[Bob_Garvelink]

I played Streamsong a few weeks back and loved both courses.  One of the many beauties of Streamsong is that the greens are different and begs the question...How much undulation is to much?

I tend to be a player to prefers flatter surfaces as I like scoring well and am not the best at reading greens.  With that being said I dont mind playing any of Tom D's or Jack N's courses although there have been a few greens over my years that have frustrated me.  There are some of my friends who refuse to play courses with huge undulating greens.

So what where do you stand on this topic.  Would you prefer to play a course with flatter greens or do you enjoy the challenges that undulating greens offer? 

[Chris Wagner]

I enjoy a greens that fit the course, with a speed that matches the green. Though I have always enjoyed severe undulations and found them to be a fun challenge. I enjoy the thrill of sinking a hard breaking putt over a straight put.

[Mark Fedeli]

Count me as a fan of undulation. A big fan. I actually putt much more confidently on undulating greens because I find them easier to read. But most importantly, I find putting on undulating greens to be by far the most fun thing I can do out on a golf course. I remember all of us being just over the green on #14 at SS Blue and having some incredibly wild putts to get back to the front hole location. It was a total thrill ride to get it in close (which I did). The other notable fact about that experience is that I never once thought that putt, or any similar putts, were difficult or extreme. I just immediately relished the challenge.

It takes all kinds.

[Jason Topp]

My thoughts on this topic change regularly.  I find my favorite greens feature tilt with some spines interspersed to add interest. 

I like such greens because they make sense to the player from the fairway and offer interesting choices between going for the pin or leaving the ball below the hole.  They also can be tilted with the natural flow of the land, making for a more natural appearance and a requirement that the player pay attention to his natural surroundings.

The slopes can be pretty significant on such greens and still be enjoyable.

[Michael Felton]

I'm quite a fan of a situation where you have more than one option for line on a putt. Things have to be pretty undulating for that to occur. 16 at Deal can give you that from time to time if the pin is in that depression towards the back right. If you're at the front, you can let it fall in from the left or the right. I guess to expand on that, I like situations where it's not immediately obvious what line to hit it on. Playing flat greens you always know roughly where you need to hit it without even hardly looking at it. On undulating greens, you might have to start it sideways of your target.

I also thoroughly enjoy a spot where you have to judge something very carefully. What immediately springs to mind is the 4th green at Royal St George's. If you're front left (where lots of people end up) and the pin is anywhere up on the top, your putt has to be close to not moving when it reaches the top. If you leave it three feet short you get another go.

That said I don't like it when it's so extreme that there just isn't a shot available. If a perfect putt is running 10 feet by I don't like that. It should always be possible to get it close. Not necessarily easy, but possible.

[Matt Bielawa]

As a lousy putter, the best greens for my game and small and flat.  However, I haven't played many courses with small and flat greens where I walked off and said, boy those were a great set of greens.  Take Harbour Town for example.  I like the course a lot, but it sure isn't because it has an interesting set of greens, unless you're interested in purely how small they are.

Undulating greens are definitely more memorable and fun to try to figure out.  They certainly add to strategy as well.

[Matt Bielawa]

I'm quite a fan of a situation where you have more than one option for line on a putt.

Totally agree.  Being above the hole to a front hole location on #11 at Oakland Hills can present that situation.  I've played putts to the left and right of the hole with similar results.

[Mark Fedeli]

I'm quite a fan of a situation where you have more than one option for line on a putt.

Totally agree.  Being above the hole to a front hole location on #11 at Oakland Hills can present that situation.  I've played putts to the left and right of the hole with similar results.

sounds like heaven to me.

[SteveOgulukian]

I've always wondered why some courses with severe greens are considered to be brilliant while others are considered to be tricked up.  Assuming the hole locations are in fair spots, it's tough to see why some greens are criticized and others are viewed in a positive light.

[Tom_Doak]

I've always wondered why some courses with severe greens are considered to be brilliant while others are considered to be tricked up.  Assuming the hole locations are in fair spots, it's tough to see why some greens are criticized and others are viewed in a positive light.

Brilliant = "has stood the test of time" = dead architect

Tricked up = living architect who could be coerced into flattening them

Note that a modern severe green cannot yet have stood the test of time, so it's fair game to most people.

[SteveOgulukian]

I've always wondered why some courses with severe greens are considered to be brilliant while others are considered to be tricked up.  Assuming the hole locations are in fair spots, it's tough to see why some greens are criticized and others are viewed in a positive light.

Brilliant = "has stood the test of time" = dead architect

Tricked up = living architect who could be coerced into flattening them

Note that a modern severe green cannot yet have stood the test of time, so it's fair game to most people.

Tom - I guess this means that all your greens are tricked up!

[Tom_Doak]

I've always wondered why some courses with severe greens are considered to be brilliant while others are considered to be tricked up.  Assuming the hole locations are in fair spots, it's tough to see why some greens are criticized and others are viewed in a positive light.

Brilliant = "has stood the test of time" = dead architect

Tricked up = living architect who could be coerced into flattening them

Note that a modern severe green cannot yet have stood the test of time, so it's fair game to most people.

Tom - I guess this means that all your greens are tricked up!

Pretty much.

[Michael Felton]

I've always wondered why some courses with severe greens are considered to be brilliant while others are considered to be tricked up.  Assuming the hole locations are in fair spots, it's tough to see why some greens are criticized and others are viewed in a positive light.

Brilliant = "has stood the test of time" = dead architect

Tricked up = living architect who could be coerced into flattening them

Note that a modern severe green cannot yet have stood the test of time, so it's fair game to most people.

Do I detect a hint of cynicism there? I can't fathom why, so long as the greens are playable (by which I mean a ball will stop by the hole), anyone would want to flatten them. Or is it because it's too difficult and they want them to be easier?

[Keith Grande]

I find greens with large undulations easier to read than those with small, subtle ones.  And more fun to putt/pitch/chip on...

[Mac Plumart]

For me, it all has to fit together.

Green speeds and green contours

Green itself and green surrounds

Approach requirements and green firmness and size and green surrounds

One size doesn't fit all courses for me.  I like heavily contoured greens, like many of Tom Doak's are.  But I also appreciate the slopes and table tops at a place like Garden City.

[Dan Kelly]

I like all sorts of greens, provided they *work*. (See Mac Plumart's post, just above.)

I don't see why one course shouldn't have a variety of green types -- tilted, undulating, tiered, crowned.

Seems to me that greens with big undulations are, in general, somewhat more "athletic" in their demands.

[Tom_Doak]

Do I detect a hint of cynicism there? I can't fathom why, so long as the greens are playable (by which I mean a ball will stop by the hole), anyone would want to flatten them. Or is it because it's too difficult and they want them to be easier?

I'm not sure what was cynical about my earlier quote, but if it was, I'm sorry.  I'm trying to eliminate that as a character flaw.

Your caveat of "a ball will stop by the hole" is interesting though.  Stop by the hole from where?  If you can get the ball to stop by the hole from anywhere, then the undulations aren't really very effective.

[Michael Felton]

Do I detect a hint of cynicism there? I can't fathom why, so long as the greens are playable (by which I mean a ball will stop by the hole), anyone would want to flatten them. Or is it because it's too difficult and they want them to be easier?

I'm not sure what was cynical about my earlier quote, but if it was, I'm sorry.  I'm trying to eliminate that as a character flaw.

Your caveat of "a ball will stop by the hole" is interesting though.  Stop by the hole from where?  If you can get the ball to stop by the hole from anywhere, then the undulations aren't really very effective.

Nothing wrong with a little cynicism at all. I didn't mean it as a dig in the slightest.

I guess I mean that if a slope is so steep that a ball placed at the top and then allowed to roll down it won't stop until it gets 20 feet away, then the hole shouldn't be put there. Basically I think that you should always have a chance to get it close if you're on the green. It might be extremely difficult, but it should IMO be doable. Getting it close might involve taking a risk of leaving it somewhere you didn't want to leave it and the player should be allowed to decide whether to take that chance or not, but it's less interesting if you just can't get it close.

I don't mean that a ball should tend to stop by the hole. A poorly played shot that winds up rolling 30 feet away I'm fine with. But a well played shot that winds up 10+ feet away I don't think is right.

[Sean_A]

So what where do you stand on this topic.  Would you prefer to play a course with flatter greens or do you enjoy the challenges that undulating greens offer? 

To me its more about balance and variety.  For every crazy green I think there should probably be a few subtle greens,  but there should definitely be a few head scratcher greens.  The last thing I want is all flat or all undulating.  I also think archies have to strongly consider the weather conditions of the greens. This was the biggest mistakes of both The Castle Course and Trump's Aberdeen course.  Both sets of greens are heavily reliant upon aerial shot making in areas with high wind - its a bad combo to be repeated too often.   

One reason why today's "tricked up" greens are considered as such is because they never had the opportunity to gain a reputation like classic greens did at more reasonable speeds.  Many classic greens with rep are just as tricked up at high speed as modern greens, but history carries the day.

Ciao

[BCowan]

I love contoured greens, with bold features.  I also love Crowned greens, for they reward a well played chip and an opportunity to get up and down, and yet make iron shots more difficult.  Please stop with ''The green speed Arms Race''.

Funny thing is that the people who refuse to play contoured greens, I bet they wouldn't turn down an opportunity to play ANGC.

[Bryan Icenhower]

Basically I think that you should always have a chance to get it close if you're on the green. It might be extremely difficult, but it should IMO be doable.

If you leave yourself in the wrong place, why would this be an expectation?  Interested in others opinions.  Certainly would love to hear Mr. Doak‘s opinion on that statement. 

[Tom_Doak]

Basically I think that you should always have a chance to get it close if you're on the green. It might be extremely difficult, but it should IMO be doable.

If you leave yourself in the wrong place, why would this be an expectation?  Interested in others opinions.  Certainly would love to hear Mr. Doak‘s opinion on that statement. 

I'm on record here before (probably many times) as saying that I think it's okay [occasionally] to be in a situation where if you've left yourself in the wrong place on a green, it takes a great putt to get it within 4-5 feet and many people may wind up 10-15 feet away.  Otherwise there is no premium for staying in position ... anyone with a Tour pro quality short game would two-putt all the time unless they had a seizure.

Of course, using distances as I have means that green speed is a factor in any such discussion.  On very fast greens, the effect of contours is greatly exaggerated; your ball is going to go a lot more than one foot farther when putting over a big contour.

[Jim Sherma]

As long as an uphill putt will stop around the hole that is fine for me. If I am above the hole that is on me. I use the "tricked up" or "unfair" label when uphill, or even some side-hill putts won't stop by the cup no matter what you do. This situation just represents a poor choice of pin placement in my opinion. If a course makes any sort of regular use of this either they have run out of pin placements at the speed they maintain the greens or else they are sadists.

[Michael Felton]

That sounds reasonable. I guess it depends on the hole too to some extent. On a 450 yard par four I would tend towards that if you hit the green you should have a decent shot at a 2 putt. On a 320 yard par four then yes. It also depends on the size of the green. A big green can be much harsher than a small one.

Of course I say that and one of my favourite holes in the world is 8 at pine valley which has a tiny and severe green...

All that said if a good shot can wind up 4-5 feet away then id be okay with that. If you end up that far away you're going to have a straight uphill putt. That's good with me.

[Tom Kelly]

Variety.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()