[Ian Andrew]

"Every course needs a green that is on the edge of being completely unfair."

It's the one where you must manage your expectations to successfully play the hole.

I always saw Opportunity and Perseverance as equal and vital parts of the game.
I'm curious to see if golfers and architects see this "green on the edge" in a different light.


8th green at Glens Falls (seen on left) is a great example                    image by Brett Hochstein

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:


I used to think that having one green a bit more tilted than the rest was a handy speed governor for the rest of the course ... if you kept that green on the edge but still playable, the rest would be fine. 


For High Pointe it was #2 green.  I've said the same thing about #4 at Lost Dunes, but that one is more about taking the heat off the others re: contouring.


Anyway, I have seen a lot of older courses where this was done, but in the past 10-15 years, many of those "edge" greens have been rebuilt and the slopes softened, so that the greens can be made even faster ... bringing several of the other greens close to the edge.

[paul cowley]

"Every course needs a green that is on the edge of being completely unfair"


...'every course needs a green or two that are on the edge of being unfair'...is more to my liking. Ian. .

[Joe Sponcia]

Lookout Mountain actually has several, especially 16 (Eden) where you are almost better to chip up to the hole than be on the green. 


Over the years, I've found it's only unfair the first time or two you play.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Amateur/Recreational player peanut gallery over here....


No issue at all...as long as it is also not placed at the end of a particularly difficult hole.
I'm not saying that I seek "fair" golf...Just don't want "mean golf".


"There's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

[Matt MacIver]

If I'm below the hole, and putt uphill to the cup and miss, and then all comes back to my feet, or past - that's unfair. Everything else is fair game.

[Joe Sponcia]

Matt,


Good definition.

[Jim Sherma]

Agree with this fully. If I'm out of position on the green that's on me. If uphill putts won't stop without rolling back that's a bad hole location. If there are no locations that prevent this from happening that's a green that is too severe for the speeds.


I like larger greens that have areas that vary in their severity. Hershey's West course has a bunch of original greens that have a dominant tilt with variations within it. Moving the pin 10-15 feet can dramatically change how tough the hole location plays that day. There are some more severe greens that lose hole locations as the greens speed up. The greens are large enough though that there are enough less severe locations to use and putting off the green is rarely an issue. You could easily impact the average score at least a couple of shots by choosing the more severe areas on a bunch of holes.

If I'm below the hole, and putt uphill to the cup and miss, and then all comes back to my feet, or past - that's unfair. Everything else is fair game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

My favorite quote is Colt saying "In no case should a ball run from the putter like a swine possessed by the Devil."


I'm all for varying contours from green to green, but play it a bit more conservatively.  Just looking for harder putting and easier putting, not borderline unfair putting.  Seems to me hard enough if you are never sure from green to green how a putt will break, and can't get a consistent feel for it.


In reality, those borderline greens seem to come naturally with greater speed. Even 1990's greens are borderline on slopes.


I once contoured a course heavily at the request of the superintendent (separate from the recently discussed contouring heavily for Larry Nelson) as his argument was sloped greens would mean members would be okay with slower greens. But, come the first club event, they demanded another few feet on the stimpmeter and then complained loudly......other architects have said the same has happened to them.


I am not sure we need to go from the USGA "identify the best player" but really embarrass the others in the US Open to doing so on the local muni or resort, where I do most of my work. If working at a private club, have at it, but I haven't seen too many requests for such greens.

[Mike_Young]

So often we see hole locations on the "edgy side" while the green itself would be ok otherwise.  IMHO a "green on the edge" can be defined either by the putting difficulty or the difficulty in getting an approach close to the hole.  So often I think a green is called "edgy" when all it was was a bad hole location that was not meant to be there.  And then we see greens which may look simple but they dont allow for a close approach unless performed perfectly.  Oh well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


That is a good point.  All a green really needs is one hole location on edge for either approach or putting difficulty.  Flexible for every day play six days out of seven, and potentially edgy for events where the edgy location makes a lot more sense, than making an entire green edgy.


When grading greens, I often use two different percent of slopes for front portions and back portions, hoping to create that.  It usually works out better maintenance wise to have the back with more slope (more balls hit the front of the green, and flatter slopes reduce ball mark damage) but picking a Sunday pin area and giving that some contour to encourage getting closer is a good concept.


Or, have a tight but flatter area for the Sunday pin, and a more open but rolling area for the...ah...Saturday pin?

[paul cowley]

Good one Jeff!


I keep it simple and tell folks that we don't design greens to be stimped over 11 plus a little...if they cut them beyond that its on them if the aren't happy playing in what I call the 'silly zone'....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()