Was George Thomas right?

[Sam Krume]

What is your opinion about what Thomas had to say?  

Well it would change the strategy of golf considerably -- greens in regulation would become more important than anything else, so most people would aim at the center of the green most of the time.

But the thing most people miss is that it wouldn't just minimize putting; it would minimize short game play.  By Thomas' proposed values, missing the green and getting up and down would be a half against a guy who hit the green and three-putted!  If you missed the green, a good recovery would only save you half a shot, unless you holed it.

To me that's what is always missing in the debate about greens and greens contouring.  It's not just about putting, at all.  It's about short game skills, and missing on the right side of the hole?



Tom,
I couldn't agree more

[Patrick_Mucci]

To make a 15 foot putt, the player has a 1.18% margin of error.

To hit a shot to 15 feet from 200 yards, the player has a 2.5% margin of error.

To hit the ideal 10 yard section of fairway 300 yards away, the player has a 1.67% margin of error.

Jim,

Yes, but your stats fail to list and quantify the dire consequences for failure to execute each of those shots.

You only list the percentages for margins of error, and not the consequences of falling outside of those margins.

Let's start with #'s 5 and 14 at Pine Valley.

[Garland Bayley]

To make a 15 foot putt, the player has a 1.18% margin of error.

To hit a shot to 15 feet from 200 yards, the player has a 2.5% margin of error.

To hit the ideal 10 yard section of fairway 300 yards away, the player has a 1.67% margin of error.

Jim,

Yes, but your stats fail to list and quantify the dire consequences for failure to execute each of those shots.

You only list the percentages for margins of error, and not the consequences of falling outside of those margins.

Let's start with #'s 5 and 14 at Pine Valley.

Not only that, but the stats have really no meaning as they give no indication of the percentage of times the shots will be pulled off. I.e., it is much harder to accurately swing driver at 100mph+ than to stroke a 15 foot putt accurately.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,

Dire consequences or not, when the top ten most accurate drivers on Tour step on the tee box they hit the fairway 3 out of 4 attempts. Imagine how low they'd be going if every time they stepped on the green they made 3 out of 4 putts they looked at.  That's a lot of one putts.  

[Peter Pallotta]

We either believe that greens can and should be the great equalizers, or we don't. We either believe (or we don't) that golf courses should allow a weaker ball striker to compete against a stronger one by playing smart and by chipping and putting well. We either value the uniqueness of a game that challenges our misplaced notions of fairness, or we don't. And we either celebrate (or we denigrate) those examples of that game's fields of play that make this apparent unfairness most manifest, including via heavily contoured greens.

It really is that simple.

Peter

[Sven Nilsen]

An old article on the topic advocating smaller greens (Golf Illustrated Jan. 1922):

[Niall C]

Jim,
Not at all.  And I am not advocating Thomas' half stroke for putting idea.  I have always found it interesting though.  That said, unless the architecture changes, it is nothing but a different way to keep score. 

Mark

It isn't a different way to keep score, what it is is a different way to make your score. There's a difference.

It effectively reduces strategy and options by putting a premium on hitting the green.

Niall

[Niall C]

I think Thomas idea is an attempt to get back to the nature of golf as it originated. Think about it. The first hole at St. Andrews was a three shot hole. That devalues putting! It is the improvements in the golf ball that have caused putting to become too important!

If golf is played in the sand dunes, with obstacles sporadically on the ground on the way to the hole, then the game is interesting with 4 and 5 shot holes too. In fact, when the feathery became obsolete, some of the architects of the day advocated removing six greens, and playing longer holes to diminish the value of putting that was increased by the length the ball travelled.

GJ

If it truly was an attempt to get back to the nature of golf as it originated as you suggest, then rather than putts counting as half strokes, which they never did in the early days for very good reason, the change would have been in the courses not the scoring system. Golf in the early days didn't distinguish between different areas of the "green" as it was known then. Basically, greens didn't exist therefore there was no putting as such.

So if you want to go back to those days then the closest you're going to get to that today is probably a fast running links on flattish land with little differential between the green surface and the surrounding fairway. How likely is that you could replicate that on your average inland course ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

We either believe that greens can and should be the great equalizers, or we don't.

Pietro...I am not sure about this dichotomy. Its my opinion that no matter how crazy the green or dull the green, and given the same amount of putting time, better putters will win out at this part of the game.  I don't think there is any equalization at play. 

We either believe (or we don't) that golf courses should allow a weaker ball striker to compete against a stronger one by playing smart and by chipping and putting well.

I am not sure design has much to do with the above either.  Being a good ball striker or putter is not about design, but about practice and hard work.  I can't imagine a design which punishes a good ball striker...they will always have an advantage in this area over a poor ball striker...regardless of the design style. 

We either value the uniqueness of a game that challenges our misplaced notions of fairness, or we don't. And we either celebrate (or we denigrate) those examples of that game's fields of play that make this apparent unfairness most manifest, including via heavily contoured greens.

I can get behind this sentiment if only because it shows how subjective gca is.  I got a bit of a ticking off by Doak for wanting more short grass the more undulating the green and wanting flatish greens to balance out wilder greens.  Not sure why, but that is the nature of subjectivity.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

We either believe that greens can and should be the great equalizers, or we don't. We either believe (or we don't) that golf courses should allow a weaker ball striker to compete against a stronger one by playing smart and by chipping and putting well. We either value the uniqueness of a game that challenges our misplaced notions of fairness, or we don't. And we either celebrate (or we denigrate) those examples of that game's fields of play that make this apparent unfairness most manifest, including via heavily contoured greens.

It really is that simple.

I don't think you'll find any quotes on this site with me calling greens "the great equalizer".  I've been a good putter since I was a kid, but I really don't think my designs are all about trying to show off that skill, as with the two-handicaps who want to be more richly rewarded for their ability to hit greens in regulation.

For me it started as a logical reduction:  what can you do to make the game interesting, that all golfers can handle?

If you make long carries, a lot of people are not physically capable of getting over.  If you make narrow fairways, people will quit because they don't like looking for lost balls.

So I tend to build wide courses with scattered hazards, and put more of the challenge on the green end, where a 70-year-old woman or a 10-year-old kid might have more chance to enjoy themselves, and possibly even to be competitive.  Because everyone has an opportunity to put themselves in the right position to approach the hole [whether it takes them two shots to get there or four], and anyone could have a decent short game if they'd practice it.  I guess that does "equalize" things, but not in the same context it's generally used.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, Tom - I wasn't thinking of any course or designer in particular. I was thinking instead of an old South African man I used to play golf with as part of a foursome. I could tell right away that he was once a very good golfer, and he still was -- but banged up knees and various other ailments had significantly reduced his distance. What stood out now was how good a chipper and putter he still was -- just excellent. When we played courses with fairly flat/simply tilted greens, me and the other two golfers (both long hitters) had a chance to beat him. He seemed to 3 putt never, but on these greens none of the rest of us 3 putted very often either -- and so whatever gain we'd achieved from reaching certain holes in two or from hitting more greens (because of shorter approaches) still 'held firm', i.e. the greens did not tip the scales at all back into the favour of someone whose game (now) was very chipping-putting dependent. Of course, when we (on the rare occasion) played a course with greens that had significant movement/contours on them, the tables were turned. He might not reach/hit as many greens as we did, but like a relentless machine on those contoured greens he'd time and again chip it close and then (almost invariably) sink the putt -- while the rest of us were chipping into swales that sent balls in the wrong direction, and then coming up way short/long with our first putts etc. And when we added up the scores at the end of the round, he had beaten us like a drum. That's what I was thinking about greens being great equalizers. That's what I was thinking about a misplaced sense of fairness -- a misplaced sense that I'd found myself sharing. (It is one of the reasons an average golfer like me enjoys flattish/simply titled greens -- i.e. since I'm no more better a putter than I am an iron player, competing against better players only becomes possible if I'm not three putting all day long, even if they're not either). 

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

George Thomas makes a reasoned argument.

It's hard for me to equate, from so many aspects, a 3 foot putt for par on the 5th or 14th green at Pine Valley with the tee shot required to hit those greens.

[Niall C]

I suppose heavily contoured greens are the great equaliser in the same way that very narrow fairways are as well. There must come a point where even the best drivers and the best putters can't readily cope with the narrow fairways/contoured greens such that any competitive advantage they had over the wayward hitter/average putter would be lost.

Personally speaking, once you get by the tipping point for each eg. too contoured greens or too narrow a fairway, I lose interest as it becomes a lottery.

Niall 

[Jim Nugent]

To make a 15 foot putt, the player has a 1.18% margin of error.

To hit a shot to 15 feet from 200 yards, the player has a 2.5% margin of error.

To hit the ideal 10 yard section of fairway 300 yards away, the player has a 1.67% margin of error.

How do you calculate those figures?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I suppose heavily contoured greens are the great equaliser in the same way that very narrow fairways are as well. There must come a point where even the best drivers and the best putters can't readily cope with the narrow fairways/contoured greens such that any competitive advantage they had over the wayward hitter/average putter would be lost.

Personally speaking, once you get by the tipping point for each eg. too contoured greens or too narrow a fairway, I lose interest as it becomes a lottery.

Niall,

With today's increased and ridiculous green speeds, heavily contoured greens have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

They're architecturally extinct.

Flattened greens have removed several talents, including "thought" on the approach, recovery and putting.

[Tom_Doak]

Niall,

With today's increased and ridiculous green speeds, heavily contoured greens have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

They're architecturally extinct.

Flattened greens have removed several talents, including "thought" on the approach, recovery and putting.

Extinct might be too strong a word.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
They are not extinct and it would be a sad day if they were.  As long as you have four or five “pinnable areas” on a green, you can do almost whatever you want with the rest of the green (and some architects do).  The only limitation is the super has to be able to mow them without scalping and be prepared for hand watering the high spots depending on the weather/climate.    

Niall’s point is similar to mine, you have to find the right balance.  Like ANY design feature, if it is over used, it is probably not a good thing.  If for example, every hole at Cypress Point looked like the 15th hole, it wouldn’t be so special anymore.  Like a great movie or composition, the ebbs and flows and variety are what makes them great!

Furthermore, sometimes simpler is better, e.g. one bunker instead of twelve, one tree instead of a forest, one well placed mound or spine on a green vs three buried elephants and two valleys of sin, one meandering brook instead of three ponds,…  At the same time, ALL of the above options can work fantastic as well, but a steady repetitive diet of any of them gets old fast at least for me.    

Niall,
You are correct about "a different way to keep score" vs. "a different way to make your score".  Regardless, it would be interesting to play a match that way (I admit that I have never tried it) and see how it impacts our play.  It actually might make us better/smarter players.  

I played one time at Wilmington CC with Bobby Murphy (a good friend of mine and a top ameateur in Delaware).  He was one of the smartest (and talented) golfers I ever played with.  He never short-sided himself once, always played to where he had a safe two putt opportunity or reasonable chance for birdie.  I was firing at flags but doing a great job at getting up and down when I needed to.  I shot 71 and lost to him by five shots  With the Thomas scoring system, he would have beat me by probably ten!  I remain an aggresssive player but learned something that day and always remember his round of golf.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Is is a coincidence that Mark starts a thread hinting that putts count too much ?? 

I have always been intrigued at the Arbitrary Values concept by Thomas. It actually is a fun game, even on courses with normal sized (larger) greens.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
LOL!  If I had a putter like yours (hickory shafted bullseye)  and could putt like you maybe I would suggest putts count for 1 1/2 strokes each 

We will have to try this scoring method next time we play and see who wins the money 

[Forrest Richardson]

I burned the wooden shafted club this past Christmas. It got down to 65 here in Phoenix and we simply had to stay warm   

I play now with a PING WACK-E that doubles as a waffle iron and cattle branding iron.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

With today's increased and ridiculous green speeds, heavily contoured greens have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

They're architecturally extinct.

Flattened greens have removed several talents, including "thought" on the approach, recovery and putting.

Extinct might be too strong a word.

Agreed,  so I'll insert the word: "Almost".

However, I think that Streamsong Blue is one of the exceptions in today's architectural world

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
No one will argue that green speed is not the culprit.  The only reason they "had to" change two of Merion's greens is because of green speed.  In many ways increased green speed impacts older courses more than modern ones because architects today at least know what to expect regarding the likely speed of their greens when designing them.  They know how much contour to add before things get goofy.  There are great old sets of Ross greens like at Oyster Harbors that would be boardline unplayable at overly high green speeds.  At 11 or so they are still fun and very challenging.  Much above that and they become silly as no one likes to four and five putt and still not get the ball on the hole.  I have only played Streamsong Blue twice but I suspect if the speeds get too high, this would be the case there.  It might be fun playing in a scramble with a case of beer but we know where courses like that rate on the Doak scale 😉

Wildly contoured and severe greens can be fun but need to be managed properly.  As much as we don't like to admit it, most golfers do play with a pencil in their pocket

Note:  For the record, the greens at Streamsong (on both courses) were maintained at very managable speeds!  And by the way, if you play there, take a fishing pole as the bass fishing is amazing!  Just keep an eye out for alligators!

[Garland Bayley]

I think Thomas idea is an attempt to get back to the nature of golf as it originated. Think about it. The first hole at St. Andrews was a three shot hole. That devalues putting! It is the improvements in the golf ball that have caused putting to become too important!

If golf is played in the sand dunes, with obstacles sporadically on the ground on the way to the hole, then the game is interesting with 4 and 5 shot holes too. In fact, when the feathery became obsolete, some of the architects of the day advocated removing six greens, and playing longer holes to diminish the value of putting that was increased by the length the ball travelled.

GJ

If it truly was an attempt to get back to the nature of golf as it originated as you suggest, then rather than putts counting as half strokes, which they never did in the early days for very good reason, the change would have been in the courses not the scoring system. Golf in the early days didn't distinguish between different areas of the "green" as it was known then. Basically, greens didn't exist therefore there was no putting as such.

So if you want to go back to those days then the closest you're going to get to that today is probably a fast running links on flattish land with little differential between the green surface and the surrounding fairway. How likely is that you could replicate that on your average inland course ?

Niall

I believe you take me too literally. My point simply was that in the origins of the game putting was a smaller fraction of the strokes than it has become.
Assigning 1/2 stroke would also make putting a smaller fraction of the strokes.

[Niall C]

GJ

I don't think you take me literally enough !! My point was that in the old days they didn't have putting, it was all the same. Why not stick to that ethos, it has served the game well.

Niall

[Kyle Harris]

Wasn't there a rule, or maybe a concept, at one point in time that the distance to the hole was more important in regard to marking a ball, etc. than location on one part of the course or the other?

Is it possible that this idea is lost in what Thomas is saying, and that the half-shot concept applied to all shots within a certain distance to the hole?

The idea is still bollocks, in my opinion, but I felt compelled to ask the question.