Has modern day golf/architecture rejected this feature due to fairness ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

[Tom_Doak]

I assume you're talking about the big three-tiered green, and not the deep bunker or the barranca.


The green with huge tiers is a tough sell in modern golf.  Some people love them, but more and more complain about the fairness.  To be fair, that green at Pasatiempo is uber-severe ... if you're on the middle tier trying to putt to the back flag, and don't get up the slope, the ball might wind up coming right back past you and off the front of the green.  Even I might mutter "unfair" under my breath at that, whether it's the same for everyone or not.

[Carl Rogers]

I assume you're talking about the big three-tiered green, and not the deep bunker or the barranca.


The green with huge tiers is a tough sell in modern golf.  Some people love them, but more and more complain about the fairness.  To be fair, that green at Pasatiempo is uber-severe ... if you're on the middle tier trying to putt to the back flag, and don't get up the slope, the ball might wind up coming right back past you and off the front of the green.  Even I might mutter "unfair" under my breath at that, whether it's the same for everyone or not.

Green speed would seem to be the 'fairness' determining factor.
Is this example of potential 'unfairness' any more 'unfair' than a 25 yard wide landing zone for a tee shot on a 470 yard par 4?

[Jon Wiggett]

Carl,

almost correct IMO but I would suggest that it is inappropriate maintenance when the green is stimping to high for the contour. Fairness is a poor concept and has no place in playing the game though everything to do with the rules. Being playable is more important.

However I think you, Tom and I all mean much the same thing.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Green speed would seem to be the 'fairness' determining factor.
 
Carl,
 
Rethink your response in the context of green speeds in 1926.
 
1936
 
1946
 
1956
 
1966
 
1976.
 
I don't think green speeds are the issue.
 
 

Is this example of potential 'unfairness' any more 'unfair' than a 25 yard wide landing zone for a tee shot on a 470 yard par 4?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,
 
While the three tiered green is the primary target, having to navigate that huge yawning bunker in combination with the gully adds to the challenge.
 
Imagine putting from the bottom tier to the top tier, or from the top tier to the bottom tier.
 
A critical demand on that hole is hitting your approach to the tier where the hole is cut.
There's a clear premium on the aerial aspect, specifically distance control and accuracy.
 
Shouldn't there be a hole with demands on the approach, with graduated penalties for failing to meet that demand ?

[Tom_Doak]

Imagine putting from the bottom tier to the top tier, or from the top tier to the bottom tier.
 
A critical demand on that hole is hitting your approach to the tier where the hole is cut.
There's a clear premium on the aerial aspect, specifically distance control and accuracy.
 
Shouldn't there be a hole with demands on the approach, with graduated penalties for failing to meet that demand ?

Patrick:


I was the architectural consultant at Pasatiempo for a number of years, so I've hit a bunch of putts on that green from all directions. 


Downhill putts concerned most people -- whether you could stop the ball on the tier where the hole was cut -- and sometimes it's almost impossible if the green speeds are too high there.  Of course, that is also true of the 11th green at Crystal Downs, and I remind guests all the time that if they've gone above the hole, they have made a serious mistake.  It is helpful to think of a pond being on the tier above the flag -- there is a real penalty for missing long.

Still, the putt that worried me the most was the one that didn't get quite from the middle to the top, and wound up coming back past me.  I feel that most golfers should be able to prevent going long with their approach, but there are just so many ways to wind up short of the hole [including that some just weren't long enough to get there with your approach shot] that I think shots from below the hole / short of the hole should have a bit more fairness to them.

[Chris Cupit]

 
Shouldn't there be a hole with demands on the approach, with graduated penalties for failing to meet that demand ?

While I understand that sentiment I am a little surprised by it coming from you.  To me I hate the notion of trying to build a "proportional" or "fair" golf course.  It reminds me of the scene from "Dead Poets Society" where the textbook reccomends rating poetry in a very linear fashion based somehow on artistic and technical merits.


Now, I have never played Pasatiempo and I could see that some would hate hitting a "negative yardage" shot, but I like a little craziness every now and again. 

[Andrew Simpson]

Still, the putt that worried me the most was the one that didn't get quite from the middle to the top, and wound up coming back past me.

Pardon the crude edit but on that one point, why on earth should a design cater for a golfer who can't hit a putt with the right pace to get up a level?
 Then you can't put in any level of difficulty just cater for egos.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,


Proportionate or incremental penalties don't equate to fairness.


What I meant is as follows:


Hit to the wrong tier and you'll probably 2, 3 or 4 putt, miss the green by going in the bunker and it gets worse, go in the gully and it's probably worse.


Hit to the appropriate tier and you'll probably par the hole.


Nothing wrong with a par.


Last time I played, the hole was on the to tier, I hit the middle tier, sunk a 6-8 footer for par and was very happy

[Jerry Kluger]

My old club had a similar green although it was narrower and had a steep drop off to the left with a severe right to left tilt on the lowest level -  it was however a par 5 which meant that most players were using very short clubs into it.  My current club similarly has a three tiered green with big drop off left and water right - again, a par 5.


I have to think that many modern courses with big contoured greens play similarly although they aren't as visually intimidating.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,


What's the he total square footage of the green and what's the square footage of each tier ?


It seemed that the top tier was more than ample.


Ditto the the middle tier


With the bottom tier being the smallest.


It seemed to me that the more difficult the target, distance wise, (tier 1, 2 or 3) the bigger the target

[Patrick_Mucci]

Still, the putt that worried me the most was the one that didn't get quite from the middle to the top, and wound up coming back past me.

Pardon the crude edit but on that one point, why on earth should a design cater for a golfer who can't hit a putt with the right pace to get up a level?
 Then you can't put in any level of difficulty just cater for egos.

Andrew,

If you look at the photo you become aware of the scale of that green.

Putting from one tier to another is no easy task

Imagine how it must have been on opening day in 1926 with green speeds of 6-8

[Andrew Simpson]

Still, the putt that worried me the most was the one that didn't get quite from the middle to the top, and wound up coming back past me.

Pardon the crude edit but on that one point, why on earth should a design cater for a golfer who can't hit a putt with the right pace to get up a level?
 Then you can't put in any level of difficulty just cater for egos.

Andrew,

If you look at the photo you become aware of the scale of that green.

Putting from one tier to another is no easy task

Imagine how it must have been on opening day in 1926 with green speeds of 6-8

I see what you are saying, never been near there but played enough to understand the principle. Playing at that speed it would have been a simpler putt but even today the first object is to get to the level (when we were speaking about middle to upper)
 You have to play the %s and make sure that you get on the level leaving a 2 putt at worst, or if you try to be cute and don't get up then you have to take the punishment. It's incremental as you say so fair in my book.

[Tom_Doak]

Still, the putt that worried me the most was the one that didn't get quite from the middle to the top, and wound up coming back past me.

Pardon the crude edit but on that one point, why on earth should a design cater for a golfer who can't hit a putt with the right pace to get up a level?
 Then you can't put in any level of difficulty just cater for egos.

Andrew:


I think I've built as many difficult greens as anyone alive, so I understand your objection. That particular green does have some VERY steep tiers.  Getting the putt up to the top on the first try is not as easy as you make it sound.  I'm a very good putter, and I've failed to do it more than once, and I've watched quite a few others try and fail.


Patrick:


Measuring off Google Earth, that green is between 8,000 and 8,500 square feet.  I don't know exactly how the area is broken down ... plus it depends a lot on how you count the slopes between the tiers.  My sense is that you've got it correct if you only count the flat portions ... but I would guess even the biggest flat portion, in the back, is not more than 2,500 square feet.  That's not a very big target, by anyone's standards.


 

[Andrew Simpson]

Andrew:

I think I've built as many difficult greens as anyone alive, so I understand your objection.That particular green does have some VERY steep tiers.  Getting the putt up to the top on the first try is not as easy as you make it sound.  I'm a very good putter, and I've failed to do it more than once, and I've watched quite a few others try and fail.

I understand what you are saying but as said to Peter, if the risk on not reaching the upper tier is watching the ball roll back off the green then you can only blame the player on a bad play. I'm not talking about holing the putt or making it simple but weighing up the options and making sure you don't put yourself in the bad position (further away than you started, with the same problem!)
They don't call me "Andy, putts like god" for nothing but there are times that holing the putt isn't the goal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew,


Approach shots with spin, which land on the appropriate tier often roll back off that tier and down to the next tier.


Approach shots hit into the slope separating the tiers will not bounce forward, rather they'll roll back onto the tier below the impact slope.


When the hole is cut on the back tier, it takes a bold golfer to attack and that tier.


Look at that photo and see how close the OB is to the back of that green.


It's easy to play golf video games and profer how we'd play with the hole pictured, but when you're about to hit into that green you're struck by the consequences of less than a perfect shot.


As Tom Doak indicated, and perhaps lost in the photo is how high and how steep those slopes are.


I hammered my putt from the middle to the upper tier and still left my putt 6-8 feet short.


That hole calls for a good drive, precise approach and deft touch on the green.


MacKenzie didn't call it his best par 4 for nothing 😜

[Peter Pallotta]

I was surprised to learn from Tom that such greens are tough sells in today's world, with some loving them but more calling them unfair. I've never played a course/green with such huge tiers, but I have played several with more-modern style contouring as well as many courses/greens with old fashioned severe tilts. For an average golfer like me, and a basically average putter, those are challenging greens too; but this one from Pasatiempo looks just so darn cool and nerve-wrackingly fun that, if I were going to 3 putt anyway, I think I'd rather 3 putt over that than over more 'run-of-the-mill' contours -- and I would've guessed that many/most average golfers would too. The green is so dramatic that it would make me feel like I was playing a game within a game - i.e. one game from the tee to the putting surface, and then a strikingly different/second game on the greens. (Maybe it's only good golfers, or golfers who think themselves good, who complain about greens being unfair; most of the rest of us feel it in poor taste to blame an unmoving, inanimate object for our failings.)   
Peter

Pat - My compliments for admitting (well, at least implicitly) that you didn't hit your approach shot well enough to get onto the proper tier! I was left wondering: sure, it would've taken a very bold shot to get to the upper tier, but what has Patrick got to lose, or left to prove?     

[Bill Vogeney]

I love this green at Pasatiempo. I'd rather play a hole with a green like this than some modern Jones course with pinched fairway bunkers that most likely will catch your drive if you don't thread it in a 25-yard corridor.


My theory is this: the more interesting and challenging the green complexes, the more interesting the golf course. If my handicap was around scratch, I might not think this. I am a hack 9, and I could play Pasatiempo every day. Heck I could play this hole over and over again.

[William_G]

Olympic took out their 3 tiered #7 green supposedly due to fairness

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,
 
I could play 36 or 54 at Pasatiempo every day.
 
I simply love evertything about that course.
 
Peter,
 
I heeled my approach iron and the ball hit into the slope and rolled back to the middle tier.
 
I had just birdied # 14 and # 15, so I was feeling good about getting my approach on the upper tier, but, the hole was cut back rightish, and I was concerned about going long and didn't put the best swing on the shot.
 
I was probably a little defensive as I had a great round going and didn't want to lose it on that hole by going OB long.

[Martin Lehmann]

In my view tiers in greens are fantastic. They are a relatively simple way to add a lot of strategy and attractiveness to a hole. In Europe the 8th hole at Huntercombe springs to my mind. Great multi-level greens are the 3th at Wentworth West and the 18th at The Belfry Brabazon.


I have never visited, let alone played, Pasatiempo, but in all honesty the hole in the picture doesn't look particularly nice to me. The shape and style of the right hand bunker are pretty ugly...

[Pat Burke]

Always struck me funny that if someone hit it on a top tier they felt it unfair if they couldn't stop a putt going down towards the hole.
I would usually ask them if the pin was on the back tier, and they hit it over the green, should they be easily able to stop their pitch coming back?
The wrong shot (either by club selection or execution) sometimes just leaves you in a bad spot.


There are times, I've aimed at the "short side" of a hole location to avoid a severely downhill  or sliding putt, favoring a straightforward uphill chip/pitch

[Josh Stevens]

Never played the course.  How do its green contours compare with other courses in the area.  How to do they compare to courses built in recent years?

Played at my home course the other day with a guest.  Our greens are in general the hardest, fastest and most undulating in town.  Guest played what he thought was splendid approach right at the pin on the 2nd hole, but it was probably 6 inches from being perfect.  So rather than hopping forward to be dead by the hole, it instead kicked hard left off the tier and end up 30 feet down the hill from which he three putted.  Guest swore like a drunken sailor and I giggled. 

So yes in general, I think the average golfer hates these greens.  So unfair

[Sean_A]

I definitely think extreme greens of any type are deemed unfair and are slowly dying away...thats evolution  In some cases its justified, in others its a green speed issue rather than green design issue and sometimes its just plain stupid to alter the greens.  That said, I have a problem with a putt rolling back past me...no matter the reason.  I wouldn't say its unfair, but I would say its a bit mickey mouse.


Ciao