[JMEvensky]

George,I did say plausible--so I've got some wiggle room.

I concede the example falls apart with an inferior putter who's going to end up playing knock-hockey 18 times. Perhaps there needs to be a limit on the inferiority level.

Really tacky to throw JK at me.

[JMEvensky]

 There is no way to make a golf course more difficult on better players and not commensurately so for the lesser golfer

 OK,you and Tiger Woods go play TOC in 25 mph winds. You also have a professional caddie to give advice.

 Which of you shoots closer to your average score?

[George Pazin]

 There is no way to make a golf course more difficult on better players and not commensurately so for the lesser golfer

 OK,you and Tiger Woods go play TOC in 25 mph winds. You also have a professional caddie to give advice.

 Which of you shoots closer to your average score?

Tiger, by a lot lot lot.

What people seem to overlook is that there is no upper bound for lesser golfers, particularly if we are counting every stroke under tourney conditions.

Similarly, in arguments past, the counter argument to my side - the winning side, of course - was that you can only 3 putt so much.

That's crazy wrong. I guarantee you that lesser golfers will 3, 4 and 5 putt greens that are tough. There's an architect who posts on here (who shall remain nameless, unless he decides to out himself) who mentioned 4 putting several times in his first go-round at Oakmont.

I'm a lousy golfer, and I don't 3 putt that often. Put me on an Oakmont or an Augusta with wildly contoured greens and I will 3 putt (and more) at will. Put me on the fastest greens possible at the Bob Hope and I will 3 putt about as often as I always do.

I am more than willing to go to Augusta on short notice to formally test this hypothesis.

Apologies about JK, I was trying to draw out the other participants to the prior bare knuckles brawl.

[Padraig Dooley]

It's not how you putt but where you putt from is the biggest determination in how you score.

The further away you are on heavily contoured greens the harder it becomes, they suit the better striker over the better putter.

[Grant Saunders]

My impression is that boldly contoured greens as a general rule accentuate the advantage a good player has over others rather then act as a leveller. 

Reading the shot is critical on such greens - good players do this much better than the rest of us.

Hitting chips solidly is absolutely critical on such greens - good players do this all of the time.  The rest of us do not.

Landing the ball in the spot you want to land it is critical - good players do this better than others.

Both reading a putt correctly and hitting it where you want to hit it is critical on such greens - good players do that better too.

Making 5-10 footers is critical on such greens.  Good players do that much better than the rest of us as well.

The difficulty on resort courses is that it is very difficult to understand where one wants to hit an approach shot on heavily contoured greens if you are not very familiar with the hole.  Most people playing a resort course are not very familiar with the hole.

I think Jason (and Sean) has grasped my point I was looking to discuss.

It is based around the general picture that a good golfer will more likely be a good putter. I appreciate that there exists exceptions but that is true of almost any given example or theory.

Execution and muscle control are key elements in all golf shots and I believe that better players generally excel in this department. I watch many golfers of all abilities play golf nearly everyday and for the most part, the higher handicaps are not as capable on or around the greens as the better golfers. Its not that they can’t necessarily think or see the shots required, it is execution that eludes them. This shortcoming is often magnified on heavily contoured surfaces with different breaks and elevation changes to deal with.

Based on that, des it not stand to reason that a flatter surface in fact does more to close the gap in skill level? Does it not dampen the reliance on execution which is the elite players main advantage?

Before I get caned, Im not arguing against interesting greens complexes and their place in architecture but rather exploring what I perceive to be a misconception in justifying their use.

[Tom_Doak]

Grant:

I will go back to what I said on that other thread ... the only way to really make it hard for a good player is to get inside his head.

Making a flat course with flat greens might "level the playing field" literally, but then it will be a pure reflection of skill with no chance for errors that matter ... you might as well just play skee-ball on a range then.

I would rather see a course that makes the player think and work.  Sure, every obstacle makes it harder for a bad golfer, too ... but the bad golfers are used to it.

[Grant Saunders]

Grant:

I will go back to what I said on that other thread ... the only way to really make it hard for a good player is to get inside his head.

Making a flat course with flat greens might "level the playing field" literally, but then it will be a pure reflection of skill with no chance for errors that matter ... you might as well just play skee-ball on a range then.

I would rather see a course that makes the player think and work.  Sure, every obstacle makes it harder for a bad golfer, too ... but the bad golfers are used to it.

Tom

I understand where you are coming from and agree that creating doubt in the mind of good player is possibly the best weapon against them. This is why Im a huge fan of short grass around greens and I love watching good golfers struggle in selecting a shot and then try and execute with the lingering suspicion they may have chosen the wrong option. Cue the fat or thinned chip.

Have you as an architect ever deliberately used a left to right dogleg with the view that theoretically the average golfer (right hand slicer) could in fact be advantaged over the better player who tends to favour a draw?

[Sean_A]

I guess I don't understand the need to justify an interesting challenge by saying (rather dubiously imo) it levels the playing field.  Just do what yer gonna do and people either buy into being fun or they don't - there is no need for snow job.  Its not like what you are doing hasn't met with success. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's not how you putt but where you putt from is the biggest determination in how you score.

The further away you are on heavily contoured greens the harder it becomes, they suit the better striker over the better putter.

Only if you're playing WITHOUT handicaps.]

[A.G._Crockett]

A few years ago I was involved in a lengthy conversation here debating whether really difficult greens brought the lesser putter and the superior putter closer together. IN other words, place us both 30 feet from the hole on a flat smooth green and the good putter will average something below 2 putts while the bad putter might average 2.5 or something. Take them to Oakmont and the good putter will make fewer putts and three putt more and the bad putter will still three putt a lot but will manage some two putts,   I couldn't fathom how that was possible as it would be the only activity in the entire human world in which, as conditions get more and more difficult the more skilled participant struggles relatively more than the less skilled participant. Huckaby, if you're lurking please reiterate your position if I've messed it up.

Seems plausible.

The superior putter has more "downside" potential. The inferior putter will always have 3-putts--he just may have more on greens like Oakmont's.But how many more than normal can he have?

But the superior putter rarely 3-putts-- his handful of 3-putts takes him farther away from his "norm".

So,the inferior putter gets a little worse than his norm but the superior putter gets much worse than his--in effect,the inferior putter has gained on the superior.

Huckaby,you out there?

As soon as I saw this thread, I knew someone would recall our battle royale from more than a few years ago. (My good friend Huck hasn't posted in a long time - too too long - but that's a battle for another day.)

I'm with Sully, and thus against JME, and must now seek him out for a fight to the death. There is no way to make a golf course more difficult on better players and not commensurately so for the lesser golfer, stat games not to the contrary. Even pure randomness, I believe, will still favor the better player, as he will handle it better, almost by definition. I believe Rich Goodale was also a heathen who believed that bumpy greens favored lesser players. I will travel to fight him as well... Heck, John K agreed with them, that's enough to discredit their cause!

Now, having said all that, I think there will always be golfers who mis-read results. They get on a green in regulation, versus someone else who doesn't, and when the other guy beats them, they assume the green was "unfair", without taking the time to acknowledge perhaps they were in the wrong place on said green.

In Pete Dye's wonderful autobiography, he says sometimes it's better to be in a bunker on his course than on the wrong side of a green. I suspect the golfers I am talking about in my post would think that is sheer madness, madness, I tells you!

George,
I remember that thread well, and was an enthusiastic participant in it.  Thinking about it makes me miss Tom Huckaby. 

But the answer then and now is exactly as you say; if a feature is hard for a better golfer, it is even more difficult for a lesser player.  It couldn't be otherwise.

The hypothetical that I used in the other thread was a "putt-off" between me and Crenshaw.  If we assume that on a 10' flat, straight putt that he is some percentage or other better than me, as we add length and difficulty/contour to the putt, does the gap between us increase or decrease? 

Of course the gap gets bigger; otherwise it would have to be true that if we could just find a putt that was difficult enough that I would be as good a putter as Crenshaw, and THAT is a truly absurd thought!  Every April I watch The Masters and realize the putting gap between me and people that play golf professionally. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Grant:

Short game ability (and putting) are not simply a function of who's the better player.  Some players are good BECAUSE they have good short games; some are good IN SPITE OF their short game.  Yes, the short game takes real skill at golf, but it's possible for that skill to be present in golfers with less strength ... the 60-year-old guy who can only hit it 200 yards nowadays, for example.

Tom Doak,
With all due respect, I have to disagree with your premise in the second sentence, though I'm not sure how you are defining "good".

I play a lot of golf with players of ability levels ranging from awful to some of the better senior amateurs in the country.  I don't know of a single really good player who doesn't have a good short game by any reasonable standard; none.  I don't believe that there are truly good players (5 handicap and down, let's say) who manage that "IN SPITE OF" their short game; if their short games are poor it is only by comparison with other highly skilled golfers, but not in comparison to higher handicap players.

Some of them struggle with putting from time to time, or even always.  But their ability to hit chip, pitch, and hit partial wedges into places where they have a chance is always, always solid.  There is simply no other way to have a low single-digit handicap IMO.

[Tom_Doak]

their ability to hit chip, pitch, and hit partial wedges into places where they have a chance is always, always solid.  There is simply no other way to have a low single-digit handicap IMO.

A.G.:  Yes, if you restrict the sample to guys with low single-digit handicaps, it's hard to get there without an average short game.

But if you expand to single-digit handicaps, there is a sizeable group of players who hit it pretty well and just aren't very good inside 50 yards.  I won't name names, but I have played with several such golfers who are members of this Discussion Group. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()