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.
Sorry to come so late to the party - I disappeared from the site since the PGA because of OTT work requirements, but am now able to breathe again and hope to chime in.
When I look at greens like the one above and consider their place on the "fun vs stupid" continuum, I need to see much more than a picture of the green alone. IMO, the most important consideration are the shots that lead up to the approach.
In the case of this hole (Tot Hill #5), I have no problem with the green, because this is a fairly reachable Par-5. It provides two fairly precise targets (front tongue or upper deck) which completely change your strategy for playing the remainder of the hole. I thought variety was something we applauded in the GCA world.
I've played this hole twice, with a pin on top and below, and had completely different strategies both times. When the pin was up top, I had the option of a traditional aerial approach from 110 yards, but I also dropped a second ball and tried a long punch 6-iron that skipped into the bank. With the pin below, I had similar options in my approach, as well as numerous options for atacking the hole (lay back to 100 yards short of the creek pictured, or go for the green in two with plenty of safety short right if I want a little pitch shot). The 30 yard pitch shot may be great for a lower pin, but can be tricky if the pin is up top (especially if just past the fall). The extremely narrow width of the lower tongue places a premium on planning your angle of attack.
Yes, Stranz can create extreme-looking greens. But I think it is too simple to dismiss them as "aesthetic-only gimmicks", especially if you don't factor in the strategic considerations that result from them.
A picture of the green alone is never enough to assess "fun vs. stupid." The same green can be considered fun & strategic if it is usually approached with a short-iron in regulation or provides numerous options, but stupid and OTT if the hole requires a medium-long iron approach.
From my experience with Strantz, many of the more controversial greens fall in the former category, but I think the strategic implications are overlooked due to the shocking aesthetics.
To Tom Doak's point about Tot Hill - I wouldn't be surprised if most of the pictures he has seen of THF are exterme. Those are typically the ones that are used to get people talking. But for the most part, each one has some strategic implication that shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
Besides, if you want to find something to criticize about the picture, the shape and slope of the green is the least of my concerns. The rock outcroppings from the bunkers on the other hand....
