[Mark Bourgeois]

You've identified correctly that the best play for most people is left off the tee.  I don't know why you said "There didn't seem to be a reward for placing my tee shot in the very best spot," because there certainly is; approaching from the left is the only way you've got a good chance of keeping an approach on the right-hand upper shelf of the green, or getting at a pin that's in the trough underneath it.  However the further left you are, the more the green is sloping straight away from you and it's harder to hold an approach shot.  The only time the angle is better from the right is if you can get very close to the green, or if the hole is on the far left side away from the tier in the green, but approaches are less likely to go over and out the back from that side.

Tom, thanks for the answer. As I suspected, my whining was in part about not understanding the hole (how to drive green). Regarding the reward for going left off the tee, my point was that it felt like I didn't have a much better chance of avoiding a three-putt from over there than from somewhere else on the fairway, so why not just try for the safest spot? Maybe that's a skill issue on my part (well, golf is always a "skill issue," isn't it?), but it would leave the hole less than satisfying if that's the case.

Anyway, I'm not trying to isolate the 6th but use it as a strawman or example...

Interesting discussion.
Am wondering for reference purposes how the contours of these greens compare to Barnbougle?
Thanks, Lyne

Lyne:

The contours are different than Barnbougle.  The greens tend to sit up a bit more at Streamsong, as opposed to Barnbougle where so many are set in hollows in the dunes.  The hollows give you more possibilities to putt at the hole on multiple lines, than Streamsong generally does ... although I've already seen several times in my few rounds at Streamsong where someone took a line for the putt that was completely different than what I would have tried.

...and I think this gets at a question that's been gnawing at me: why did I love the greens at Barnbougle but find Streamsong's less satisfying? Was it as Lynn notes a sense of entitlement? Had my expectations somehow changed in the years between playing these courses?

Possibly, but in thinking on the question the putts I kept remembering from Barnbougle were "roundhouses" where I used the land on the green's fringes and outside the greens to get the ball close to the hole. I used the outsides on a number of shots into the greens as well. This is possible on a number of holes at SS where the contours outside the greens allowed but for some reason those putts (I had a few and tried a fair number more) seemed very, very difficult. As in, maybe take a more direct route to the hole instead. SS's seemed much harder than Barnbougle's.

In the end, it wasn't a particular green that "got to me," though. It was more a cumulative effect. Like I wrote earlier, it was more a vague unsettled feeling, which maybe is the point of those greens, at least as a response to feelings of entitlement. Guess I should give the course another crack or two at some point.

[Tom_Doak]

You've identified correctly that the best play for most people is left off the tee.  I don't know why you said "There didn't seem to be a reward for placing my tee shot in the very best spot," because there certainly is; approaching from the left is the only way you've got a good chance of keeping an approach on the right-hand upper shelf of the green, or getting at a pin that's in the trough underneath it.  However the further left you are, the more the green is sloping straight away from you and it's harder to hold an approach shot.  The only time the angle is better from the right is if you can get very close to the green, or if the hole is on the far left side away from the tier in the green, but approaches are less likely to go over and out the back from that side.

Tom, thanks for the answer. As I suspected, my whining was in part about not understanding the hole (how to drive green). Regarding the reward for going left off the tee, my point was that it felt like I didn't have a much better chance of avoiding a three-putt from over there than from somewhere else on the fairway, so why not just try for the safest spot? Maybe that's a skill issue on my part (well, golf is always a "skill issue," isn't it?), but it would leave the hole less than satisfying if that's the case.

Anyway, I'm not trying to isolate the 6th but use it as a strawman or example...

Interesting discussion.
Am wondering for reference purposes how the contours of these greens compare to Barnbougle?
Thanks, Lyne

Lyne:

The contours are different than Barnbougle.  The greens tend to sit up a bit more at Streamsong, as opposed to Barnbougle where so many are set in hollows in the dunes.  The hollows give you more possibilities to putt at the hole on multiple lines, than Streamsong generally does ... although I've already seen several times in my few rounds at Streamsong where someone took a line for the putt that was completely different than what I would have tried.

...and I think this gets at a question that's been gnawing at me: why did I love the greens at Barnbougle but find Streamsong's less satisfying? Was it as Lynn notes a sense of entitlement? Had my expectations somehow changed in the years between playing these courses?

Possibly, but in thinking on the question the putts I kept remembering from Barnbougle were "roundhouses" where I used the land on the green's fringes and outside the greens to get the ball close to the hole. I used the outsides on a number of shots into the greens as well. This is possible on a number of holes at SS where the contours outside the greens allowed but for some reason those putts (I had a few and tried a fair number more) seemed very, very difficult. As in, maybe take a more direct route to the hole instead. SS's seemed much harder than Barnbougle's.

In the end, it wasn't a particular green that "got to me," though. It was more a cumulative effect. Like I wrote earlier, it was more a vague unsettled feeling, which maybe is the point of those greens, at least as a response to feelings of entitlement. Guess I should give the course another crack or two at some point.

Mark:

You just inadvertently reminded me that I've answered Lyne's question wrong.  The difference between Barnbougle and Streamsong is not so much the design of the greens, as that the greens at Barnbougle are 9 on the Stimpmeter, and the greens at Streamsong are much faster.

[Tom_Doak]

Something that has struck me when reading about this course in particular is the pervading sense of entitlement. There is a sense that a golfer who, having travelled some distance and paid a premium fee - and carrying a healthy regard for his game - feels 'entitled' to birdies - 'entitled' to reward and acknowledgment for his investment and prowess.

Should a golfer be 'guaranteed' a 100% positive experience every time he or she tees up?

What does it say about the game when golfers 'expect' a simple and straightforward putt for birdie?

Given that golfer expectations vary across the globe, I also wonder if there is a cultural question at play here. For example, would a Scot view this course through a different lens ?

Lyne

Lyne:

I think the "expectation" is higher at Streamsong because (A) people are paying a lot of money for the experience, and (B) the scorecard seems to promise the good player some birdie opportunities.  Jim Franklin's friend wouldn't have been nearly as upset if he was hitting his usual pitching-wedge approach to all those greens, and he probably wouldn't have found himself in the same dire predicaments, either.

Also, see my previous post, for a better answer to your question about the differences between Barnbougle and Streamsong.  I think that gets to your question about "cultural differences," too ... nowhere else but America would greens like the ones at Streamsong be maintained so fast.

[BCowan]

Tom,

    Do the greens at Streamsong run too fast for your liking/contours?  Do you try and convince the owners/keepers of your course to keep the greens around 9?  I understand if you can't answer the first question.

[Tom_Doak]

I really think the staff has to give more consideration to each day's pin positions on the Blue based upon the expected wind. (Or significantly adjust the tees like they do at Bandon for winter or summer winds.) I've been there twice, three rounds on the Blue in March, 2013 and three this past March. I seemed to have two played in two entirely different winds. For example, in 2013 I could carry the cross bunkers on 17 with my second shot. In 2014 that was never an option, despite some very good drives. A front right pin position close to the drop off is fair if I'm downwind with a short iron approach, but makes no sense when the field is playing short of the cross bunkers and has a 180-200 approach into the wind.

I don't mind occasional tough pins when a decent player can be expected to reach the green with a mid iron or less, but when I need rescue club  or more, it becomes tedious and ceases to be fun. For example, placing the pin on the right just below the slope on Hole 4 is fine if the hole is downwind. But  into a two club wind I hit a good drive and really good 4 rescue to the left/middle of the green, and had no chance to two putt. I needed to be 10 feet shorter with my approach, but also needed to carry a steep uphill rise and a bunker. Into the wind, the pin needs to be somewhere on the left, IMO. You can't tuck the pin under that ridge when the hole plays into the wind. It's one thing to punish me for a slightly misdirected short iron. But not a rescue club or wood, that is just piling on.

Perhaps the superintendent and staff need time to learn the course, learn when to use certain hole locations, and when these spots must be avoided based upon the wind.

Bill:

Certainly, all architects want to see their course set up well -- but except for the speed of the greens, which is probably influenced by the client's wishes, I think the guys at Streamsong do a GREAT job of setting up the course.

Your post really bothers me, because you're just shifting blame -- the underlying premise is still that someone should set up the course perfectly so that golfers don't have to deal with a hole that's "too hard".  Life is full of adversity, and great golf should offer some, too.  If anybody should take the "blame" for that on my courses, I'm happy to.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

    Do the greens at Streamsong run too fast for your liking/contours?  Do you try and convince the owners/keepers of your course to keep the greens around 9?  I understand if you can't answer the first question.

Ben:

In general, I would prefer that greens around the world [mine, and everyone else's] stayed between 8 and 10 on the Stimpmeter on a daily basis, with occasional increases for events.  The emphasis on providing tournament speeds ON A DAILY BASIS is killing the game, in my opinion.  Not only are the greens less healthy because of this practice, but if we build our greens flatter to account for higher speeds, then higher speeds become ESSENTIAL to keeping the short game interesting.

The speed of greens in the UK thirty years ago was probably not even that high, but the game was just as much fun then as it is today.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If the Castle Course greens had been in the US would they been seen as ridiculous?

He did Tetherow in the US just before the Castle course. And yes, the greens there are considered ridiculous, even getting three putt complaints on this site. But, if you thing the greens were considered ridiculous, you should have heard the howling about the mohawks and eyebrows.

[jeffwarne]

Tom,

    Do the greens at Streamsong run too fast for your liking/contours?  Do you try and convince the owners/keepers of your course to keep the greens around 9?  I understand if you can't answer the first question.

Ben:

In general, I would prefer that greens around the world [mine, and everyone else's] stayed between 8 and 10 on the Stimpmeter on a daily basis, with occasional increases for events.  The emphasis on providing tournament speeds ON A DAILY BASIS is killing the game, in my opinion.  Not only are the greens less healthy because of this practice, but if we build our greens flatter to account for higher speeds, then higher speeds become ESSENTIAL to keeping the short game interesting.

The speed of greens in the UK thirty years ago was probably not even that high, but the game was just as much fun then as it is today.

+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
but then. we'd never get to know how big some people's Johnsons are

You could do an entire thread/book/seminar on this called "otherwise intelligent people".
It is very difficult to explain to such people how there can be a lightning fast putt, on a green stimping 8.
and more importantly, how MUCH faster such a putt seems when compared to putting the same putt back UP the hill.

[Thomas Dai]

In general, I would prefer that greens around the world [mine, and everyone else's] stayed between 8 and 10 on the Stimpmeter on a daily basis, with occasional increases for events. The emphasis on providing tournament speeds ON A DAILY BASIS is killing the game, in my opinion.  Not only are the greens less healthy because of this practice, but if we build our greens flatter to account for higher speeds, then higher speeds become ESSENTIAL to keeping the short game interesting.
The speed of greens in the UK thirty years ago was probably not even that high, but the game was just as much fun then as it is today.

30 yrs ago in the UK (& elsewhere I imagine) folk were using putters with a good deal of loft on the face. Back then putters seemed to be about 5-6* loft as standard. Now putters seem to come with 2-3* loft as standard. Putting on greens with longer grass and slower speeds isn't appropriate with modern putters. I have an old hickory from the early 1900's which has about 10* of loft (!). It's difficult to use on low cut quick greens, even using a hands-forward pop stroke or a big forward press, but 2-3* on a low stimp/high cut height green, especially when putting uphill and/or into the wind or on a wet day is arguably harder. One of the reasons why I raised the topic about 'greens irons' was this matter -
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58066.0.html - higher cut and use an greens iron or lower cut and no iron?

An interesting point was made earlier about the green contouring on the Castle Course at StA. There's been lots a nice comments about the famous Sitwell Park green herein. Why is the Sitwell green good but the Castles greens considered not so? Just asking.

atb

[Tom_Doak]

In general, I would prefer that greens around the world [mine, and everyone else's] stayed between 8 and 10 on the Stimpmeter on a daily basis, with occasional increases for events. The emphasis on providing tournament speeds ON A DAILY BASIS is killing the game, in my opinion.  Not only are the greens less healthy because of this practice, but if we build our greens flatter to account for higher speeds, then higher speeds become ESSENTIAL to keeping the short game interesting.
The speed of greens in the UK thirty years ago was probably not even that high, but the game was just as much fun then as it is today.

30 yrs ago in the UK (& elsewhere I imagine) folk were using putters with a good deal of loft on the face. Back then putters seemed to be about 5-6* loft as standard. Now putters seem to come with 2-3* loft as standard. Putting on greens with longer grass and slower speeds isn't appropriate with modern putters. I have an old hickory from the early 1900's which has about 10* of loft (!). It's difficult to use on low cut quick greens, even using a hands-forward pop stroke or a big forward press, but 2-3* on a low stimp/high cut height green, especially when putting uphill and/or into the wind or on a wet day is arguably harder. One of the reasons why I raised the topic about 'greens irons' was this matter -
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58066.0.html - higher cut and use an greens iron or lower cut and no iron?

An interesting point was made earlier about the green contouring on the Castle Course at StA. There's been lots a nice comments about the famous Sitwell Park green herein. Why is the Sitwell green good but the Castles greens considered not so? Just asking.

atb

Of course, none of us ever got to play Sitwell Park, so we can't really judge it.  From pictures, it looks fascinating and super-bold, but one of the keys was that the hole locations were in bowls, so that it was possible to damper the difficulties of putting severely downhill by using the contours of the bowl.

I didn't mind what I saw of the greens at the Castle Course, as far as putting goes.  What I didn't like was how the greens tied into the surrounds, or rather, didn't.  The tilt of the property and the size of the greens meant that when you missed on the low side, you were often eight feet below the putting surface, with a blind recovery.  There was none of the fussy little contouring that makes short game play at The Old Course so cool.  But Sitwell Park might have had the same problem.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

In the rounds my son and I played over three days at Streamsong, not once did we ever feel that the greens were too fast.

We also never felt that any hole location was improper.

My general feeling is that if the hole is cut in the green, it's a reasonable location, taking slope into consideration.

As you know, I think the 5th hole is one of the great holes in all of golf.

Challenging to difficult hole locations make it even better.

To a great degree I think that medal play and the requirement to post a score has served to eliminate great hole locations from daily play, hole locations which challenge the golfer on their approach and recovery as well as with putting.

The dicier the better, for me.

When I play NGLA, I love the hole locations on # 1 in the old back bowl or on top of the spine, anywhere near the perimeter on # 2, on the upper right tier near the edge on # 3, back left on # 4, anywhere dicey on # 6, 7 and 8 and near the back perimeters on 9.  Front on # 10, left upper tier on # 11, behind the spine  on 12, behind the bunker or close to the perimeter on # 13, ditto 14, back upper tiers on 15, right perimeter on # 17 and back, back on # 18.

Those hole locations heighten the challenge and the fun.

Is there a better combination in golf ?

[Mark Bourgeois]

We're discussing the relationship between contour and speed, and I get that -- how does firmness fit into that context? The ground was maintained very firm at SS -- no complaints here -- it seemed the combination / interaction of contour (on but also around the greens, especially short), speed and firmness creates the brew so to speak. Is firmness already considered as part of speed?

Also, perhaps as an aside, I loved the green complex on 18. Still resonates months later. Sort of "Merion East 5 and NGLA 16 greens had a baby and named it SS 18." Sorta.

[ward peyronnin]

I"m not going to slog thru the entire thread to see if I ma being redundant .

I do not mind the Doak/Blue Greens so much as i mind the hole locations in play when I was there. The hole cutter must have been blind or it was dark when he was working. I like slopes and movement on the route to the hole but when one  plays a well judged shot there should be a chance for the ball to come to rest in a rewarding position. Many hole locations simply didn't allow for that at all. Perhaps there simply weren't enough good hole locations in their design but I doubt that is truly the case.

Add to that the fact that they has 340 rounds and the resulting green action was even more frustrating and negative for that track. I accept three putting when it is my miscue but when it results from an impossible play that is bullshit.

[jeffwarne]

Ward,
Would those hole locations been playable at a lower speed?

That's the ironic thing about the Quixotic quest for absolute speed measured in numbers...
Hole locations of great interest are lost and replaced by flatter, more boring locations, and never cut into a slope, but rather on a plateau.

And if they're not, the reaction is similar to yours as they become unputtable.

[SL_Solow]

I fear we are becoming like King Canute, ordering the tide not to come in.  I am old enough to remember when very fast greens were cut at 5/32.  Greens running in the high 8's were very fast.  Golf was more than challenging.  But the newer grasses can take a lower cut and remain healthy.  Indeed, putting aside heat resistance, they did a lot better surviving our extreme Chicago winter than older poa infested greens.  so we now have grasses that can survive heat and cold and take a lower cut.  we also have a golfing populace that equates good to fast.  Incidentally, properly treated the new grasses give a very smooth and true roll as well.  so to suggest that there is any chance of turning back to greens in the 9 or below range is, in my view , unrealistic.  However if common sense is used and the greens are kept in the 10 -10.5 range, most courses can accomodate those speeds.  Incidentally, at my home course I fought the conversion until it became apparent that a string of extreme summers were making it nearly impossible to keep our greens.  Our experience with gas and regrass, preceded by XGD (when we had the poa) and some other preparation has been extremely positive.  So this is more than theory.  I have observed similar results elsewhere.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL,

I agree with you, I think 9-11 on the Stimp is here to stay.

I also think occassional forays into higher numbers will continue for special club events.

Here's my question to everyone:

Who's got a better chance of understanding the wide variety of games, the low handicap who at one time was a high and medium handicap, OR, the high handicap who was never a low or medium handicap ?

[Steve Lang]

  So a "good" golfer is one who has learned a little or enough to challenge par.. or half par ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()