Good greens, bad pins...

[Mike_Young]

How do you keep bozos from placing pins where they should not be placed?  I'm talking about slapdick green committee types more than supts. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

You probably can't.

[Jason Topp]

There was a bad one for our guest day yesterday until a group playing before the event called the pro shop.  They promptly moved it.


If the hadn't done so there would have been a day full of people putting off the green.

[corey miller]

Sorry I think the problem lies more with the Superintendent.  They need to educate the "slapdick" green committee members on the implications of speed and the placement.

What of the example Jason provided? The super put a pin position they knew to be poor based on green speed and then just sat back and laughed until the request was made to change it?

That said, at my home club the course set up has become better and better the more we have empowered our Superintendent to do the right thing and given him more autonomy. 

We benefited immensely from getting out of the "set-up" game.

We just recountered (with better drainage) our greens actually adding slope and undulation and additional pinnable spots (not sure how often these benefits have been accomplished in any one project) .

Isn't it now the responsibility of the Super to derive the proper speed for the greens based on the areas that are pinnable rather than a committee somehow deriving a green speed and asking/requiring the super to use all parts of the green?

I know it is a tough job, but the Super does not get off too easy if they are unwilling to at least use a little "superintendent capital" to better the architecture.

[Ed Brzezowski]

How do you keep bozos from placing pins where they should not be placed?  I'm talking about slapdick green committee types more than supts.

Don't let them watch PGA events?

[Mark Chaplin]

Does any course manager allow members to dictate pin positions?

[Carl Rogers]

Riverfront has number of greens that have alot of slope and limited number of "pinnable" locations. I can see some of those sub-optimal locations need to be used on Mondays & Tuesdays to spread out the wear & tear.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Does any course manager allow members to dictate pin positions?

I expect it happens at some places. Not quite members but if you hold pro events they usually take the control away from the course manager.

[JESII]

Although...finding cool, rarely used corners of greens is one of the best things a superintendent can do in my opinion...so I say give a little rope to anyone trying this as it’s not an easy job.  How’s that Cranky Mike?

[Mike_Young]

Although...finding cool, rarely used corners of greens is one of the best things a superintendent can do in my opinion...so I say give a little rope to anyone trying this as it’s not an easy job.  How’s that Cranky Mike?

I'm really not that cranky.  I just can't tolerate some things.  There are good supts, bad supts, good committee members and slapdicks.  There can be a good agronomically supt and he may not know golf but know agronomics.  Supts so often follow green chairs or top players since most clubs have the mistaken belief that good players know all there is to know about golf design.  For instance a club is to have a state golf event and they wish to make sure no one "violates " their golf course.  So the "good player" supt and green chair get with the State golf person and place pins that do not `allow for a more talented player to execute a better shot over the lesser player.  They just put a pin where there is no way a person can execute unless in a very very small area.  A good example would be a the base of a ridge where no one, and I mean no one can putt from above the ridge and allow the ball to settle into a transition area.  The slapdick walks around explaining to all how difficult his course is and the good players who were violated by such pins walk away pissed.  So, I can't blame the supts.  Most of those guys have to make sure the committee or owner is satisfied and thus do as he suggest if it doesn't hurt the course.  The problem is when the supt buys in on it.

[Mark Chaplin]

Mike you clearly hang around the wrong clubs, can you name some clubs and specific events rather than meaningless theories?
I believe the R&A now consult with the Course Manager after a monumental cock up a few years back at Sunningdale in Open Qualifying.

[Mike_Young]

Mike you clearly hang around the wrong clubs, can you name some clubs and specific events rather than meaningless theories?
I believe the R&A now consult with the Course Manager after a monumental cock up a few years back at Sunningdale in Open Qualifying.

Mark,I don't hang around the wrong clubs.  I am speaking of normal clubs not half the clubs discussed on here by guys who may have never seen them. ( not directed at you) I'm just talking about good private clubs across the country and most all have a few slapdick committee members.   My theories are not meaningless and I will not mention the specific course since it is a common occurance.  cheers

[JESII]

Only cranky people use the term slapdick...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Although...finding cool, rarely used corners of greens is one of the best things a superintendent can do in my opinion...so I say give a little rope to anyone trying this as it’s not an easy job.  How’s that Cranky Mike?

I'm really not that cranky.  I just can't tolerate some things.  There are good supts, bad supts, good committee members and slapdicks.  There can be a good agronomically supt and he may not know golf but know agronomics.  Supts so often follow green chairs or top players since most clubs have the mistaken belief that good players know all there is to know about golf design.  For instance a club is to have a state golf event and they wish to make sure no one "violates " their golf course.  So the "good player" supt and green chair get with the State golf person and place pins that do not `allow for a more talented player to execute a better shot over the lesser player.  They just put a pin where there is no way a person can execute unless in a very very small area.  A good example would be a the base of a ridge where no one, and I mean no one can putt from above the ridge and allow the ball to settle into a transition area.  The slapdick walks around explaining to all how difficult his course is and the good players who were violated by such pins walk away pissed.  So, I can't blame the supts.  Most of those guys have to make sure the committee or owner is satisfied and thus do as he suggest if it doesn't hurt the course.  The problem is when the supt buys in on it.

I’ve seen some ridiculous pin positions cut at the base of ridges / tiers by greenkeepers who clearly didn’t understand.

[George Pazin]

A slapdick pin placement every now and then opens everyone's eyes. At least, those who are paying attention.


 

[Matthew Essig]

It should almost always be up to the Superintendent.

When we hosted the Washington State Am last year, I was out there working on the 18th green as the WSGA guy was walking around the green looking for the two hole locations for the final two rounds (the first round was on a different course). He found one of the usuals in the back left corner on the top of a shelf. Then he was looking around on this tiny shelf on the right side of the green.

As he starts to walk off the steps, I shout over to him, "That's a bold move!"
He says back, "Oh really? Why's that."
"Cause with as fast as these are going to be rolling, if the wind comes up... and it usually does... you are gonna have a problem there with as much slope as that part has."
"You sure?"
"I'm positive."
"So where would you put it?"
"Well, I'm assuming you want a hard one. Back right looks tough, but any ball that doesn't find the massive bowl in the front/front left seems to finish there. It plays easier than it looks. You already have back left. So, we have one place left.
"In the massive bowl? How?"
"Stick it 4 or 5 paces from the left. The giant bowl does funnel balls down the front middle, but if you stick it just over there, they still have to make a 10-15 footer that no one ever reads correctly. Trust me."

And that's where it went. Now, I'm not the Superintendent, but I think he would have suggested the same thing, unless he was dumb enough to give the go-ahead on the hole location on the right, which I don't think he is.

Best part: The hole location I recommended in the bowl played 0.16 strokes harder than the tough one in the back left on the shelf (though it was before the cut). There were more eagles made, but many people didn't read the putt correctly, and got up and down less. My recommendation made a larger dispersion in scores.

People who work on the course, know the course more. Sounds stupidly simple, but greens committees should absolutely not be cutting holes.

[Joe Bausch]

How effective is this software:?

http://theaposition.com/jamesamcafee/golf/484/theresbetterwaytosetpinlocations

I know a club in my area uses this or something like it.

[Peter Pallotta]

If architects feel free to design them that way, why shouldn't we want to play them that way?

Yes: architects envision pinnable areas that are accessed via areas of contour; we're meant to navigate the slope to get to the flat spot.

But then, why are these contours and slopes there in the first place -- just for looks? because they photograph well? to impress fellow architects?

You architects here are amongst the best around, top-flight professionals -- so why don't you figure out ways to design interesting greens that are *entirely* pinnable?

We read about 'today's green speeds' leading to less slope and contour, ie to flatter greens. Sure: but that in turn leads to more pinnable areas.

Why not try to leverage this development to break the old mold and create greens that provide challenge and fun right across the entire putting surface?

That way you take all the power to mess with your designs out of the hands of such SD committee members.

Until then, maybe we need to conclude that the 'good greens' Mike references in his subject line aren't in fact all that good.

Devil's Advocate

[JESII]

WRONG

[Peter Pallotta]

J - I think I might know why you think I might be wrong, but please do explain.

I'm suggesting (speculating) that there are other ways to think about this question besides the usual 'binary' approach.

In fact, I'm sure there are -- and since both committees and fast(er) green speeds are here to stay, these alternatives seem worth discussing.

[Mike_Young]

Only cranky people use the term slapdick...

   Slapdick is one of my favorite words for describing some golfers I play with...

[Mike_Young]

If architects feel free to design them that way, why shouldn't we want to play them that way?

Yes: architects envision pinnable areas that are accessed via areas of contour; we're meant to navigate the slope to get to the flat spot.

But then, why are these contours and slopes there in the first place -- just for looks? because they photograph well? to impress fellow architects?

You architects here are amongst the best around, top-flight professionals -- so why don't you figure out ways to design interesting greens that are *entirely* pinnable?

We read about 'today's green speeds' leading to less slope and contour, ie to flatter greens. Sure: but that in turn leads to more pinnable areas.

Why not try to leverage this development to break the old mold and create greens that provide challenge and fun right across the entire putting surface?

That way you take all the power to mess with your designs out of the hands of such SD committee members.

Until then, maybe we need to conclude that the 'good greens' Mike references in his subject line aren't in fact all that good.

Devil's Advocate

Peter,
I love the "SD"  that's got to become one of my new code words...nice...
OK..I don't get your point above.  Let's try it this way.  Let's assume we start with the 4.25 inch hole and design backwards to the tee.  And let's assume that any green would have a minimum of 5 pin placement areas.  All elements of that green should be an integral part of the various pin placements.  And all good pin placements allow for a good player to have control of his golf ball.  When gravity creates a situation that takes away the talent element then it's a bad pin. 
So many people on this site and other places have come to determine architectural talent based on the amount of contour in greens.  I see courses ranked today with ridiculous contours that have no meaning in some cases and yet some SD considers it talent in many cases.  There are many "blue suit" courses which are good.  A blue suit can come off the rack or it can be tailored in every detail, but for my taste and that of many it is a much better piece of clothing than the loud sport coat that can be seen from 2 miles away.  That's the way I see a lot of this contour junk, just a loud sportcoat that goes in and out of style.  Any architect out there can put contour in a green..not everyone can make you think a downhill put is uphill.  In the end all contours are there to support the intended pin placements.  The integrity of the hole comes down to legitimate pin placement and if pins are placed in illegitimate areas the hole suffers. 

[JESII]

Peter, I think the areas between and around the pinnable locations are what makes a great green...so to reduce or eliminate those areas by making more of the green pinnable is moving in the wrong direction if you ask me.

[JESII]

Mike - at what point is it incumbent on the player to control his approach so as to retain control of his putt?

[JESII]

This is not to say there are never bad pins but I am firmly outside the camp that thinks the player should be able to putt it close to every pin no matter where they are on the green.