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

[Tim Martin]

Chris Buie,

IMO, The 5th hole at Tot Hill Farm is ruined by the green area.  The hole is in a scenic setting, the fairway has great width, there's great elevation changes, and then once you cross the creek it becomes ridiculous.  Just looking at your photo is evidence enough.

What is the purpose of the lower tier portion of the green. It looks unnatural and contrived. If you hit it deep on the back tier and it is pinned in front like the photo is it possible to 2 putt? This must fall in the latter category of crazy and stupid.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

There are clear fan clubs here on this site. Nothing wrong with that but let's not play it down because it does exist.

My only point was that certain people get rave comments in almost all cases because those making such statements truly like what that individual or individuals do. On the flip side -- you get certain people and if Jesus blessed them they would still get dissed.

Nicklaus gets hammered from a good many people on this site and frankly many of those folks are basing that belief on layouts that don't reflect the best of what Jack has done.

Tom -- you do get mega benefit of the doubt and other architects get often times little of it. What DeVries did at Kingsley is first rate stuff in my mind -- ditto what Spann did at Black Mesa. Jack's work at Red Ledges is also well done but often times you get people trying to handle such courses from tee lengths that only adds to their overall problems. The end result? Blame the architect for greens that are "out of control."

Candidly, Tom, although I love the 5th at Old Macdonald -- I can see people making the claim that such a green is utterly excessive in terms of green contours. I think it works because of the length of shot that most players will play there. If Jack's name were substituted for the work at that hole instead of the team that did it -- the net result in my mind would be a thumbs down from many people. The bottom line -- who the designer is often dictates the fanfare -- good or bad -- that comes from it.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - you're right on both counts, but if you conclude that CD was not any harder to play for the average golfer back then as it is now, I think I'd venture to disagree. But I'd suggest that the more important difference between golfers back then and those of today is that, back then, golfers gave the challenges of (and extra strokes caused by) undulating greens a weight and a validity equal to that of any other shot.

That Sweet and Frizzy Drink

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

The above is the weakest argument you've ever made on this site.

You "can see" how others would criticize the 5th at Old Macdonald?  Anybody can see that -- but the only thing that matters is whether it's a valid criticism or not, and you say it's not.  If Jack built it, would you say any different?  Or would you only set up a straw man about what "others" would do?

I'm not the biggest fan of Kingsley, but the severity of the greens themselves is only an issue for me on one hole -- it's the severity of some shots around the green that I'm not a fan of.  Black Mesa's greens are fine (except the 16th) as long as they don't go above 9 on the stimpmeter.  Red Ledges I have never seen, though I agree with you that the length at which people play a course has a definite effect on how they perceive the greens ... As it should be, as you implied re Old Mac, and as Sebonack is the closest course Ive built to over the line.  

But, don't substitute Red Ledges for Harbor Shores or other Nicklaus courses you haven't seen.  Fair enough?

[Mike Nuzzo]

If Jack's name were substituted for the work at that hole instead of the team that did it -- the net result in my mind would be a thumbs down from many people. The bottom line -- who the designer is often dictates the fanfare -- good or bad -- that comes from it.

I disagree - there is a difference between one architects greens and another's.

One problem that Tom has identified is that Jack wouldn't be able to defend the green by defining all the shots that work.
He doesn't think through as many possible pin to chipping locations as Tom.

[Tim Gavrich]

Mike Nuzzo alludes to this in post #11, but I would interject that no matter who the designer is, "wild and fun" greens become "crazy and stupid" when a pin is imprudently cut or greens are shaved beyond fun playability.

In my (extremely limited, compared to many people on this site) experience, the best "wild and fun" greens have a lot of flattish areas to offset their big slopes.  The best example of this combination that I have seen has been at the Macdonald/Raynor courses I have played: Hotchkiss, Yale, Old White--and especially at Yale.  You have these huge back and side slopes on which you can manipulate the ball's path, but there is always a place to put the pin at high green speeds such that you can still have a fighting chance (rather than face a make-or-die situation on a putt, which I don't think anyone thinks is truly fun).  But on greens that have big slopes and few or no substantial flattish (NOT 'flat') areas, the "crazy and stupid" designation is going to come into play.  The key, as most here would undoubtedly agree, is to have the maintenance meld be in sync with the designer's vision of how the course (and, for the sake of this discussion, the greens) ought to play on a daily basis.

Aside from the Macdonald/Raynor greens I have seen, I would add Ballyhack and Shelter Harbor as courses whose sets of greens could be maintained up to the edge of reason, green speed-wise, and still retain numerous interesting pin positions because of their decent flattish areas.  These five courses contain the best sets of greens I have ever seen, and so I've got to believe that this commonality has something to do with it.

[Philippe Binette]

I don't isolate the green in an analysis like this

You have to take for account the green in itself combined to the surronds. A wildish green can work if there's room around it to legitimetely play safe of a wild contour (think The Old Course).

now take a wild green on the Old course and surrounds it with bunkers or deep swales... than it becomes stupid.

I think that's where the time spent on site is important, to find that balance between great and stupid.

[JC Jones]

I don't isolate the green in an analysis like this

You have to take for account the green in itself combined to the surronds. A wildish green can work if there's room around it to legitimetely play safe of a wild contour (think The Old Course).

now take a wild green on the Old course and surrounds it with bunkers or deep swales... than it becomes stupid.

I think that's where the time spent on site is important, to find that balance between great and stupid.

Philippe Binette,

I think it is interesting that that the surrounds are getting so much attention here.  Crystal Downs has some pretty wild and crazy greens.  It also has some of the most impossible and severe surrounds I have ever seen.  #1, #7, #8 and #9 all have wild greens and 2/3 of the surrounds on those greens leave the golfer without the possibility of an up and down.  Interestingly, that has never been an issue for me or anyone else that I have seen.

[David_Elvins]

Tom D (and others),

How much effect does the length and width of a course have on the interpretation of the wildness of the greens?

Without having been there, is it fair to say that the wild greens at Crystal Downs work because the course has so many 350 yard par 4s, and the same greens wouldn't work on a 7500 yard course? 

Also, do the challenge of wild greens provide less need for narrow or rough lined fairways?  Are sometimes wild greens just too much if there is a lot of other stuff going on in the holes before you get to the green? 

[Jim Johnson]

My brother golfed at Black Mesa last year. His one over-riding comment after his return flight was that he'd love to golf Black Mesa again, except he won't because the greens were crazy, over the top. Three putts were common in his group. He said that got old pretty quick. (and these guys are all ~10 handicaps).

[Jim Johnson]

That picture of the green at Tot Hill reminds me of a three-tiered green on a tough par 3 at a local course. With a pin cut on the lowest level and a tee shot which ends up on the middle tier (or upper tier), if you don't hit the cup with your (initial) putt it's off the green.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D (and others),

How much effect does the length and width of a course have on the interpretation of the wildness of the greens?

Without having been there, is it fair to say that the wild greens at Crystal Downs work because the course has so many 350 yard par 4s, and the same greens wouldn't work on a 7500 yard course? 

Also, do the challenge of wild greens provide less need for narrow or rough lined fairways?  Are sometimes wild greens just too much if there is a lot of other stuff going on in the holes before you get to the green? 

David,

Absolutely.  The greens can never be judged in isolation, they are part of a bigger picture.  That's another reason Jack Nicklaus gets criticized for building wild greens and I don't ... Because his courses are 7450 yards and mine aren't.

[Sean_A]

While we are getting hung up on little stuff surrounding this topic, I will offer a few examples.  

16 at North Berwick seems to me one of the most obvious examples of ott in classic design I can think of.  Put it in context with water to cross, oob hard right protecting the best angle of attack on offer (the best angle is from oob), a green oblong (very much like Sea Headrig) to the fairway with a huge swale in the middle.  If this doesn't qualify as mad (and I don't believe it does) what possibly can?  

13 at Prestwick is a long, punishing hole with the two tierish green facing the wrong direction (it looks like it was designed for another hole and I think it was).  Often times, it is best to ignore the green in two and just get in position on the left to have an easier chip up the gut.  Is this not crazy given the length of the hole is what 450 yards?  I don't thiink so, but then what could be deemed as crazy?  

Granted, these two examples are suspect as much for the positions of the greens in relation to the fairway as much for the greens themselves, but still, North Berwick's 16th can only be descibed as severe even with a wedge in hand.  To me, these greens work for a few reasons.  There are relatively few of these sort on any given classic course.  I also think that issues back in fairways such as blindness, wonky lies and even odd green sites in a way "make up" for what are often relatively tame greens.  For green sites I am especially thinking of table tops and benched greens.  These can often be very difficult to hit and the recoveries are often difficult, but the greens themselves aren't severe.


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

The fine line is this:

When you de-green a putt, or three putt repeatedly, its fun. 

When I de-green a put , or three putt repeatedly, its crazy.

[PCCraig]

Tom D (and others),

How much effect does the length and width of a course have on the interpretation of the wildness of the greens?

Without having been there, is it fair to say that the wild greens at Crystal Downs work because the course has so many 350 yard par 4s, and the same greens wouldn't work on a 7500 yard course? 

Also, do the challenge of wild greens provide less need for narrow or rough lined fairways?  Are sometimes wild greens just too much if there is a lot of other stuff going on in the holes before you get to the green? 

David,

Absolutely.  The greens can never be judged in isolation, they are part of a bigger picture.  That's another reason Jack Nicklaus gets criticized for building wild greens and I don't ... Because his courses are 7450 yards and mine aren't.

Tom:

An interesting note about Harbor Shores is that it's only ~6860 from the tips and its only ~6250 from the next set of tees. It's a par 71, but it features 3 par 3's and two short par-5's on the back. Generally speaking most of my approaches were mid and short irons. Since they were so limited in space for their routing, I would understand if Jack felt that the course would need a hard set of greens to test the better players and allowed his shapers to have at it. (Note: the Senior PGA is being held there in 2012 and 2014).

[PCCraig]

Mike Nuzzo alludes to this in post #11, but I would interject that no matter who the designer is, "wild and fun" greens become "crazy and stupid" when a pin is imprudently cut or greens are shaved beyond fun playability.

In my (extremely limited, compared to many people on this site) experience, the best "wild and fun" greens have a lot of flattish areas to offset their big slopes.  The best example of this combination that I have seen has been at the Macdonald/Raynor courses I have played: Hotchkiss, Yale, Old White--and especially at Yale.  You have these huge back and side slopes on which you can manipulate the ball's path, but there is always a place to put the pin at high green speeds such that you can still have a fighting chance (rather than face a make-or-die situation on a putt, which I don't think anyone thinks is truly fun).  But on greens that have big slopes and few or no substantial flattish (NOT 'flat') areas, the "crazy and stupid" designation is going to come into play.  The key, as most here would undoubtedly agree, is to have the maintenance meld be in sync with the designer's vision of how the course (and, for the sake of this discussion, the greens) ought to play on a daily basis.

Aside from the Macdonald/Raynor greens I have seen, I would add Ballyhack and Shelter Harbor as courses whose sets of greens could be maintained up to the edge of reason, green speed-wise, and still retain numerous interesting pin positions because of their decent flattish areas.  These five courses contain the best sets of greens I have ever seen, and so I've got to believe that this commonality has something to do with it.

Tim:

You make two great points.

I agree with you that the typical Macdonald/Raynor courses generally feature flat pinnable areas that allow the player to have a realistic opportunity to make a 10-20ft putt. I also liked your description of "make-or-die" greens....those would be Jack's greens at Harbor Shores to a T. Depending on the hole location in relation to your position 5 footers were turning into 20 footers often.

[Brad Wilbur]

The other end of "wild and fun" greens to me were at the Castle Course at St. Andrews (Kidd).  LOTS of contour overbalanced by such slow green speeds that it was mentally tough to get an uphill putt close to the cup.  Of the eleven courses we played while in Scotland, these were much slower than any others.  I would have preferred speeds a little closer to the others, knowing at times I could be penalized excessively.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Years ago, I noticed that Fazio really put a lot of contour in his greens.  At the same time, the bigger the ridges, the flatter the cupping areas to allow a putt to stop near the hole.  And, he seemed to balance the greens from all gently rolling to wilder humps and flatter pin areas quite nicely.

I have measured the slopes on a few of his greens and they actually have some (presumably USGA) areas right at 0%.  I am not sure I would do that, preferring some surface drainage in all areas, but paying attention to the combination of slopes is important.

BTW, who says JN wouldn't consider all the different types of shots TD would?  How do we know that?

[Tim Liddy]

Don't you think the best greens are complicated but must be simple enough to be visualized for your approach shot from the fairway?  After a few rounds a golfer gets excitement knowing the options, risk and rewards but if it gets too complicated or if the areas are too small to achieve success it gets frustrating. Raynor's and MacKenzie's greens provide great examples to me.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I agree.  Good players look at the green contours and not hazards in forming their approach shot, but there are limits to their accuracy.  JN once told me that he wouldn't aim for a plateau less than 40-45' across, for example.  Tour stats show that the vast majority of shots there end up within 10% of the length of the shot - i.e. a 200 yard approach will be within 20 yards left to right.   (distance control is better)  Thus, adding wild contours on a smaller scale than that will more likely reject a shot than allow an aggressive strategy.

Which is why I think the Raynor greens work well, too.  You avoid the swale, use the Redan bank, etc.  Perahaps its best stated that there is one, perhaps two features within the green to consider, and there is enough room to fly them, allow the ball to roll out over them, etc.

There are a few modern greens where the internal contour is just too much for even a player of JN's caliber, including a few JN has built recently!

When I think of MacKenzie greens, or really any golden age green (with exceptions, of course) I think of gently rolling and a dominant slope one direction.  Thus, the challenge may be to aim "just left of center" to allow a slope to carry the ball down to the pin, etc.  For most, that is more than enough challenge, and its fun, accounting for the popularity of those GA courses.  How much more do we need to overcook most greens?

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

I believe the point about JN was not a criticism of his short game but rather that the more complicated the greens and surrounds, the more time on the ground is necessary to revisit options and make subtle adjustments accordingly....

[Jeff_Brauer]

And as to putting, this always raises the question of whether a putt with a 10 foot break is inherently harder than one with a 10" break?  It may not be harder to read, but probably the potential for a bigger miss is there.

I am pretty sure that a putt with both uphill and downhill components is harder than one either all up or downhill, with uphill being even easier.  In that case, I presume that a larger uphill component makes judging the putt harder than just a little knob, because gravity will inevitably take hold and affect ball speed more.  Thus, the Fazio "bigger humps equals flatter cup areas" theory.

But that is mostly to allow a ball to stop, period, and not so much to allow perfect distance judging, I think.  Just like some gca's would have built that Stranz green with the huge tier, with a little lip on the front to keep putts from the upper level on the green.

Jud,

Oh, I understood it was a critique of JN as a gca!  I still wonder how Mike N knows that?

It does raise another interesting question, IMHO.  Pro players often go all around a green asking "what if I miss it here?  Can I get it close?"  For many, the distinction is just that....does the green take my ball away from the hole on any putt or chip?  I would say that there can be some close to impossible areas to miss and the golfer needs to factor avoiding that miss into his approach shot.

Of course, I know that any green edge knob, if you hit the wrong side of it with your chip can really direct you way off course, and that is half the challenge - landing your ball right where you want to.  From my experience, most players intuitively think those knobs near the green edges where they are trying to land a chip are fair, but a subtle (or not) slope in the middle of the green that accelerates a dying rolling ball can be considered unfair.  Again, its the old "If I have the skill to get it close, why should the course negate that?"  The golfer can only control how high and long the ball flies off the club, and not the roll afterwards, so an accelerating slope near the pin is frowned upon, unless its on one side only and the choice is to make sure you miss it.

Even Colt was against greens that cause putts to run away from the cup like a "swine possessed by the devil" .

[Sean_A]

The golfer can only control how high and long the ball flies off the club, and not the roll afterwards, so an accelerating slope near the pin is frowned upon, unless its on one side only and the choice is to make sure you miss it.

Hefe

You got some splanin to do with that statement.  With one fell swoop you eliminated the entire concept of controlling the ball after its lands as the basis for f&f golf. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Getting it right or cocking it up is a fine line. Without stating the obvious the faster the green the flatter it needs to be, or else it becomes beyond the barriers for serious golf. Realistically if you have greens stimping at plus 10 you cant put much twist  in unless you design greens in segments. If you consider 10 stimp as the mark, plot your green, shade your 3 metre perimeter and your non pinnable slopes plus 5 metres around each lower slope you might only have 10% of the green pinnable. Everything works okay at 8 stimp, but go past 11 the 'cock up' comes into play. Some like wild greens some will call the crazy, probably better golfers will edge to crazy but it is a great way to defend a low score.

[Tom_Doak]

Don't you think the best greens are complicated but must be simple enough to be visualized for your approach shot from the fairway?  After a few rounds a golfer gets excitement knowing the options, risk and rewards but if it gets too complicated or if the areas are too small to achieve success it gets frustrating. Raynor's and MacKenzie's greens provide great examples to me.   

Tim:

I agree to the extent you mean "visualized for your approach shot".  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.  In most cases I've seen, that results in oversized shoulders at the edges of the greens to sell the contours, making for awkward short game shots; and it pretty much eliminates internal green contours which sprout up on their own, unless they're very large ones.