Green contours, speeds and hole locations?

[Dean Stokes]

Ok a question/questions that has been bothering me for sometime......you hit the green from any distance.... lets say a pure 3 iron from over 200 yards, but you miss the slope you had to hit to be in the correct section of the green for a short birdie putt.....you now have 25ft for birdie but no matter whether you were Brad Faxon/Ben Crenshaw in their hayday you cannot get your putt to finish within 10-15 feet of the cup.

Is this good/bad design?
Are the greens too fast for the contouring?
Is it a bad pin position and the greens crew ought be taught better?
Is it just golf....deal with it?

Now I think several of you from reading threads in the past will say you should have hit a better iron shot! However golf is not that easy - not even the paid ranks can do that. This scenario has happened several times to me recently and for me it is one of the most infuriating things in golf. In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet. It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them. Combine that with a hole cut too near to the slope and the game becomes lets say - not fun! Any thoughts?

[jeffwarne]

In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.
 It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.

While I will agree with you on the second statement, the first statement is quite ridiculous.
Whatever happened to knowing where and what side to leave your approach?
pin high is often a poor place to be on a green with a pretty good overall back to front or front to back tilt.

I'll take your second statement a step farther-many courses have their greens so fast they lose the best pin placements.

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.

The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.

[Don_Mahaffey]

It could be any of the items on your list.
Just like hairy bunkers and all the marketing slogans that went with the "minimalist" craze, it seems some architects think building undulating greens is cool, when they are really only cool when they work.
I played a course not long ago where the combination of green speeds and contour led to goofy golf...in that almost every putt from over 15 feet had to be banked against something and then roll back to the hole if you wanted to get close. That's fine some of the time, but every putt?
I contrast that experience with having recently played Old Mac at Bandon. Those greens are certainly challenging, but the speed and the contours work and you can recover.
I believe it takes great skill to build a heavily contoured green that also works. And it takes good management to keep the speeds in a range where they work with all the contours.

Obviously, sometimes we're going to miss in the wrong place and three putt, but I don't think its good design if you have zero chance to get within 15 feet.

[Dean Stokes]

Dean:

Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.

The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.

because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all

[Dean Stokes]

It could be any of the items on your list.
Just like hairy bunkers and all the marketing slogans that went with the "minimalist" craze, it seems some architects think building undulating greens is cool, when they are really only cool when they work.
I played a course not long ago where the combination of green speeds and contour led to goofy golf...in that almost every putt from over 15 feet had to be banked against something and then roll back to the hole if you wanted to get close. That's fine some of the time, but every putt?
I contrast that experience with having recently played Old Mac at Bandon. Those greens are certainly challenging, but the speed and the contours work and you can recover.
I believe it takes great skill to build a heavily contoured green that also works. And it takes good management to keep the speeds in a range where they work with all the contours.

Obviously, sometimes we're going to miss in the wrong place and three putt, but I don't think its good design if you have zero chance to get within 15 feet.

Thank you

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.

The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.

because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all

The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.

Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.

[RDecker]

Blame the Greenskeeper and the Architect, that way you're covered two ways.

[RDecker]

Seriously, though, the need for the modern golfer to have everything explicable and "make sense" or have a mathematic reason has robbed some of the fun from the game.  The old term "rub of the green" no longer applies and the idea seems to be that every shot is makable and that a shot that can't be holed is unfair.  This mentality has driven golf maintenance to the brink of disaster both agronomically and financially.

[Tom_Doak]

In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.

It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.

Dean:

Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion.  If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt.  As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line.  There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.

I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not.  Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel.  They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.

[Dean Stokes]

Dean:

Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.

The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.

because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all

The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.

Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.

That is EXACTLY why i have a problem with such a green and it's pin position......I looked at the putt from every angle with a great caddie from the club....we both concluded there was zero way to get the ball within 15-20ft. Now if you think that is a great meld of design and course set up have at it. I think it is goofy golf and would not pay $250 to be a part of it again. And to Mr. Decker.....I grew up on links courses and hilly parkland courses......you do not need to explain 'rub of the green' to me.......what I am talking about has nothing to do with that.

[Dean Stokes]

In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.

It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.

Dean:

Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion.  If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt.  As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line.  There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.

I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not.  Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel.  They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.

Tom, there would never have been such a pin position on the PGA tour because the players would have been up in arms!

[Tom_Doak]

In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.

It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.

Dean:

Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion.  If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt.  As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line.  There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.

I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not.  Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel.  They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.

Tom, there would never have been such a pin position on the PGA tour because the players would have been up in arms!

You have obviously never been to The Masters!

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.

The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.

because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all

The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.

Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.

That is EXACTLY why i have a problem with such a green and it's pin position......I looked at the putt from every angle with a great caddie from the club....we both concluded there was zero way to get the ball within 15-20ft. Now if you think that is a great meld of design and course set up have at it. I think it is goofy golf and would not pay $250 to be a part of it again. And to Mr. Decker.....I grew up on links courses and hilly parkland courses......you do not need to explain 'rub of the green' to me.......what I am talking about has nothing to do with that.

You concluded it would take a 15-20 footer to hole the shot? I think a golfer would then put themselves in a position to have the easiest 15-20 foot putt imaginable as the method of solving that particular problem.

I don't think it is great, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask a golfer to hole a 15-20 foot putt either.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Interesting responses to Dean's original question. Kyle has already run with his fairness piece, but I thought Dean's question was, is this good design. I tried to answer the question with the data Dean supplied, didn't instantly label him a wimp, and took him at his word.

So a 200 yd par 3, with no place to miss the green, and impossible to get with in 20 ft if you miss 30 foot right is good design? I'm sticking with no as my answer.

Kyle, I know of a few golf courses like this, I will not be playing them again but I can steer you to them if you like. 

[Dean Stokes]

Dean:

Why does hitting the green matter? The only true measure of a shot's value is by the amount it increases your chances of holing the next shot.

The GIR is a useless stat, much like batting average in baseball.

because I cant chip! I much rather hit the putting surface...lol.....a hole I played recently you could not miss the green Kyle and have a shot.....a par 3 with crap everywhere......I hit the green and was probably 30 feet away, hit a great putt and was 20 ft away! I personally think that is a combination of bad design, too fast greens and a crappy pin position - thats all

The thing with hole locations is they generally move from day to day. Same thing with green speeds.

Golf shots are strictly results oriented. While it is likely true that you executed your plan for the putt flawlessly, you could not have hit a great putt if the result was only a net 10 foot gain on a 30 foot putt.

That is EXACTLY why i have a problem with such a green and it's pin position......I looked at the putt from every angle with a great caddie from the club....we both concluded there was zero way to get the ball within 15-20ft. Now if you think that is a great meld of design and course set up have at it. I think it is goofy golf and would not pay $250 to be a part of it again. And to Mr. Decker.....I grew up on links courses and hilly parkland courses......you do not need to explain 'rub of the green' to me.......what I am talking about has nothing to do with that.

You concluded it would take a 15-20 footer to hole the shot? I think a golfer would then put themselves in a position to have the easiest 15-20 foot putt imaginable as the method of solving that particular problem.

I don't think it is great, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask a golfer to hole a 15-20 foot putt either.

For their second putt? I think it is completely unreasonable and akin to playing putt putt.

[Dean Stokes]

In my opinion if you hit a green you should be able to with skill, the right line and pace be able to get ANY putt within 3 feet.

It is my contention that many courses have the greens too fast for the undulations on them.

Dean:

Your first statement is wrong, in my opinion.  If anybody besides the best players in the world can get ANY putt within three feet, then the best putters in the world would never three-putt unless they screwed up their first putt.  As Kyle points out, you are attempting to draw a line of fairness at the edge of the green, and demand that fairness happen on BOTH sides of the line.  There are no such boundaries in golf, or in life.

I wouldn't argue that many courses have their greens too fast ... undulating or not.  Unfortunately, it's like talking to a wall to tell most of my clients or their superintendents how I feel.  They insist that's what the members or paying guests want.

Tom, there would never have been such a pin position on the PGA tour because the players would have been up in arms!

You have obviously never been to The Masters!

Tom, I've been three times. Can you tell me where the Masters committee sets a pin that a tour player who hits a perfect putt from 30 feet cannot stop the ball within 3 feet of the cup please. Maybe #16 back left/ maybe the front of #9 but I still think that can be done. My initial question is to do with pin positions where no matter how perfect the putt the ball cannot be stopped within 10-15 feet of the hole.

[Kyle Harris]

Don:

I am legitimately questioning the impossibility of the situation.

I'm also not questioning yours, or Dean's, fortitude with the situation. However, I feel Dean's opinion does lie in direct conflict with a sporting attitude I generally take for golf. In my mind, the question to Dean is, "so what?" He described his tastes and as I stated in the other thread, my desire is to determine exactly how and where that taste was developed.

Saying something is akin to putt putt, for me, is not very enlightening. However, exploring why that opinion is applied should generate a good discussion on the nature of just what actually is reasonable and not reasonable as a test of skill. So the golfer is asked to make a putt longer than 3 feet. For me, the question is: how do I play the prior shots in order to overcome that problem. Just because that question has a difficult answer does not me it has a bad one. For Dean, that may not be the case, but perhaps he would look at the hole differently after this discussion.

Furthermore, how far away from the hole is too far? What makes 15 feet more abhorrent than 10 feet? 5 feet? When does the architecture and the ball speed identify a good lag putt and why must 3 feet be the measure of that? If 15 feet is the best a lag can do... so what?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kyle...
IS IT GOOD ARCHITECTURE??

There's a little course my father in law plays in N MI.
They have a par 3, its 180 uphill to a green that might be 1500 sq ft. There is a chain link fence that runs down the right side, its OB and about 3 steps off the side of the green. On the left there is a grove of trees that over hang the left edge of the green, There is a bunker in front that closes off the entire front of the green. Is that good architecture, or have we morphed into a site where the quality of architecture no longer matters, its only can you eventually get the ball into the hole?

[Dean Stokes]

Don:

I am legitimately questioning the impossibility of the situation.

I'm also not questioning yours, or Dean's, fortitude with the situation. However, I feel Dean's opinion does lie in direct conflict with a sporting attitude I generally take for golf. In my mind, the question to Dean is, "so what?" He described his tastes and as I stated in the other thread, my desire is to determine exactly how and where that taste was developed.

Saying something is akin to putt putt, for me, is not very enlightening. However, exploring why that opinion is applied should generate a good discussion on the nature of just what actually is reasonable and not reasonable as a test of skill. So the golfer is asked to make a putt longer than 3 feet. For me, the question is: how do I play the prior shots in order to overcome that problem. Just because that question has a difficult answer does not me it has a bad one. For Dean, that may not be the case, but perhaps he would look at the hole differently after this discussion.

Furthermore, how far away from the hole is too far? What makes 15 feet more abhorrent than 10 feet? 5 feet? When does the architecture and the ball speed identify a good lag putt and why must 3 feet be the measure of that? If 15 feet is the best a lag can do... so what?

and I am saying that if 15 feet is the best a lag can do then the design of the green is dreadful or the design is good but the speeds of the greens are too fast for the architects playing intentions. Simple really. I am not looking to shoot 62 every round and I am all for rolling the ball back, making driver heads smaller and getting rid of long putters that make the game easier for some. And i do not expect golf to be fair but i do not think my questions have anything to do with fairness.

[Tom_Doak]

Can you tell me where the Masters committee sets a pin that a tour player who hits a perfect putt from 30 feet cannot stop the ball within 3 feet of the cup please. Maybe #16 back left/ maybe the front of #9 but I still think that can be done. My initial question is to do with pin positions where no matter how perfect the putt the ball cannot be stopped within 10-15 feet of the hole.

Dean:

I don't know Augusta well enough to argue this to death.  I guess a lot of the argument would be over the definition of "cannot".  We see many situations at The Masters each year where a great player doesn't get the putt within 5-10 feet ... hard to know for sure, but I would guess there are a few situations there where he still wouldn't get it within 3 feet if you gave him ten tries, which would be my definition of "can't."

I do know Crystal Downs well enough to argue the point.  The last time I played it with Ben Crenshaw, we repeatedly tried a couple of putts where neither of us could get the ball to settle anywhere near the hole.  Is that bad design?  In one instance, the putt would have been makeable if the greens were 8 or 9 on the Stimpmeter instead of 12; on the other, I don't think we could have got it inside three feet even with a slower green, but we might not have kept putting it off the green and down the hill.  

All that, of course, was after Ben saying on the way over there that he thought on most really great greens, there was a bit of fear of putting off the green.

P.S. to Don:

The hole you just described is pretty close to the 11th at Crystal Downs, except that the green is a bit bigger than that (and a lot more severe), and there's not a bunker right in front.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle...
IS IT GOOD ARCHITECTURE??

There's a little course my father in law plays in N MI.
They have a par 3, its 180 uphill to a green that might be 1500 sq ft. There is a chain link fence that runs down the right side, its OB and about 3 steps off the side of the green. On the left there is a grove of trees that over hang the left edge of the green, There is a bunker in front that closes off the entire front of the green. Is that good architecture, or have we morphed into a site where the quality of architecture no longer matters, its only can you eventually get the ball into the hole?

I'd have to see for myself. I don't believe the options presented by the set up are particularly compelling.

Good and Bad are way to subjective for me. It's probably good to somebody. It's a matter of taste. Somebody, somewhere, probably gets a thrill out of it. Does that make it BAD? I don't really think so, there.

I am much more interested in determining quality by the emotions wrought, and the reasons those emotions are conjured. Let's take apart that hole, what are the best ways to score low? Just because it's a par 3 doesn't mean that the green should be reached in one shot would be my first thought. Maybe the pitch from in front of the bunker would be exciting to try and get close.

Dean:

How do you differentiate between what is unreasonable and what is unfair? Where did the expectation of how a course defines a quality lag come from?

[JESII]

Ok a question/questions that has been bothering me for sometime......you hit the green from any distance.... lets say a pure 3 iron from over 200 yards, but you miss the slope you had to hit to be in the correct section of the green for a short birdie putt.....you now have 25ft for birdie but no matter whether you were Brad Faxon/Ben Crenshaw in their hayday you cannot get your putt to finish within 10-15 feet of the cup.

Dean,

What happens if you and Don's kid play this hole together and his kid drives it to 115 and pulls his sand wedge 30 feet left of the hole and it stops 6 inches from your ball and neither of you can get it inside 15 feet with the putt. Is it better design for the kid?

[Dean Stokes]

Kyle, I have not tried to differentiate between unreasonable and unfair. I have had a long day and do not understand your second question! In my eyes if there is no way to execute a 30 ft putt, which to me means getting within a 3ft circle(how we were taught as juniors), then the green design and/or green speed is unreasonable.....we played a resort course recently where on the first hole 3 of the 4 of us had putts inside 20 feet. Not one of us had a second putt shorter than 10 feet and two were nearer 15 feet. We laughed and commented that it was 'Mickey mouse' golf.....the caddies did not disagree. Do you enjoy that kind of design? Personally if I were ever to hit the lottery and have a go at my own course design I would have plenty of undulations in the greens but they would be designed so that a great putt, even having to use some imagination could finish close.....if you can't I would call it bad architecture.

[Dean Stokes]

Ok a question/questions that has been bothering me for sometime......you hit the green from any distance.... lets say a pure 3 iron from over 200 yards, but you miss the slope you had to hit to be in the correct section of the green for a short birdie putt.....you now have 25ft for birdie but no matter whether you were Brad Faxon/Ben Crenshaw in their hayday you cannot get your putt to finish within 10-15 feet of the cup.

Dean,

What happens if you and Don's kid play this hole together and his kid drives it to 115 and pulls his sand wedge 30 feet left of the hole and it stops 6 inches from your ball and neither of you can get it inside 15 feet with the putt. Is it better design for the kid?

No it's still just a badly designed green