[Andrew Summerell]

We often talk of one, two & three shot holes as if putting doesn’t matter. Yet, on many of the courses I’ve played over the years, where you leave the ball on the green is just as important as where you leave the ball on the fairway.

So, when you talk of the strategy of a hole, do you consider the putting (i.e the greens surface) as part of that strategy?

[Mark_F]

Andrew,

Even a 12-inch putt with two inches of break has at least two strategic choices, no?

[jonathan_becker]

Absolutely.

When I step onto the tee, I like to know where the flagstick is first.  From there, pick out a target in the distance that will set up the ball for the appropriate entrance into said pin.  Finally, get the ball on the appropriate level for the best look. 

....but then again, slicing the piss out of it off the tee or hitting it oscar brown tends to ruin the previously stated. 

I would guess that the majority of courses discussed on this forum require the ball to be below the hole for the best opportunities.

[JESII]

So, when you talk of the strategy of a hole, do you consider the putting (i.e the greens surface) as part of that strategy?

Nope...it's all of it.

Imagine flat greens and 2 foot diameter holes...what difference would it make where you hit any shot?

[TEPaul]

Andrew:

I certainly do think putting should very much count in Strategy and that's one of the reasons I like greens that are fairly complex and on the faster side because the necessity for imagination and good thinking and planning increases exponentially. And the good thing about that kind of strategy to me is it's what I call "democratic" because it does not require strength as does most "through the green" strategies.

[BCrosby]

Good question. Seems to me that putting is strategic in two ways.

First leaving yourself certain kinds of putts (or avoiding others) is one of the points of good strategic play through the green. A certain kind of putt is a by-product of playing strategies from the tee.

Second, putting is also inherently strategic. In the sense that you risk leaving yourself a nasty downhill breaking second putt if you take an aggressive line on your first putt that fully accounts for the break. In the alternative (I actually think about this all the time on longer putts) you can take a line that under plays the break in order to leave an easier uphill come-backer.

So, yes, putting is strategic, but in two different ways.

Bob 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Yes yes and yes putts are part of strategic design.

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

Guess you have never played one of my courses!

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew:

Guess you have never played one of my courses!

Tom,

Actually, I have played 5 of your courses.

I have always believed putting to be a very important part of strategy. I asked the question to see what others thought.

The question originated from a discussion I had with a friend who believes that par 3's have no strategy. I suggested that there are many par 3's that have more than one option off the tee, especially with the consideration as to where to leave the ball for the best putt.

I always site the 15th at North Berwick as a perfect example of a par 3 with strategy. Your 17th at Pacific Dunes is another fine example.

But there are quality par 3's out there that don't invite you to play accross a diagonal line that still have strategy due to green contouring and the decision on where best to leave the ball for the next putt.

[Ron Farris]

Get above the hole at Augusta National and I suspect one considers strategy - - like how do I keep this on the green.
I guess the same could be said for many of the greens at SandHills GC.  I think putting off a green is acceptable for a bad, bad putt.

[Zack Molnar]

I think putting absolutely counts in strategy, as it is another measure to force the better player to truly think about where he is going to hit each shot, rather than blindly shooting at the flag in every case.
One reservation with green complexes in which bad putts go off the green is that you may be overly penalizing the unskilled golfer who may not have the necessary skills to control the speed perfectly. I have always followed the statement, I believe it was Mr. Doak who said, That a golf course should cause a good golfer to show what he is capable of, but not force the bad golfer to do something of which he is not able (or something to that extent). So how does one balance this in a green design?

[Mike_Young]

IMHO putting initiates strategy.  Since my  thought process thinks that strategy goes from the cup location back to the tee then putting is an integral part.....but then again IMHO strategy can only be predetermined on the tee...after that it can only be determined after the previous shot.   

[Tim Martin]

For sure. Isn`t lag putting strategy?

[jim_lewis]

At my club there are some hole placements where I will deliberately play to miss the green on the proper side rather than playing to the middle of the green leaving a probable 3-putt. One example is the 5th green where a pin way down front is better approached 10 feet short of the green than 30 ft past the pin.

There are also places and times when faced with a long downhill, sidehill, double-breaker (yes, we have some of those), I will be sure to hit it past the hole at the risk of a 3-putt rather than leave it above the hole and introduce the real possibility of a 4 putt. Haven't had one of those in 15 years. A 3-putt bogey is not the end of the world.

I played along side an old, but still very good, amateur who was in a match play competition with a young guy. They both had putts of about 15 feet uphill from about the same position. The old guy putted first and left it 3 feet short, then proceeded to declare that the green was very slow. The young guy hit it 5 feet long and missed the come-backer. Old guy calmly cans his short putt to win the hole. The whole thing was deliberate gamesmanship on his part. I suppose that also qualifies as strategy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()