Which modern architect builds the best greens?

[GeoffreyC]

Tom Doak- I first played the Black in 1969 and the greens were exactly as the are today.

There certainly must be old timers out there who know the course from before 1960.  I've never heard anything about the greens being renovated.  In fact an old rumor was that the old 18th hole was originally 430 yards with the green near the clubhouse behind the bunkers that were behind the old green.  Looking at the aerial from 1935 shows a lot of differences in the bunkering but the 18th green is just where it was from 1969 to when Rees changed the hole a couple of years ago.

[Derek_Duncan]

Bobby Weed should be included in this conversation.  His greens are almost always highly contoured, non-repetitive, and intellectually engaging.  A few of his better ones include the 3rd and 16th at Amelia Island Ocean Links, the 1st and 12th at Fleming Island, #6 and #16 at Slammer and Squire, and the new 3rd and 17th at the Univeristy of Florida.

[leslie claytor]

Good Topic,

I've always been a fan of Mr. Dye's green complexes, but I would love to see some countour plans for some of his putting surfaces.

I'm interested in how different achitects check the grades on their greens.  In particular, what are the maximium percentages of grade architects are building.

My major question is have we become a slave to flat countours in "pinnable" putting areas.  Tour officials maintain that at todays green speeds, 1-2% is the maximum slope in pinnable areas.  One percent is reasonably flat, and when you're required to build a small green with 80-90% percent puttable area, that necessitates a reasonably flat green.

I've participated in the building many Fazio greens and preparing ten foot grids.  The problem I find with grids, in order to get the grades to work especially on hilly sites, you tend to take much of the fire out of a surface.  However, the grid does serve as somewhat of an insurace policy.

Tom Doak has commented on prior posts, that most of his surfaces would be deemed "unputtable" under the rules of the grid.  I've worked with many architects that hate grids, and just want you to check the percentage of swales.

Interestingly,  I layed out the 15th green at Sandhills that Tim was praising, although I don't remember it as being a masterpiece but somewhat problematic.  Good to hear it plays well.

[leslie claytor]

Just remembering how much fun it is to read and putt greens on the old courses I grew up on such as Shaker CC in Cleveland (Ross), and San Francisco GC.  Small greens generally with no drastic grade breaks, but with generous grades that really put a premium on approach shots.  If you are above the hole, you're dead.  Play it high and let it die on cross slopes.  A straight uphill put started from a well placed tee shot followed by an accurate approach.

I find on too many modern greens that I over read putts and am disappointed when the breaks don't occur.  Watching gravity have its way with a putt is a fundamental joy of golf, that modern green speeds and essentially flat putting surfaces are eliminating.  Isn't it boring hitting fairly straight putts hole after hole? I know the pros love it, but zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[cardyin]

Mention an architect, and I recall horrible greens complexes by all of them.
Of course, it comes down to a matter of preference.  I always have felt that the best greens are the ones that: (1) will accept a well-struck approach of the distance the hole requires: (2) are guarded by hazards, including chipping areas, that require a deft touch but still are fair, and (3) make smooth transitions and provide for the several fair hole locations.
I don't hold severely undulating greens against the old architects because player were putting basically with chipping irons to help get the ball off the ground quickly so it wouldn't have to roll all the way  across slow grass. (Therefore, I won't rail against Ross's greens at Sara Bay in Sarasota, for example.)
I also can't hold against architects the tyranny of daily hole rotations.
I assume an architect had at least a few hole locations in mind when he (or she) designed a green, but too many courses are trying to spread wear by trying to use way too much of too many greens.  I would guess most architects would be angry to see how their greens complexes are abused.
For example, I played the Tom Fazio's Pine Barrens course at World Woods once with my son, who is an excellent player.  It was pin-setting position #1--which set every cup on the very edges of the greens.  He 3-putted 13 times.
I complained that the greens were not designed for six or seven pin settings and that what would have otherwise been a great golf experience had been ruined.  One would have thought I was insane.
I can't indict all of an architect's work by citing a few examples, but still:
It was suggested by one of Oak Tree's most successful pros--Doug Tewell--that everyone would be better off if they just blew up all 54 greens on that Pete Dye complex.
I played the Panks/Graham Talon course at Greyhawk in Scottsdale.  Many of the greens were sharply plateaued at the back, and, of course, the day I played it all of those plataus had cups set at the top of them. You couldn't roll the shot up the banks, and you couldn't stop an approach on the plateaus.
It is possible to play every hole on the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail and never have a fairly-level, middle pin setting.  Too many of those greens are tiered and/or crowned and fall off to the sides.  Pin settings usually are to the corners.  These courses are tough enough without impossible putting.
I almost always dislike the greens by Lloyd Clifton (and Ezell) because they often make sharp, tiered transitions from section to section.  The new Palm course at the otherwise-excellent Grey Oaks in Naples, Florida has greens that illustrate that point.  
I played a new course named Old Silo outside Lexington, Ky. last fall.
It featured Graham Marsh's name, but I suspect the design was done by Mark Amundson.  The routing was fine and the bunkering was sensational, but the greens frequently were repetitive--too much the same and too much layering.
Both Arthur Hills and P.B. Dye are prone to overcook their greens complexes.  Hills' Persimmon Ridge outside Louisville is a testing-enough  course as it is, but the greens are much too small for their severe undulations.  There simply aren't enough fair pin settings.  P.B.Dye's recent work at Hidden Glen at Bentdale Farms contains a nasty set of greens, the 17th being virtually unputtable.
I hated some of the greens at Tom Doak's Lost Dunes, although overall I liked the course.  But the 4th green is beyond the pale, and I have little patience with a green like the 11th where I hit a long iron into a hillside green about 25 feet from the hole, and the putt broke 18 feet.
The same for George Fazio's course at Pinehurst #6, with greens so severe one had to fight for his life to two putt.
The par 5 first hole at The Links at Spanish Bay sets out magnificently straight toward the ocean.  A player should be left with a wedge to the green.  My shot hit the left middle of the green, bounded straight left and out of play.  When I got to the green, I discovered the whole left side of the green is a sinkhole.  "What is this all about?"  I thought.  
I supposed the greens complexes I have liked best recently were at Barona Creek.  The first, and only other, Gary Roger Baird course I played was in Fairfield, Cal. some years ago, and the greens were so  gigantic, they were totally out of proportion to the rest of the course.  Barona Creek is a significant improvement.