The thin line between “wild and fun” to “crazy and stupid” greens?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matt

there are groupies on this site  Should you say 'wake up good man' as it could, well you know give the wrong impression

I know, I keep getting asked to meet fellow Members for a drink or two.    Groupies to the left of me , Groupies to the right of me, but I see no groupies just friends and a bunch of great guys.

 Calm and cool it Guys, as you may find you will live longer that way 

Melvyn

[Sean Leary]

Mike Dugger,

At Tetherow, we had that one crazy front right pin on the 6th  green that you had posted on during a picture thread. Absurd.

[Michael Dugger]

Sean,

Glad to hear you also found that pin ridiculous, the Tetherow folks seems to think we are just being wimps.  

I also thought the 7th green was a little too harsh, there is a spine running through it and to be on the wrong side of the pin renders a two putt nearly impossible.

I need to get back there and see what changes they've made since opening.  What did you think in general?

Like it?  Hate it?

[Wade Schueneman]

I do not know how to draw the line between fun greens and stupid greens, but perhaps the architect that wants to err on the side of bold greens might be comforted by the fact that 1) greens can always be slowed down and 2) hole locations that prove to be over the top can be abandoned.

[Matt_Ward]

Michael:

Broad generalizations?

Sanity?

Surely you jest. Great ploy -- shoot the messenger.

I've provided examples many times. It just seems certain people on this site don't want to be called out regarding the predictable actions of the groupies that reside here. People wave broad agreements on certain designers but simply play down or never acknowledge the contributions of others.

Michael, certain people are biased on this site -- Nicklaus just happens to be a favorite punching bag for many. If someone played Red Ledges and didn't see the details -- greens included -- then they need some serious eyeglasses. The greens there are demanding but very fair.

Amazingly -- we do agree on Tetherow - amazes me how the course gets far less love than the original 18 at Bandon. Go figure.

One final thing -- I am a demo so the Palin comment hits below the belt.

[Jud_T]

There may well be some groupies here but it's gotta be the fugliest collection on record....

[JC Jones]

There may well be some groupies here but it's gotta be the fugliest collection on record....

Depends on whether you're looking for action or to fill the membership of a remote club.....

[Mac Plumart]

 I've been thinking about this a lot lately and here is what I've come up with.  "Wild and fun" greens just might follow the natural contours of the land better than "crazy and stupid" greens. 

Think Ballyneal 7.  It is such a wonderfully well positioned green with great contours and these contours flow so perfectly with the surrounding land.

On the other side of the spectrum...I just played Atlanta Athletic Riverside, a course I really like and think is quite good.  The greens have great contour and are fun to putt on...but something just isn't right about them.  They catch your eye as being a bit odd.  As I noticed this and really studied them today, the ones that seem the most odd simply don't follow the flow of the land upon which they sit.  A natural piece of land wouldn't ever develop those contours.  That is why they seem odd.

To me this is what seperates "wild and fun" from "crazy and stupid".  But I think the average American golfer would think Ballyneal's greens are "crazy and stupid".  In fact, Jim Colton started a thread citing a complaint that the greens are "retarded".  BUT I think the sportsman golfer will LOVE those greens. 

So in the end it is personal perference regarding how you like your golf and your greens.  But I think the natural flow of the greens contours plays a huge part in their level of acceptance and respect.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt Ward,

CAN YOU READ?

Below is my post from last time.  You ignored everything I said in your response.

There is no doubt that some people are fans of certain architects ... Just like they are fans of certain players, and those players bank on it carrying over to their architectural work.  I am not arguing with you about that.

GOLF CLUB ATLAS is supposed to be above that.  We are supposed to discuss specifics, not generalities.  But you keep refusing to do that, and compound it by criticizing others for doing the same.

Mr. Nicklaus' greens at Harbor Shores and that TPC course in Tucson are the ones which have been criticized on this thread.  You keep bringing up Red Ledges, but Red Ledges has not been criticized.  You imply that Red Ledges is representative of Jack's work and so people are not up to date, but the other two courses are just as new.

If you have not played those other greens, why do you think anything you say is relevant to this thread?

Matt:

All of your posts about the bias on this board are b.s. on the order of Fox News.  They don't mean squat unless you are providing SPECIFIC examples of a green Jack Nicklaus built that would be beloved if Bill Coore or I built it, but is unfairly panned because it's Jack's ... Or, a green that I have built which is over the top, but gets a pass.  So far all you have come up with is a green of mine THAT YOU THINK IS GOOD, which other unspecified people would not like if it was Jack's.  Which is total speculation and bullshit.

So have you got any specific examples for us of great Jack Nicklaus greens that have been unfairly panned?

I also disagree on your last point to me.  I think I can decide whether a certain green is appropriate for a certain length of hole, even if I don't play from the 7400 yard tees.  The funny part of your argument is that it implies short jitters would complain loudest about a severe green on a long approach shot, when in my experience, it is the long jitters who complain that is unfair.

[PThomas]

A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill.  I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.

yikes!

whats the point of building something like that?

[PThomas]

Tim:

  I've heard several people [both players and architects] go one step further and say that you ought to be able to SEE all of the important contours in a green from the fairway. 

is that a silly statement!

very good thread Pat!

[John Moore II]

A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill.  I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.

yikes!

whats the point of building something like that?

Paul-how many Mike Strantz golf courses have you played? This green actually fits right in with much of the work he does and much of what they have at Tot Hill Farm. However, note the thick trees. Because of the trees, they actually struggle to grow grass in places. There is a tee box directly behind this green that had no grass on it last time I played there. And part of the 13th green was closed off because of turf conditions.

As to the main question, where is the thin line. Well it has to do with green speeds first off. The speeds must fit the contours and the greens must be big enough to support both the contours and the speeds. The line is crossed when you try to put large contours on small greens and still run high speeds. This leads to very small portions of the green being reasonably pinable. And that is when you get the crazy and stupid greens.

Of the three Strantz courses I have played, they all have size enough to support nearly any speed on the greens, at least for a short period of time.

[Wade Schueneman]

A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill.  I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.

This looks OK.  If the pin is in the front then the golfer has been put on clear notice not to miss long and has a nice backboard to play with.

[PThomas]

played quite a few John:  MPCC, Royal New Kent, Stonehouse , Tobacco Road

that hill is TOO steep, imho

[John Moore II]

played quite a few John:  MPCC, Royal New Kent, Stonehouse , Tobacco Road

that hill is TOO steep, imho

Well, i used to build houses, so my 'line' to determine if something is too steep is whether or not you can walk up it without help. I walked up this hill, it probably gains 5 feet in 12 or more feet of distance. Its no steeper than the front slope on #7 or the middle tier on #16 at Tobacco Road, IMO.

[Jim Nugent]

On that Tot Hill green, if you putt from the upper part to the lower, and miss the cup, where does your ball stop rolling? 

I'm also curious to know what putts are like from the lower to the upper. 

Without ever playing the hole, I agree with Wade.  Strantz made it real clear where not to miss, and from the looks of it, gave plenty of room to do so.  I also note that 16 at Pasatiempo -- on more than one "best 18 par 4s played" lists -- features a green that one GCA member putts off of intentionally, so he can try to chip close and hopefully save a 3 putt.  Showing that the line between "wild and fun" and "crazy and stupid" is, like beauty, often in the eye of the beholder.   

[Tom_Doak]

Jim N,

If you keep posting I might have to agree with Matt ... I can't believe the green pictured would be so well defended if it had been built by somebody other than Mike Strantz.  I've never been to Tot Hill and never intend to go, because everything I've seen of it suggests it is silly to extremes.

So, please desist.  I do not want to have to agree with Matt that you are showing bias.

[Greg Tallman]

A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill.  I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.

Paging Paul Cowley... this green gives me an idea of how you might spice up the 9th at Diamante! 

[JC Jones]

Jim N,

If you keep posting I might have to agree with Matt ... I can't believe the green pictured would be so well defended if it had been built by somebody other than Mike Strantz.  I've never been to Tot Hill and never intend to go, because everything I've seen of it suggests it is silly to extremes.

So, please desist.  I do not want to have to agree with Matt that you are showing bias.

Serious breaches of GCA.com code here.  The double standard coupled with the judging of a course based on pictures.  Shall we see if Mr. Doak floats?

[PCCraig]

A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill.  I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.

How important is the selection of a proper greensite in creating greens that are more on the “wild and fun” side?

To be honest, I think the green above looks to be over the line and too much on an extreme for my personal taste. But in looking at the picture and trying to see what I would do differently, I don’t see much. I could see taking out the front tounge all together and bringing the sand/rocks over to the left to form a green that plays a lot like Stranz’s blind green at Tobacco Road. But I’m still not so sure that would be any good either.

Are some greensites just destined (forced) to have extreme greens? How should/would an architect tone down an extreme greensite (assuming they were forced to build there) to feature a more playable green?

[PCCraig]

Another very polarizing set of greens is at Pinehurst #2. Obviously, #2’s greens have evolved quite a bit over the years through topdressing and are not the same greens that Ross knew. However, do you think those greens could be built today and be praised?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

When you ask me if I can read -- I can say the same thing to you.

I listed Red Ledges as a good example of a most recent Nicklaus course that has challenging greens. It gets panned because a number of people have a burr up their butt against most anything that Jack designs. These same people are groupies and love just about anything you design. If one were to beam (star trek term) any one of these "open-minded" folks to Red Ledges and not tell them who designed it prior to playing -- and then say you were the guy after the round the likely result would be a love fest.

Tom -- I would hope GCA is "above that" approach.

I also try to provide details when I post about different courses and the like. I never opined on the two Nicklaus courses mentioned but I did want to say that other recent Nicklaus courses are outstanding and far from being crazy and stupid greens.

I'm not suggesting everyone is like that but more than a few are commited to a certain person -- not assessing that specific individual project. GCA should be "above that" but it's far from it on many occasions. Nicklaus has decided to design and build numerous courses around the globe. So be it. His batting average in doing so will be lower than yours given the work load levels and attention to detail that time can provide.

The sad reality is that many people are not up to date on some of the more current projects. Jack's has had his share of duds -- all architects have their share -- contrary to the egos all of you folks have. I never said Red Ledges is representative of all  of Jack's designs now --part of the problem is what I mentioned -- Jack's business model is about cranking out courses like gum drops. In such a rush the details will be missed and you do get some glaring errors. But, I stand by what I said -- that certain people here are in love with certain designers no matter what they create.

[John Moore II]

A couple of details to add on about that green at Tot Hill Farm. The hole plays 535 according to the card, but it plays on a fairly large dogleg/cape where you can cut off a fair amount, plus it plays downhill. So, if the hole is cut up front, you can go for the green in two and have an easy pitch from short of the green over the creek. If the hole is cut in back, then the proper play is to lay-up short of the creek and hit a good wedge into the back portion of the green. The green dictates the strategy of the hole. Sure, the green site is somewhat extreme, but whatever. Sometimes I like stuff that way. Its not out of character with the rest of the course.

Tom Doak-At the risk of being skinned like Matt Ward, it does happen on here that people will praise the features of a course by one designer and complain about those same type features at another course by a different designer. I detailed that in my Pine Valley thread. Like I said there, I can't give specific examples because those little tidbits were picked up from reading thousands of threads over the past three years on this site. As to whether or not someone would think less of a green built exactly the same on the same site by yourself and someone else, I can't say. But I have seen 'this' feature at a well regarded course said to be good, while 'that' feature at another course, which is essentially the same as 'this' feature on the well regarded course, is said to be bad. If you have never seen that in all your reading here, then I am not sure what to say.

[JC Jones]

A couple of details to add on about that green at Tot Hill Farm. The hole plays 535 according to the card, but it plays on a fairly large dogleg/cape where you can cut off a fair amount, plus it plays downhill. So, if the hole is cut up front, you can go for the green in two and have an easy pitch from short of the green over the creek. If the hole is cut in back, then the proper play is to lay-up short of the creek and hit a good wedge into the back portion of the green. The green dictates the strategy of the hole. Sure, the green site is somewhat extreme, but whatever. Sometimes I like stuff that way. Its not out of character with the rest of the course.

Tom Doak-At the risk of being skinned like Matt Ward, it does happen on here that people will praise the features of a course by one designer and complain about those same type features at another course by a different designer. I detailed that in my Pine Valley thread. Like I said there, I can't give specific examples because those little tidbits were picked up from reading thousands of threads over the past three years on this site. As to whether or not someone would think less of a green built exactly the same on the same site by yourself and someone else, I can't say. But I have seen 'this' feature at a well regarded course said to be good, while 'that' feature at another course, which is essentially the same as 'this' feature on the well regarded course, is said to be bad. If you have never seen that in all your reading here, then I am not sure what to say.

Through this thread what comes to mind the most is Dismal River.

[Jud_T]

I agree that there's a bit of a fan club here, hell I'm probably in it.  But I also agree that I'd like to see a comparison of two specific courses by two designers where one is clearly slagged and/or one is improperly elevated because of the GCA.  It's not enough to generically say a certain green feature gets differing reviews without delving into the specific details of the subtleties, transitions and approach angles involved...