[Evan_Green]

Curious as to what folks here think of this statement:


"For a green complex to be great...it needs to make you think about it from the tee"


In other words the green complex is such that it influences your strategy from the tee...you plan your tee shot and your strategy on how you are going to play the hole keeping in mind the green complex that lays ahead.


Not saying that all green complexes that cause you to think about them from the tee are great, just throwing out the idea, is it a necessary pre-requisite for a green complex to be great that it makes you think about it from the tee? Or not?


Agree? Disagree? Any Examples for/against?


I'll throw out #17 St Andrews as an obvious one (and there are many others on that course)...

[Mike Nuzzo]

Are there any great greens (complexes) that aren't on great holes?
Cheers

[Greg Smith]

Not on great holes?   Off the top of my head, the 5th at Glens Falls.  There's a good pic of it on the course profile.  The hole would be unremarkable if not for that green.

[Kalen Braley]

what if its a non reachable par 5?  Could it still qualify as being great?

[Jeff Schley]

what if its a non reachable par 5?  Could it still qualify as being great?

Agree, this is a complex question as so much goes into it. 

From what distance is the approach shot?
Are there hazards around it?

[Kalen Braley]

what if its a non reachable par 5?  Could it still qualify as being great?

Agree, this is a complex question as so much goes into it. 

From what distance is the approach shot?
Are there hazards around it?

Jeff,


This is how it is when I tee off on 95% of Par 5s....they are non-reachable for me.  I must admit, I rarely think about the green when standing on the tee, but I will think a ton about what I want to accomplish with my 2nd shot, especially when the last 50-75 yards or so to the green is complicated....

[Thomas Dai]

Can’t think off the top of my head of many great holes that have a less than great green complex.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

By this theory, there can be no great practice putting green complexes, eh?


It also doesn't account for context, such as a flat green in a sequence of rolling greens over a 3-5 hole stretch that can get a golfer thinking about their putt based on "Is this green really as flat as it looks?"  Or an easy hole among hard ones, etc.


What about 9 green at TOC? Not a lot about it, but seems so simple its tempting to bomb it, no?


What about 7 Pebble Beach?  Is not the beauty of that green its best feature?  Could there be a great green at the end of a so so hole?  I would think so.  Go back to Ian's post, every golfer will define what is great in their own way, sorting out among aesthetics, challenge, strategy, etc. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

It also doesn't account for context, 

I disagree. Both Evan and my comments allow for context - there is nothing exclusionary other than not-great.
What are some of your greatest greens (complexes)?

[Sean_A]

Can’t think off the top of my head of many great holes that have a less than great green complex.
Atb

I can think of a ton of examples...though you may disagree about the examples or even what great means. Take Kington for example, I don't think there is a great green on the course with the possible exception of 18, but I think 9, 12 & 13 are all great holes.  St Enodoc is another example...where are the great greens on that course...not many, but 4 & 6 are certainly great holes with nothing special about the greens...its the location of the greens in relation to the hole which is outstanding. Great golf holes don't really require any singular great elements, but how the elements of the hole comes together can make all the difference in the world.

Ciao

[Grant Saunders]

Can’t think off the top of my head of many great holes that have a less than great green complex.
Atb

As the risk of getting slayed, I would pose the question as to how great the greens complex is on the 16th at Cypress Point.

 
If you can divorce location of a green as a factor that counts as part of the complex, the green contouring and bunkers present could be perceived a little underwhelming and would likely never get discussed if they were found at the end of a straight away par 4 somewhere else.

[Cal Seifert]

Can’t think off the top of my head of many great holes that have a less than great green complex.
Atb

4th at Bethpage Black?  Almost every green there is flat and quite dull.  I'm sure this is due to maintenance changes over the years though. 

[corey miller]

I think Sleepy Hollow #6 is a great greensite/green.  It is at the end of a rising fairway (from >190 shot is blind) with a Principles nose bunker and a neat back and severe back to front sloping green with a few pimples. 

The green is fantastic and I love the "last 150 yards" of the hole.

That said, it is far from the "best hole" on this course though it is arguably the best green.  Many are less than enthused with what is an awkward tee-shot on the par 5 hole that plays as a long 4 or 4.5.

I don't think anyone is thinking of this green from the tee but I would certainly understand a lay-up (flirting with PN bunker) to hopefully take three put out of play.

Not sure this great green would be great on anything other than a par "4.5" hole.

[Ian Andrew]

Can’t think off the top of my head of many great holes that have a less than great green complex.
Atb

I know I'm repeating a little, but there are lot's of examples at Bethpage (Black)
Greens are not very inspiring, but many,many holes sure are.


Back to the question, many lifeless pieces of ground are made sublime by decisions at the green
Since Mike is on here, the 7th at Wolf Point is among my very favourites.

[Ian Andrew]

Examples that stand out:



1. steep as hell - because that can be enough to change the thought process
2. fall in another direction - other than back to front
3. be strongly contoured internally
4. be crowned


I'm sure I'm missing some still.


I'm not as big a fan of:


1. work where contours come at the edge of the green (Modern Idea that eats all the good pin positions)
2. tiers - don't mind transitions, hate the obvious tier

[Joe Hancock]

[size=78%]2. tiers - don't mind transitions, hate the obvious tier[/size]

Yes, tiers are not all created equal. There is “Bored Two Tiers” or there is “Tiers For Fears”....


Sorry Ian, you deserve better....

[John Kirk]

Offering a different perspective.

I think a green can be considered great if it yields a consistent variety of interesting putts.

I'll give an example that many people will know.  The 16th hole at Pasatiempo has a famous three-tiered green, but the putts that one gets on that green tend to be either relatively short and straight, or very difficult putts from one tier to another, with a low probability for a two putt.  I say it's a very good, dramatic golf hole, but the emphasis is on ball striking.

On the other hand, the par-5 13th hole at Pasatiempo has a green shaped like a "Y", and the back bunker is absolute death for back pin placements.  Mortals often have a wedge for their third shot, and it is surprisingly easy to come up short, leaving a lot of long, uphill putts that can break either way.  It seems like a new exciting challenge every time I size up my first putt there.  A green with a great variety of putts.

In general, I think the holes with small, sloped greens are great for strategic golf, but I prefer larger greens that yield a variety of challenging short, medium and long putts. 

 

[John Kirk]

I'm going to bump this once.  I thought what I said was a worthy addition to the discussion.  Either that, or I feel like I'm losing relevance on GCA, and nobody's paying attention to me any more.  One or the other.

Are we classifying greens as great only if they serve the purpose to define a hole's difficulty and strategic tee-to-green interest?  Or, is it enough that a green consistently yields enjoyable putts?

Let's return to Pasatiempo, a hilly course open to the public that many here have played.   I love playing golf there.  Overall, I'd argue that putting is not particularly enjoyable there.  All other shots there are of great interest, but too often putting is a defensive game where a "fall line" is determined and a delicate play follows.

Does Pebble Beach have any great greens?  The average size is only 3500 square feet, or something like that.  A course with small greens will yield lots of short game shots, and fewer medium to long putts.

I belong to Ballyneal.  The short par 5 8th hole has a severely sloped green, which yields a lot of short putts, and a significant percentage of plays where a poor chip or putt results in the ball coming back to your feet.  On the other hand, the large 2nd green yields a variety of long putts that break a moderate amount.  The putts there are almost always fun.

In order to answer the question about what makes green complexes great, a study asking golfers what types of putts they enjoy best is required.  Lower handicappers probably like different kinds of challenges, on average.  I want to be confronted with a variety of different putts; a steady diet of flat thirty footers that break a couple inches is undesirable, but so is a steady diet of sloped, tricky fifteen footers.

Once more, I say a great green is one where the putting is great.  A great golf hole may be something completely different. 

[Niall C]

John


Haven't the time to answer all your points but let me comment on your preference for large greens. As someone who misses more than their fair share of greens I'm not sure I quite share your love. You might imagine that on the contrary I'd be happier on larger greens as percentage wise I'm likely to hit more of them however in doing so I'm going to leave myself a lot of long putts and for me there is nothing worse than having to give the putt a real clatter to get it up to the hole. Of course I could use a wedge or a 7 iron to bump it up, both of which I enjoy however I'm far too conservative to resort to using anything other than a putter on the green.


Niall


ps. I've played Pasatiempo and left myself a putt from the bottom tier to the top tier on the 16th. Not much fun and I love the course. Had a similar but worse experience on I think the 10th green at Balmedie when even a half swing didn't get me up to the top level. I should say that was unusual for that course as the internal green contours were perhaps its best feature IMO.

[Jason Topp]

My favorite greens have a simple tilt towards a corner with a few spines thrown in for variety.  The reason I like such greens is that there is a fairly simple but endlessly set of decisions that such a green imposes, from the tee shot, to the approach, to a chip shot and event to a short putt. 


On the way to the green, you want to position your approach so the slope helps, rather than hurts you.  On your approach, you need to decide between the safe side of the green, which often can yield a challenging two putt or to short side yourself which can lead to a straightforward chip or to go for the pin.


On putts or chips, you are choosing between a wide variety of potential lines that can result in holing the shot but offsetting that choice with what may follow.


Tilted greens need to be kept at an appropriate speed.  Too fast and the ball does not stay on the green.  Too slow and they are still interesting although the interest is reduced as the danger fades.  Unfortunately at speeds above 10 on the stimpmeter great tilted greens turn into a farce and there are not many US private clubs that would opt for greens much slower than that level.

[Evan_Green]

Offering a different perspective.

I think a green can be considered great if it yields a consistent variety of interesting putts.

I'll give an example that many people will know.  The 16th hole at Pasatiempo has a famous three-tiered green, but the putts that one gets on that green tend to be either relatively short and straight, or very difficult putts from one tier to another, with a low probability for a two putt.  I say it's a very good, dramatic golf hole, but the emphasis is on ball striking.

John - Your point is well taken that good putting makes for good greens... I guess one of the things I was getting at in posing the original question was about the design of the green complex making the golfer think about what he is going to do when standing on the tee. So for example with 16 @ Pasatiempo -you need to think about where the pin is located on that green, what angle you want to come in from etc and how far you want to hit the ball to give you the right shot to that pin - and of course it changes greatly based on where they pin is located. Putting itself on that green may be either simple or super hard depending on whether you hit the right tier or not, but the overall point being the design of the green and placement of surrounding bunkers, slope etc is such that it makes you think about it from the tee (and on such a green the tiers act as "on the green hazards" hit in the wrong place, its like hitting into a bunker ...you can save par, but you have work to do).


Maybe as a result of reading the responses on this thread, my conclusion is there are great green complexes that make you think about them from the tee and there are great green in of themselves because putting on them is so fascinating. What do you think?

[Gib_Papazian]

John (yes, I am still alive), I believe one could cogently argue that Pasatiempo has the most interesting set of putting surfaces in California. Some will throw rotten fruit at me, but the greens at Spanish Bay are certainly top-25; in my book, top 10.


When evaluating and asserting the subjective qualifications of what makes this green complex - or that one - "great," it is necessary to look at the actual rolls and folds of the putting surface, irrespective of the way it is presented. To me, both Pasatiempo and Spanish Bay (since the ill-advised turf conversion) have wonderfully clever putting surfaces, but have been rolled and cut to the point of unplayability.


Since I have a direct line to C.B. Macdonald (through my seances with George Bahto), he is perplexed why anyone would choose to inflict lighting-fast putting surfaces on players at NGLA. Stimp-meters have become nothing more than measurements of club penis-length, irrespective of the original intent of the architect. #1. is absurd - and #6 usually Stimps at a level to encourage what Goodale refers to as "infinite putting" - and completely negates the fun to be had, trying to navigate a wild labyrinth.


If Pasatiempo were to slow down their greens by a third, it would introduce all sorts of heretofore untried, creative short game and putting options. As it is, even a tentative, constrictive tap can run a ball off the green on at least six of the holes. The imbeciles managing the facility have made #8, 11 and 16 unplayable.

Putting aside Wille Campbell's bunker, Sea Headrig might be the outstanding green on the planet - but the rest of the hole is a fairly-straightforward tee shot to a garden variety, undulating links fairway. The two times i have been there, the putting surfaces were rolling at perfectly sane levels, providing an opportunity to study and experience the genius of the greens without inflicting the unnecessary stress     endemic to trying to negotiate an obstacle course on roller skates.

Several other courses with undulating - but terrifically conceived greens - ruined by egocentric adherence to the "faster is better ethos" come to mind: Winged Foot West, Oakmont (stop it!, you know #2 is ridiculous) and 1/2 the Mackenzie courses. The Good Doctor and Robert Hunter would roll their eyes, watching balls at Green Hills blown off greens (like #9) and down the fairway 100 yards.

[Ira Fishman]

In light of my status as a eminently average player, I assess Green Complexes in terms of the green plus  all proximately situated land. Hence, chipping and pitching—and I mean the challenging fun thereby associated—are a key part of the assessment. None better than Ross, but Pasatiempo (one play only) when bunkers, mounds, and contours evaluated, has to be near top of list.


Ira

[John Kirk]

Maybe as a result of reading the responses on this thread, my conclusion is there are great green complexes that make you think about them from the tee and there are great green in of themselves because putting on them is so fascinating. What do you think?

Thanks for the responses.

My conclusion, after thinking about this for another couple of days, is it's difficult, if not impossible, to separate the green from the golf hole (whole).  The architect makes a decision about the size and shape of the green, and this dictates the types of putts a golfer will encounter.

I did want to comment on your impression of Pasatiempo's 16th hole, where you feel it is helpful to know where the pin is located on any given day.  You can see the 16th green from the 10th green, and if you were inclined to know, then you can see where it is.  However, for me the drive is effectively very narrow, and I'm trying to hit either driver or 3-wood down the left-center of the fairway, quite a bit left of the knob where they used to have a flag.  If you push a driver right nowadays, you typically have a chip out or an out of bounds penalty.  The approach shot is very difficult when it is over about 150-160 yards, so you have to be aggressive on the line to get the downhill kick into position A.  A very difficult drive, in my opinion.  Beautiful golf hole, but not one of my favorites on the course, because play is do-or-die one-dimensional.

Hi Gib,

Thanks for your comments.  You bring up the excellent point that green speed dictates a lot about how interesting the greens are.  At the usual 10+ feet for top notch facilities these days, Pasatiempo becomes an exercise in delicate and defensive play.  In addition to the holes you mentioned, holes 3, 9 and 18 also lack versatility at these higher green speeds.

I do love fast greens, but there is also something to be said for giving the ball a firm rap on short putts into the hole.  Of course, this has been discussed at length.  Sloped greens with slower surfaces have many advantages.

As I've said many times before, I want a grand variety of short game opportunities, and I would prefer to play on a course that has short, medium and long putts of varying difficulties and slope profiles.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()