to.

[JESII]

...and in that case I would say that when they are smaller than a golf ball and cover less distance than a foot they might be too small...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()