[Grant Saunders]

I read a lot of opinion on here as to how boldly countered greens are a great leveller because they supposedly offer players of all abilities (i.e. shorter hitters and higher handicaps) the opportunity to either be competitive or in fact gain an advantage. This is largely postulated due to the apparent lack of certain physical abilities required to master such greens. In other words, players of all physical strengths (or lack of) and golfing skills are able to compete more evenly whereas a forced carry, for example, favours stronger hitters/better players.

A recent thread about the greens at Streamsong (Blue I think but apologies if I have that wrong) was built around the complaints about the difficulty of the putting surfaces when experienced by better players. 2 camps seemed to emerge:

-Good players are just whining little bitches and need to harden up

- A genuine feeling that maybe the surfaces could in fact be too complex

Good golfers by general definition are predominantly better putters than the average golfer. This is an integral part of the reason they are able to post the scores that they do. Average players or higher handicap golfers are generally less competent with the putter and this is also reflected in the scores they achieve.

Based on this, do contoured surfaces not in fact play more into the hands of the better golfer whose skills in reading greens and judging weights are superior to those of the golfer who struggles more with the game?

Im not debating the idea of greens that require thought and offer a greater degree of interest and challenge but rather questioning the notion that highly contoured surfaces potentially are somehow offering the average player a perceived opportunity to compensate for other shortcomings in their game.

[Jon Wiggett]

Grant,

if the green is so contoured as to make getting on the right level/part of the green easy but difficult to judge the speed to get the ball to stop close to the hole then in my opinion such a green is a leveller but if the green is so contoured as to make getting in the area of the hole difficult then it is harder for the higher handicapper.

Two good examples that show both concepts well would be the 18th at ANGC which is easier to get on the right level and the 9th where it is difficult to get on the right level.

Jon

[Tom_Doak]

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.

The thread about Streamsong revolved around a guy who was pissed off because he'd three putted five times FOR PAR.  Presumably, reaching five greens in regulation qualifies him as a good player in most people's eyes, but he obviously struggled with the short game demands of the course.  The course was levelling him pretty well.

The intent is NOT to level the playing field by making other parts of the game irrelevant, but to make the good player work a bit harder to secure his advantage.  I want to design courses where people who have skills are rewarded for them.  It's just that my definition of "skill" at golf is not quite the same as some other people's.

[Jud_T]

Grant,

It's generally good players who feel they deserve to reach every hole in reg and 2 putt once they do.  As I recall there was quite a bit of whining about the greens at Old Mac when guys who were out of position on the huge greens inevitably 3 and 4 putted.  I'm probably a pretty good example of a guy who doesn't hit it a long way but is pretty crafty around the green.  I think the point is that the justification for the "levelling" is that you make the course more enjoyable for a much larger segment of the golfing population by not relying primarily on distance and penal golf yet still provide interest and challenge for the better player.  As to whether better players are better at putting quirky greens, the answer is probably yes on average, but it's a qualified yes and a case by case basis.  In particular the USGA handicap protocol puts it's largest weight on distance when rating courses.

[Phil Benedict]

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.

60 is the new 40!

[Jim Franklin]

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.

The thread about Streamsong revolved around a guy who was pissed off because he'd three putted five times FOR PAR.  Presumably, reaching five greens in regulation qualifies him as a good player in most people's eyes, but he obviously struggled with the short game demands of the course.  The course was levelling him pretty well.

The intent is NOT to level the playing field by making other parts of the game irrelevant, but to make the good player work a bit harder to secure his advantage.  I want to design courses where people who have skills are rewarded for them.  It's just that my definition of "skill" at golf is not quite the same as some other people's.

Agree 100%.

[RJ_Daley]

Do complex and greatly contoured greens serve as a leveler where the clever and skilled short game player can make up for strength and long hitting prowess?  

Well doesn't that depend on the long hitter's accuracy AND the long hitters equal dedication and practice time in the short game?

If the long hitter can get on several more greens in reg, and fails to maintain a good two putt or solid up and down average, then it seems to me that that player simply needs to spend more time practicing that aspect of the game.  It seems to me a longer hitter can always improve chipping and putting, or at least theoretically have it within a greater realm of possibility to improve the short game than an older or weaker player can gain the strength and accuracy that power allows to take advantage of  a good short game.  The response to the stronger player who is upset that the weaker player was able to equalize competition by employing better skill on the complex green design is to put in more putting and chipping practice time, that's all.

[PCCraig]

I'd like to think so.

One great example is White Bear Yacht Club north of St. Paul, MN. The golf course is *only* 6450 yards from the back tees, but it features some extraordinarily wild greens which makes it play far more difficult for lower handicap golfers. I consider myself a decent putter, however when I hit my approach to the wrong part of some greens there, there isn't any possible way to two-putt. For example, WBYC hosted the State Am a few years back and the greens were reported to be stimping at *only* 10.5 yet the winning score was only -7 (by a gentlemen who would earn his TOUR card the next year).

[Tom_Doak]

If the long hitter can get on several more greens in reg, and fails to maintain a good two putt or solid up and down average, then it seems to me that that player simply needs to spend more time practicing that aspect of the game.  It seems to me a longer hitter can always improve chipping and putting, or at least theoretically have it within a greater realm of possibility to improve the short game than an older or weaker player can gain the strength and accuracy that power allows to take advantage of  a good short game.  The response to the stronger player who is upset that the weaker player was able to equalize competition by employing better skill on the complex green design is to put in more putting and chipping practice time, that's all.

RJ:  I don't think it's just a matter of practice.  I think it's a matter of tactics.

The good player sometimes thinks it's unfair that he can reach a long hole in two, but if he can't be precise enough to avoid some of the contours around the green, then he is not being rewarded for his great second shot.  I understand this critique, and if it was happening to him frequently on par-3 holes or mid-length par-4's, I would sympathize.  But when it's happening on short par-4's and short par-5's, then the problem is not the design but his tactics.  If he understands the situation, the solution is to NOT GO FOR the green in two, but to play to an area short of the green for a good angle, and use his superior skill hit a wedge close enough to make birdie.  The problem is he is going for shots that he's admitted he is not precise enough to pull off.  He is convinced that once he is on the green he should be entitled to a reasonable two-putt, no matter the circumstances.

It is not like the B golfers are making birdies to beat him ... they just have a reasonable chance of making par, while he was constantly getting himself out of position and three-putting for par.

[Jason Topp]

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 familar with the hole.  Most people playing a resort course are not very familar with the hole.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Jason.  Assuming the same amount of experience with said greens, I don't think contours balance the scales at all.  The hack is going to struggle perhaps moreso than the star and he will take more shots getting to the greens.  How did this idea come about?  I can understand what Tom is saying if its only flat bellies playing, but not if its a "mixed" field. 

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

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. 

I think you should substitute "putter" for "player". Speaking relatively,not all good players are good because of their putting nor are all good putters good players (again,relatively).

[Jason Topp]

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. 

I think you should substitute "putter" for "player". Speaking relatively,not all good players are good because of their putting nor are all good putters good players (again,relatively).

While I agree with you that individual outliers exist, I would take the scratch golfer over the 15 handicapper in a putting contest without knowing anything else and, I suspect, win money 95% of the time as long as the contest is over enough holes to greatly reduce random chance.  Also - the impact exists far beyond putting.  Chips, pitches and approach shots all give an extra advantage to the better player because they can more easily hit the section of the green they want to hit.  The only way heavily contoured greens level out the advantage the better player has is if the better player pays no attention to the green contours.  I am not aware of any good players that fit such a description. 

[Tom_Doak]

We are talking past each other here.

If you assume that good players are better at everything than average players, then they have nothing to fear from any feature on a course -- and nothing to complain about.

I'm more of the view that different players have different strengths, and I am trying to give all of them their day in the sun.  If some people think I go too far in favor of players with good short games, it's probably true; I may be overcompensating for the majority whose balance is off to the other side.  So, sue me.

[JMEvensky]

We are talking past each other here.

If you assume that good players are better at everything than average players, then they have nothing to fear from any feature on a course -- and nothing to complain about.

I'm more of the view that different players have different strengths, and I am trying to give all of them their day in the sun.  If some people think I go too far in favor of players with good short games, it's probably true; I may be overcompensating for the majority whose balance is off to the other side.  So, sue me.

Jason,this is what I was trying to say (minus the "sue me" part).

[Jason Thurman]

The gap between stronger players and weaker players grows larger as more strokes are required on a hole. It's simple statistics. Strong players are, on balance, better at all aspects of the game than weaker players. There may be an occasional low handicapper who has a very shaky putter, and an occasional high handicapper with a very good one. But they're anomalies, and not the norm. On average, the expected number of strokes to get the ball into the hole is always lower for a low handicapper than a high handicapper, regardless of the position in which a ball lies. Since boldly contoured greens tend to require more strokes, they will ultimately tend to favor the low handicapper in a vacuum.

However...

The strokes-gained statistic that measures a player's efficacy on different types of shots has taught us a lot about where strong players MOST separate themselves from weak players. The amount of strokes a low handicapper generally gains on the greens is far less than the amount of strokes he'll gain from a 200 yard shot. Simplified, this means the average 18 handicapper will improve his score more if he strikes the ball like a professional than if he putts it like a professional.

So combine the fact that the good player's advantage is less pronounced when he's holding a putter as opposed to holding a 5 iron with the fact that putting is one part of the game that doesn't require superior strength and flexibility, and it stands to reason that boldly contoured greens give the savvy high handicapper some relative advantage over the unsavvy low handicapper IF the course's overall length and shot demands aren't excessive. If you give the weak player a chance from a ballstriking standpoint and "defend par at the green," you reduce the overall advantage that the strong player has from a strokes-gained perspective and also reward the Pete Pittocks and Jud Tigermans of the world who aren't superior athletes (no offense guys) but who nonetheless have worked to develop strong skills around the green and know how to play to their handicap. Putting wild greens on a 7600 yard course just widens the gap between strong players and weak players, but putting wild greens on a 6400 yard course narrows that gap.

[JESII]

Agree with Jeff...it's not a straight line correlation between handicap and putting ability...but that's probably not the intended point. This conversation has two courses it could take in my view.

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.

The other direction it could go is to the game mind of different caliber players. An 18 handicapper could very well be a good thinker around the course, better even than a scratch. These type of greens could well provide a challenge which "levels out" some of the difference between these two types of players. Over time however, the very fact that the scratch is a scratch indicates they'll figure out, and overcome some of the challenge presented and regain their full advantage over the 18.

[Jim Sherma]

I think a distiction has to be made as to the types of contours around and in the pinnable areas.

Greens that have basically flat pin placements but severe slopes separating the different pin placements will likely serve as a leveller. I say this because the benefits of being marginally closer to the hole on your approach or chip is discontinuous at the point where the contours separate the pinning areas. Also the lack of slope/contour at the hole will also serve to equivalize decent putters from good putters.

This discontinuity of outcome can be frustrating for a better player. If shot outcomes all collect into distinct areas beyond the event horizon of the pinnable area marginally better shots will be seen as not being rewarded proportionally.

Greens with slope/contour at the pin, primarily older courses in my experience, will always magnify the difference between putters. Consistently putting well when you have to play outside of the hole on putts between 2 and 6 feet is a true challenge because of the need to control your speed given the choice of a line. This is where green speeds really increase the difficulty through enhancing the amount of break you must play on the shorter putts.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think all greens serve as great levellers, and play the key role in making golf a great and unique game. You can't embrace the spirit of golf unless you accept with some equanimity that a 3 inch putt is scored exactly the same as a 300 yard drive, i.e. they both count as one stroke.  The 90 year old granny with arthritic knees who's taken 4 shots to reach the green and then one putts gets the same score as her 20 year old grandson on steroids who drove past the green, chipped on, and then took 3 putts. (That drives the kid nuts, btw -- look for him on Hack Golf.) Boldly contoured greens work in the same way, but also provide a more subtle levelling function, i.e. they work to have the very skilled lunkhead (whether 20 or 60 years old) who judges himself on GIRs independent of green contours and pin position scrambling to match his less skilled brainiac opponent (whether arthritic or juiced) who understands those factors and accepts that missing a green is sometimes the best way to a lower score. The game, its ethos, is about both physical talent and mental acuity, and its underlying spirit embraces the ideal (and seeming paradox) that all kinds of strokes are equal under the sun. Boldly contoured greens help to make manifest both that ethos and that ideal, and thus make golf the game that it is. (I guess that's why an old great like Dr. Mackenzie tended to use them.)

Peter

[Jud_T]

Isn't it sadly ironic that the arms race of green speeds and subsequent flattening of bold contours to allow more pinable areas and "fairness" is taking away this specific attribute that we clearly see as so highly valued?

[Chris Johnston]

For me, a steady diet of bold contours is a downer, and I love a balance between bold and more subtle.  IMO, two of the lost arts in golf are short game, and the long putt where the player has to face the challenge of trying to make it.  A 4-6 inch breaker from 30 feet may be the most difficult shot (mentally) for all players.

Like most things in life, balance is to be cherished.

[JMEvensky]

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?

[Tom_Doak]

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?

I doubt it works out that way.  I took a friend to Chicago Golf Club a year ago when the greens were super fast .... the fastest greens I have ever played anywhere.  I had my share of three-putts, but my friend could not handle the speed at all; he would chip across greens entirely, and had his share of four-putts or worse.  It is a matter of getting outside one's comfort zone.

[Brent Hutto]

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?

I'm guessing maybe you play with guys who just pick up if the second putt misses? Or pick up after double bogey?

As Tom D. points out, on seriously evil greens that third or even fourth putt is not a hard limit for a truly bad putter. One might think of a bad putter as someone who take 41 or 42 putts on benign greens and "blows up" to 45 or 46 on tricked-out ones. No reason to think that blow-up wouldn't reach 50+ putts if they keep putting it...but in reality they're going to just record half a dozen "X" scores and not actually attempt all the ensuing 4th or 5th putts.

P.S. This is yet another example of something that can be great fun in match play yet totally impractical for stroke play among anyone other than elite players. Or at least elite putters. If it's a head-to-head match trick 'em up all you want. We'll either keep at it until one of us holes out or we'll take "Good-Good" on those two six-footers for triple bogey.

[George Pazin]

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!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()