Green contours, speeds and hole locations?

[Tom ORourke]

I think this is a valid point, but it depends on what the course is trying to do. I have hit the 9th green at Tobacco Road from pretty far out and came away with two 3 putts, but you expect that going in. I was a member at Eagle Lodge in Philly and it had one or two greens where you were better off misisng the green in some spots that being on the green in the wrong spot. It also had a 440 yard uphill par 4 with a 3 level green. The odds on my getting on the correct level were nill. My overall feeling is you do not want ten or eleven holes like that on a course, but, every now and then, being asked to hit a shot on the proper side or level is a legitimate challenge, even on a longer hole. Just think how good it feels when you pull it off and make the putt. You earned it.

[Mark Woodger]

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.


[/quote]

Tom if you give me their numbers i will call all of them for you!  

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

You learned that a 3 foot putt was the result of a good lag as a junior! Bingo. I have my answer. This begs the question that you could be taught that any arbitrary distance could be the result of a good lag, or that you could be taught that sometimes conditions conspire to change the parameters of a good lag.

I'd personally find it a bit freeing knowing that there really is no benefit to taking dead aim at the flag, and spend as few shots trying to get the ball within a 15 foot circle instead of within a 3 foot circle.

As for reasonable and fair, you said you don't expect the game to be fair, nor that your questions have anything to do with unfairness. However, your questions do have to do with what is reasonable and not...

So, what's the difference?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kyle,
When I play a course that is really bad, whether just stupid hard or where the strategy is all mixed up, the emotion I feel is anger that someone got paid to design and build this crap when there are so many guys who can do great work and never get much of a chance. There is no reason for so much horrid golf in our country other then the fact that most don't know good from bad and now we're back where we started.

Tom, I wish my father in law played in his golf league at CD. I'd be finding excuses to visit a little more. As it is, you'd never confuse this course or this hole for anything at CD. The bunker in front just completes the picture. If its gonna be bad they might as make it as bad as possible, so they did.

Jim, my son's a lefty so he'd push his sand wedge 30 feet left, but he's been training at Wolf Point for the last 4 years so I like his chances of finding a way to beat Dean.

[Dean Stokes]

Dean:

You learned that a 3 foot putt was the result of a good lag as a junior! Bingo. I have my answer. This begs the question that you could be taught that any arbitrary distance could be the result of a good lag, or that you could be taught that sometimes conditions conspire to change the parameters of a good lag.

I'd personally find it a bit freeing knowing that there really is no benefit to taking dead aim at the flag, and spend as few shots trying to get the ball within a 15 foot circle instead of within a 3 foot circle.

As for reasonable and fair, you said you don't expect the game to be fair, nor that your questions have anything to do with unfairness. However, your questions do have to do with what is reasonable and not...

So, what's the difference?

I could care less the difference Kyle. That is not what the question in this thread is about. The three foot that we were taught as juniors was on long putts that you weren't trying to hole....we called it a dustbin lid - should I explain that also? I also do not remember as juniors having 15 ft second putts when you hit a great first putt....but that was before green speeds became a testament to how 'awesome' your course is and before architects felt the need to have vw's parked under the green surfaces to make courses harder! ps. did you ever actually answer the questions in my first post yet?

[Dean Stokes]

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.

Tom, do you think the green you kept putting off the front of was a bad design or do you believe the greens are just too fast for the design? or neither?

[Kalen Braley]

I played a Jim Engh hole where I had to focus to avoid a 4 putt.  I three putted it and was happy with myself.

I blame myself for leaving my approach shot that woefully out of position.

[Dean Stokes]

I played a Jim Engh hole where I had to focus to avoid a 4 putt.  I three putted it and was happy with myself.

I blame myself for leaving my approach shot that woefully out of position.

so i would really despise that green!!! lol

[Bill Brightly]

In reading this thread I keep thinking that you have to tell us how old the course is before you can answer if it is "good or bad architecture" because so many cool greens built by ODG's probably stimped at 6 to 8 when they were designed and are now running at 10-13, and they might be described as silly. The odd part is that many venerable old courses have this condition, and the membership seems to take perverse pride in how their greens play. No way you are getting the superintendent to dial back the green speed to re-capture pin positions or eliminate "goofy greens" or a series of impossible 2-putts.

If it is a relatively new course, I think the architect is more subject to criticism if the course has a steady diet of this. One or two holes like Dean describes is tolerable, IMO.

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

You learned that a 3 foot putt was the result of a good lag as a junior! Bingo. I have my answer. This begs the question that you could be taught that any arbitrary distance could be the result of a good lag, or that you could be taught that sometimes conditions conspire to change the parameters of a good lag.

I'd personally find it a bit freeing knowing that there really is no benefit to taking dead aim at the flag, and spend as few shots trying to get the ball within a 15 foot circle instead of within a 3 foot circle.

As for reasonable and fair, you said you don't expect the game to be fair, nor that your questions have anything to do with unfairness. However, your questions do have to do with what is reasonable and not...

So, what's the difference?

I could care less the difference Kyle. That is not what the question in this thread is about. The three foot that we were taught as juniors was on long putts that you weren't trying to hole....we called it a dustbin lid - should I explain that also? I also do not remember as juniors having 15 ft second putts when you hit a great first putt....but that was before green speeds became a testament to how 'awesome' your course is and before architects felt the need to have vw's parked under the green surfaces to make courses harder! ps. did you ever actually answer the questions in my first post yet?

Dean,

You asked for any thoughts. Those are my thoughts. I am extremely interested in what thoughts and assumptions go into making up someone's opinion on a golf course. How else do you learn how to actually create a meaningful golf course instead of copying what is already consensus "good" or bad?"

You made a qualitative statement about putting that I simply cannot wrap my head around. I don't believe the word "should" can ever be spoken about a golf course other than in reference to the intent of the designer.

If the answer to the question as to why this is a bad situation is, "because that's what I was taught" that is fine and useful. But I doubt many design decisions are based on what golf instructors are teaching at the time. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

Say your instructor in junior golf taught you how to take what the golf course gave you and then gave you the physical tools to overcome those challenges... your opinion would be different, no?

[Dean Stokes]

well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt otherwise there is something not right with that green.... probably one of three things (bad design, too fast stimp, terrible hole location cut too close to the bottom of a slope). This is one I will argue all night except with you Kyle as I have just googled you and read your blog - I neither understand half of that or many of the questions you ask I obviously don't think about this as much as you do or near as deeply but I have played competitive golf for 30 years now and only recently have noticed the new phenomenon of ultra fast greens with hillocks in them with badly cut holes and I don't think it makes for good golf or fun golf, both of which is why I am out there.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, do you think the green you kept putting off the front of was a bad design or do you believe the greens are just too fast for the design? or neither?

Dean:

That was the 11th at Crystal Downs I was describing.  I don't think it's a bad design, although it's quite severe.  If you have hit the ball 30 feet above the hole on that green, you've made a stupid shot, and you deserve to three-putt or maybe putt off the green.  [There is one line you can take to prevent putting off the green, but you'll probably be leaving yourself 10-20 feet from the hole depending on the hole location.]

The same contour that's impossible to putt down makes a good backstop if you've deliberately left your tee shot short of the green.  However, when the pin is up on the back part of the green, you sometimes see a ball get too far up the slope, without making it to the crest, and then come motoring down PAST where the previous shot wound up.  I think that's an example of the green being a bit too fast nowadays, though I could see where many would argue that the green itself is beyond the pale, and I'd be more likely to agree on those grounds.

One facet of this which we haven't mentioned is that 30 years of sand topdressing has built up many greens, and made the contours at the sides and fronts of the greens much more severe.  It even screws up other parts of the green sometimes.  We were trying to use the sideboard on the 7th at Crystal Downs to putt around the boomerang to the back hole location yesterday, and it wasn't working, and I realized that it doesn't work anymore because the green has been raised along that side, reducing the size of the bank that you used to swing the ball around.

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.

However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.

I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?

[Dean Stokes]

Tom, there is only one course I have ever played where I putted off the green more than once.....I believe the issue there (obviously not me), is that the designer , some 90 years ago did not forsee a contest between top notch clubs for the fastest greens in town award!!!! And now we get back to my original point....when it comes to putting off greens and not being able to get a first putt close to the hole (with a perfect putt), is there something wrong? I think there is.

[Tom_Doak]

well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt

Dean:

I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?

If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.

If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?

[Dean Stokes]

well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt

Dean:

I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?

If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.

If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?

Is the green a hazard?

[Kyle Harris]

well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt

Dean:

I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?

If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.

If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?

Is the green a hazard?

By definition of the rules, no.

But the putting green is also not the hole - so there is still work to do.

[jeffwarne]

well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt

Dean:

I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?

If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.

If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?

Is the green a hazard?

The wrong portion?
can be.
How would your putt have been if you had been 30 feet short?

[Dean Stokes]

Dean:

I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.

However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.

I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?

Kyle, I can quite honestly say that in tournament golf over the past 30 years, where pins are carefully thought out, I cannot remember ever deliberately trying to miss a green (having played practise rounds and understanding the green complexes), in order to be able to get down in two. I also cannot remember off the top of my head having a putt in a tournament where I could not lag it close with a good first putt. The experiences i've had have been at resorts or at private clubs on first time plays where you do not know the greens.....

[Dean Stokes]

well i think and firmly believe that if you hit a golf shot to 30 feet you 'should' be able to get that ball closer than 15 feet with a putt

Dean:

I wonder if you think that this applies to shots OFF the green as well ... that if you miss by 30 feet you ought to always be able to get the next shot closer than 15 feet?

If you say yes, then obviously you don't like water within 30 feet of the hole.

If you say no, that some hazards are allowed to be so severe that you can't get up and down ... then why can't some portion of the green offer the same problem?

Is the green a hazard?

The wrong portion?
can be.
How would your putt have been if you had been 30 feet short?

it would have been in the front pot bunker. Not much better to be honest

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.

However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.

I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?

Kyle, I can quite honestly say that in tournament golf over the past 30 years, where pins are carefully thought out, I cannot remember ever deliberately trying to miss a green (having played practise rounds and understanding the green complexes), in order to be able to get down in two. I also cannot remember off the top of my head having a putt in a tournament where I could not lag it close with a good first putt. The experiences i've had have been at resorts or at private clubs on first time plays where you do not know the greens.....

There are a handful of front hole locations at Huntingdon Valley that are significantly more attackable from just off the front of the putting green than from the center of the putting green. I think this is the case with the front of the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, and sixteenth.

Does this data for you force the conclusion that those front hole locations are not carefully thought out?

[Dean Stokes]

ps. you guys are doing a lot of talking about putting the ball right where you want it.....are you that good all of you?

[Dean Stokes]

Dean:

I am perfectly okay with all that. I don't intend to argue for the sake of arguing but instead to develop a conversation beyond simply anointing something as good or bad because of what ultimately are arbitrary actions. You've played tournament golf for a very long time. This very much interests me because you are playing the sport for the sake of competition. Clearly, you've learned and developed a method that works for you with that.

However, that further confuses me because to me, the competitive side would look to the problem of how to do I do this better than the rest of the field or my opponent as opposed to how do I apply what I've learned to this situation, and what if the situation doesn't fit what I learned. To me, a situation like this should push the competitive golfer to learn or acquire a different method of attacking the problem to gain the advantage.

I am also curious as to why the skilled golfer feels domain over the natural element of the golf course as opponent. To me, this would be like the best team in baseball or whichever sport asking their opponents to play to their strengths so they may demonstrate those strengths. The analog of the logical question is whether or not a defense should be allowed to impede a skilled quarterback from making a pass. Why is the golf course any different than a defense attempting to stop the opponent?

Kyle, I can quite honestly say that in tournament golf over the past 30 years, where pins are carefully thought out, I cannot remember ever deliberately trying to miss a green (having played practise rounds and understanding the green complexes), in order to be able to get down in two. I also cannot remember off the top of my head having a putt in a tournament where I could not lag it close with a good first putt. The experiences i've had have been at resorts or at private clubs on first time plays where you do not know the greens.....

There are a handful of front hole locations at Huntingdon Valley that are significantly more attackable from just off the front of the putting green than from the center of the putting green. I think this is the case with the front of the first, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, and sixteenth.

Does this data for you force the conclusion that those front hole locations are not carefully thought out?

and once you know that course you will play for the front edge of those greens. If however you fly the ball a little further and end up 20 ft behind the flag should you be penalized by then putting off the front of the green? My point again is that the green is either badly designed or the greens are too fast for the slopes on them. Something you are yet to address.

[Kyle Harris]

Dean:

I have addressed both with the notion of "should" as it pertains to anything other than the intent of the designer. Is there a point where the green gets too fast in my opinion? Sure. But those reasons are mainly argonomic in nature. I rarely can entertain the idea that excessive green speeds are good agronomic practice. I have seen cases on dormant turf where it becomes nigh on impossible to reasonably slow the putting surface down. Will I adjust a hole to a location where the skill demand isn't so high? Sure will... but there is little qualitative measure in that, IMO.

[Dean Stokes]

Remember the Open at Shinnecock? A prime example of what I am talking about, the par 3 that caused embarrasment to the best players in the world and the USGA......is that hole badly designed? No. Was the green too fast? Yes. If the pin was in a different position would either of the former mattered? No. But I suppose the best in the world could have placed the ball in a location where they had a 20 footer uphill couldn't they?