Wild Greens - The Architect's Crutch?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I like the idea of variety and often purposely grade even gentle contoured greens at slightly different "base slopes" from 1.5 up through maybe 2.2%.  The theory is that this subtle variation is enough to test golfers green reading ability without getting too wild, although, I can't really quantify the theory.

Even wild greens can get repetitive.  I have heard members of Maxwell courses - as good as those greens are - say "this is his typical three mounder, that is his typical four mounder".

No doubt a five foot tier is a gimmick, but I did enjoy it at Ken Dye's Paako Ridge where the hilly site made it almost mandatory, or at least it fits.  But, one every course I played would be a bit much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

When I asked for detailed putting strategy, I was thinking in terms of looking at how each putt might go.  I said I thought of contours in terms of the approach shots, and your detailed explanation above suggests the same. 

Your last paragraph suggests (and I agree) that some people put too much a premium on a first putt being makeable from anywhere, which I don't think has to be the case, at least all the time. 

On the other hand,  If the green contours tend to defeat any attempt at birdie, in general, it seems to defeat strategic intent, no?  I also agree a green is too wild if two putts in not reasonably expected.  It would seem to put the emphasis on firing as close to the pin at all costs for birdie, rather than intelligent placement on some portion of the green.

I know Fazio takes great care in most of his greens.  If there is a large hump, there is a flat area next to it so a putt will stop.  If its all gently rolling, there may be a bit more roll, etc.  A few of each might seem to be in order!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

When I asked for detailed putting strategy, I was thinking in terms of looking at how each putt might go.  I said I thought of contours in terms of the approach shots, and your detailed explanation above suggests the same.  

Your last paragraph suggests (and I agree) that some people put too much a premium on a first putt being makeable from anywhere, which I don't think has to be the case, at least all the time.  

On the other hand,  If the green contours tend to defeat any attempt at birdie, in general, it seems to defeat strategic intent, no?  I also agree a green is too wild if two putts in not reasonably expected.  It would seem to put the emphasis on firing as close to the pin at all costs for birdie, rather than intelligent placement on some portion of the green.

I know Fazio takes great care in most of his greens.  If there is a large hump, there is a flat area next to it so a putt will stop.  If its all gently rolling, there may be a bit more roll, etc.  A few of each might seem to be in order!

Jeff:

I agree with most of what you said.  Certainly, there is not a lot of strategy in putting -- to decide that there is would mean that you were generally expecting the likelihood of three putts, and trying to avoid it.  But, I have built some cool greens in bowled areas where there is often more than one line you can take to try and get close to the hole -- those are interesting because the key is usually to figure out the line where you're less likely to go flying past the hole with your first putt.  I learned that concept by spending a lot of time on the Ladies' Putting Green at St. Andrews.

The problem with your third paragraph [reasonably expecting two putts] is the same as with every other part of golf architecture -- reasonable for whom?  If you build a course to that standard for the average 15-handicapper, it's unlikely that a good player would ever three-putt, unless he hit a real clunker.

As for those flat spots on Fazio's greens, we often do the same thing another way, with counter-slopes on the far side to slow things down.   

[Sean_A]

This is an interesting concept about being able to hole out from anywhere on the green.  Despite Tom's dismissal of the concept, I like the idea because it really means that given today's dopey speeds that greens are a bit more tame and most have a fighting chance to get close enough for a two putt.  But then I am not a big fan of a course of wild greens.  I would rather see a handful of crazies mixed in with other styles.  Often times Woking is cited for its greens and rightfully so.  All are manageable, putts are holeable from anywhere on the green if you like.  Yet, there are some more tame greens to keep an even keel AND the more wild greens are for the most part readable because they make sense with the surrounds.  There is nothing worse than crazy greens which also don't make sense with the surrounds.  Its basically a pot luck deal until one gets a healthy number of rounds in.  To me, this is a crutch.

Ciao