The putt as a penalty shot

[Forrest Richardson]

Well Joe, being able to 3-putt dead level greens is an art.

I'm not convinced any architects really think of extreme contouring as being a "penalty". It is, after all, always possible to 2-putt, all-be-it perhaps a very, very difficult result.

In designing "greens within greens", as it has been referred, it is often the transitions between these areas that I believe you refer. And, if a golfer approaching a green comes to rest upon one area other than that containing the pin, well, it will be difficult — perhaps it will even amount to an extra shot.

But, to call that a "penalty" is too harsh. A penalty implies an extra stroke added without the chance of holing or bettering position by means of a strike at the ball. Of which this does not apply to the condition of a very difficult, if not nearly impossible, putt across a transition or extreme gradient — or gradients (plural).

I might also add an item of interest that you rarely see in golf: The unplayable lie from the green — e.g., a golfer putts downhill and well off the green past the hole; and as opposed to playing back up the hill a greater distance — and because he now understands better the speed and line of the poorly played putt — takes a penalty and replays the original putt, this time right close to the hole or in it. The result, even if a 4-putt is the outcome, may be a better choice than attempting a new and equally demanding putt or shot.

A falsehood in golf is that 2-strokes is the "norm" once on the surface of the green. In a majority of my courses I look for 3-4 greens on which a 3-putt may be considered "acceptable" in ones execution. This does not mean the golfer will be happy with a 3-putt, but it will have seemed "acceptable". A 2-putt on any of these greens is a "gift" and a 1-putt is, well, let's say it's as if a decent bottle of Scotch was left at your door three nights in a row.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:

That contour wasn't designed as a penalty shot, per se, although what you had was certainly a difficult two-putt.

The contour was really designed the other way around -- so that the player who was chicken to aim at a back left hole location (over the nasty mound in front) would have to play short of the hole to avoid having to putt over the contour.  If you pull enough club to go back left, you'd better not block it out to the right.

There's a lot of short grass to the right of the green, where Mr. Schmidt hit the ball and got his four.  Sometimes, at Lost Dunes, the best place to miss is just off the green rather than all the way on the other side of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

As Tom says, most green dividers are probably intended to separate par from birdie in a more dramatic way than gentle rolls and a longer putt can, although, a longer putt is always a detriment to birdie.....

Any time you put a ridge in a green, there will be some combination of shot and pin location that will produce a putt that runs away to some degree from the hole.  But, most architects probably don't try purposely make anything specifically unputtable.  As the bumper sticker says, sometimes, ** it happens!

Some Tour Pro/Architects take greater pains than other architects to mollify the situation.  I remember hearing one in a speech go on and on about how he makes the lower tiers of his greens flatter, and actually raises the fronts as a backstop for a first putt rolling off the green from the upper tier.  He is using the "What if I hit it here" mentality, knowing he would want the green to help him correct his approach shot mistake.

I like your attitude of "Its only a golf shot"  The sun will rise tomorrow, the dog and kids will still love you, and life goes on.  If the course allowed you to recover from every missed shot, golfers would soon lose interest in the game....

[Forrest Richardson]

Sure, Jeff. Dogs love you. Right.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Forrest,

I have a Pembroke Welsh Corgi that seems fond of me.  Of course, I am in charge of daily feeding and walking.  Not to mention, she seems to be the only one fond of my "Roast Beef" cologne.........

[Forrest Richardson]

Aaaa, haaaa...there is a catch! I knew there had to be some degree of pay-off. I have a tortoise. A sulcata that will grow to be 36-inches in diameter when I'm, let's see, 165 years old.

[Joe Hancock]

Wow,

That's a lot of really cool information as to what is going on in the thought processes behind some greens contours. I really do appreciate it.

To think that I might not have really given this any thought had Shooter not told me my Brittany Spaniel could have hit a better approach shot! Gee, thanks, shooter!

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Shivas:

I had never thought of Lost Dunes rewarding players who "fire right at the flags."  I don't like the sound of that!  But I do agree that there are a lot of holes which give you a big place to miss (on the green or in a chipping area) and lure a lot of players to an area where it's very hard to get down in two.

In truth a lot of the approach shots at Lost Dunes are about distance control.  At the first, fifth, and sixth it's usually better to be past the hole and putting back up the hill (or at the sixth, just not having that front-right contour in your way).  At the fourth, eighth, tenth, fifteenth and seventeenth you need to get your approach back to the hole, or it's difficult to two-putt.

However, it's also true that at the second, third, seventh, eleventh, twelfth, and sixteenth, a shot to the wrong half of the green (left or right) leaves you with a very difficult two-putt.  

That said, it's not always a question of aiming right at the flag.  Last time I played there the pin was front left on 16.  I should have aimed at the left edge of the green, but I aimed at the flag and pushed it badly and the ball fed to the right, and there went my three-whack-free round of golf!  (I couldn't get the putt from right to front left within ten feet on that green ... it's one of the most severe out there, and again, it was designed the other way round, to feed you over to the right hand hole locations if you could hit it in the slot.  But it's a really stupid mistake to miss right with the hole left, as I did, so I deserved what I got.)

[RJ_Daley]

Tom it is fun to have you describe your playing of one of your hole designs.  Have you ever played one of your hole designs where you really had some specific strategy intended, and not because you missed a shot left, right, long or short; you simply forgot or missed the strategy mentally, only to kick yourself for not approaching the hole as you yourself intended when you built it?  

[M.W._Burrows]

What a great topic!

I think "the putt as a penalty shot" is one of the key design principles at the National.

With features like the knob on #1, the tiers on #3, 10, 18, the ridges on #2, 15, 12!!!, the plateaus of #11, and the Volcano and tiers of #6!!! you are often left with a probable three putt.  The greens surfaces are the primary defense against par at NGLA.  

With the fairways and approaches extremely firm it's a blast to watch how creative you have to be to attack certain pins there.

[rgkeller]

Of course, when NGLA was designed and built, green speeds were about six on the stimpmeter (which had not yet been invented.)

IMO, it is impossible to credit a designer of the older courses such as NGLA for using green contours to protect par.

Credit - or blame - should go to today's green superintendent.

[Joe Hancock]

Shivas,

Maybe I can't recall so well, but wasn't the pin on #16 back LEFT? I think it would make a difference in your last post as to fat side/ short side too. Correct me if I'm wrong...like you need to be told that!

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Shivas,

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis.  I've always liked to build at least a couple of greens where the "short side" was the better miss.  3 or 13 at High Pointe.  16 at Stonewall (Old).  I could go on.  

I was just saying that isn't ALWAYS the case at Lost Dunes, either.  You fire at the flag on the left side of #2 at your peril.  I'm keeping you on your toes.

Bill V,

Sure, there are holes where I don't figure out the best way to play them until after the fact.  This is inevitable when I'm sometimes trying to make the holes play different ways for people with different abilities.  Two examples:

The 18th at High Pointe:  when we were growing it in, the original superintendent (Dan Pillard) and I kept trying to knock it onto the green with our second shots, until the day Dan said he thought he had more chance of holing a 9-iron for eagle than of knocking it on in two and sinking the putt.  I haven't tried it seriously since.

The 3rd at Beechtree:  when we designed it I thought you'd want to keep the drive left so you could run it into the green; but after playing it a couple of times I decided it was better for me to drive it way down on the right and pitch over the greenside bunker, to hold it into the slope of the green a little instead of the green going straight away.  

[Joe Hancock]

Shivas,

Therein lies my true curiosity. One element of design is purely aesthetics. Another element is strategy of play. I've learned through construction about some of the things aesthetic. I still have a lot of curiosity concerning the playability issues.

TD already indicated that some stuff going on in his greens are discovered after the fact...and I honestly doubt any architect could possibly think through every angle of play, every trajectory, every miscalculated approach, etc. I've played quite a bit of golf, but just a "smidgen" compared to some of you guys and gals. How many greens have you played where you knew you were in the presence of genius? I'm still young in learning terms, so I have to ask a lot of questions.

Joe

[M.W._Burrows]

Of course, when NGLA was designed and built, green speeds were about six on the stimpmeter (which had not yet been invented.)

IMO, it is impossible to credit a designer of the older courses such as NGLA for using green contours to protect par.

Credit - or blame - should go to today's green superintendent.

Does anyone agree with this statement?

I've got to believe architects like Travis, MacDonald, and Tillinghast were creating greens with contours to penalize poor approaches.

[DMoriarty]

Of course, when NGLA was designed and built, green speeds were about six on the stimpmeter (which had not yet been invented.)

IMO, it is impossible to credit a designer of the older courses such as NGLA for using green contours to protect par.

Credit - or blame - should go to today's green superintendent.

Does anyone agree with this statement?

I've got to believe architects like Travis, MacDonald, and Tillinghast were creating greens with contours to penalize poor approaches.

I dont agree with it.  While I have never seen the Redan at the National, I think one need look no further than any well done Redan to see how architects used green slope to protect par.  

I think that perhaps Mr. Keller may be making the same mistake that Patrick Mucci made on a recent thread--  He seems to be assuming that green speed is the primary determinant of how well a green will hold.   In reality, the firmness of the green and the slope of the green are much more important factors to consider.  In other words, a green (or portion of a green) which slopes away from the golfer and which is firm will protect par, even if the stimp is at 6 or even less.