Impossible Putts

[Matt_Cohn]

And for the record, you just complained that you had an approximately 10' uphill birdie putt.

What's the problem, again?

Actually I slightly misjudged the putt and it rolled off the front of the green. My next shot was a 30 foot chip. To answer your other question about whether it was really impossible: you’ve seen that video of Tiger at a clinic where here swats a ball like 30 feet out, then hits this little super spinner wedge that sucks 4 feet straight to the right and hits the first ball? That shot might work, if you can hit it off a green surface. But with a putter, yes, physically impossible to get within 10 feet.




To reply to another question: ~10 year old greens on an classic era golf course, running around 10, designed by someone who hangs out on this site occasionally.    They were very interesting greens overall and I thought well done.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, I take your point. A steady diet of holes that leave damn-near-impossible two-putts is too much. I would generally agree with the idea that a relatively straightforward two-putt should be feasible with good execution on most greens.


But I do think this is one of those situations where a lot of people might not like the idea in a vacuum, but where real-life reactions to real holes demonstrates that they'll accept it in context.


I have an old friend who used to say that a fairway should never be bunkered, because it should always be a safe place to hit the ball. He was anti-centerline hazard in theory. And yet, the hole he cited as his favorite in our home state was one with... centerline hazards.


Likewise, I can imagine a guy who thinks a relatively straightforward two-putt should be possible from most locations on most greens, but who also really likes Pebble Beach (where we watched Gary Woodland navigate a pretty tough two-putt with great success on the 71st hole of the last US Open) and Tobacco Road and plenty of other courses that aren't afraid to present near-impossible two putts.


And even my home course, with a pretty tame set of greens, often features damn-near-impossible two-putts from above the hole to aggressive pin positions. We never have a ton of those aggressive pins, but you might run into one or two per round. Some guys inevitably bitch about them. But on greens as subtle as ours, I personally really appreciate that a keen player has the opportunity to play for an uphill putt where a sloppy player might fail to realize the importance of doing so on a couple occasions in the course of a round. Maybe also worth noting: a ball that truly trickles over the edge of the downslope on the correct fall line will almost always stop within 3 feet or so, but the average player's inability to make that read and execute is usually revealed.


In fairness, 10 feet is a long way to run past the hole if there's really no way to stop it closer, and the middle of the green is a funky spot to call "out of position." But I don't know - Canterbury is a pretty great course, and I remember hitting the middle of the first green and having my caddie say "Don't worry sir. We're gonna figure out a way to make par from there." He was wrong. I hit a "good" first putt from above the hole that rolled 7 feet past and missed the comebacker. Is 7 feet too far? 4 feet? And to Kyle's point earlier... would the same Tiger Woods who rolled that ball on 9 green in the final round of the 2019 Masters to an inch or so have come away from the hole in question saying "It was impossible to keep the ball within 10 feet from the middle of the green"? What if it's not quite IMPOSSIBLE to keep it within 4 feet, but takes a REALLY perfectly judged putt that risks hanging up top to pull it off?

Jason,


I mostly agree, and Ally makes a nice point - If there is no way you can make a putt or get close, is there really any strategy?  Is it a version of the tight, tree lined fw or any other penal target where only the near perfect shot suffices?


You, and a few others, keep going back to Tiger of all people (i.e., best in the world at his career height) to give an example of how to defeat near impossible contours.  I bet Tiger the designer might say, "If I have to hit it perfect, what chance does the average player have?"  The debate is mostly shades of gray, not any absolutes.  In that vein, if I actually tried to put 1-2 greens on a course where that was a possibility, I doubt many would complain.  In a way, that de greening possibility might have players thinking about that hole on the first tee, a la TPC 17th island green does.


Ally is also right and I mentioned this above, and earlier in another thread about how Fazio always makes cup areas flatter when his edge contours are steeper, i.e., with a 7% edge roll, the cup area near it might be 1.5%.  I always try (and occasionally fail) to provide some way to at least keep a ball on the green from top to bottom.  And, I probably get more conservative about those kinds of things as I get more experience in design.


One of my favorite memories was from my first course (Brookstone near Atlanta) where the 18th was a reachable par 5, with a 4 tier green.  Soon after opening a member pulled me aside to say, "You can't make a putt from an upper tier on that green."  I dropped a ball, aimed it at the far fringe just above the second deck, which took the putt through the fringe to the first deck and close to the hole, lipping out.  I might have aimed 20 foot left of the hole, which some players can't even imagine doing.  So, I am not against creative putts being an alternative, or even the only route from top of green to the lower, especially depending on what type of course it is.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,


It doesn’t need to be just steep edges. You can have wild internal contours, mounds and tiers and still make sure you don’t have pin positions that are impossible to get within 10’ from the middle of the green.


Ally

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


Agreed.  Again, over 40 years, my typical client was a budget driven course, meaning sub 6,500 SF green, which doesn't leave much room for interior contours.  On the courses where I could, I included them like Giant's Ridge Quarry.  Also, similar to impossible putts, the better players I know just hate an internal mound, and they admit the reason is a shifting contour between where they strike the putt and the hole is the one that they have the hardest time to control, which is reason enough for some here to include JUST that kind of feature.  It doesn't play here in Texas very much, LOL.


And, the supers complain, too.  I always give the example of a 0.25 foot high diddle bump (and I assume you are imagining something higher than that) at an 8% slope (for easier mowing).  That mound takes an 4 foot diameter circle out of pinnable area, and if you wouldn't put a pin within, say 8 feet of that, the no pin area becomes a 380 sq foot area, or about 6% of a 6,500 SF green.  That green, if cups aren't set within 10 feet of the edge, actually starts with just about 3950 SF of cupping area, and that little knob takes away almost 10% of the true cup setting area.


That math is pretty daunting (as I'm sure you know, typed more for others here) to the budget driven course with high play.  I mean, is it really that great a feature (when most golfers hate it) to require you to build almost 400 SF more of green at $10 per SF to have that feature?  $4,000 for just one green, and over $70,000 if you had to have an average of one of those per green? (That $70K might be only 1-2% of budget, but at least in my projects, squeezing every dime out is pretty typical, and interior contours don't often make the cut, LOL.


Just trying to insert some reality for those who don't play high end clubs as to why their course probably doesn't have a lot of interior contours.


I have no doubt they are great in the right places, but not quite so good on the course that struggles to survive.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,


Appreciate the insert of reality.


And in truth, I’ve been lucky that some of my wilder greens are not aimed for near 40,000 rounds a year and stimp at 8… so there is more leeway to build contour, even on 6,500 sqf surfaces.


Still, I’d be considering blowing them up if my first putts couldn’t stop within about 4’ of the pin if judged perfectly…. There are certainly some putts that come close to not achieving that so it is critical that clubs don’t start to run the greens faster.

[Thomas Dai]

As an aside the Himalayas Ladies Putting Course at St Andrews and other such facilities akin to it are full or crazy, wacky slopes and hole positions yet are incredibly popular with golfers of all sorts of ages and abilities including lessor players, novices and total beginners.
If crazy, wacky slopes and hole positions are okay by them, who are the group of golfers most likely in need of help with scoring low, well perhaps it suggest something about those more experienced and more skilful players who complain about ‘impossible’ hole locations on regular courses?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ally,


I don't know where most of your work is, but in the US, average public course green speed is still about 9.5.  Here in TX, (which granted, is not my sole area) since the reduction in overseeding in winter, greens can get to 14-15 speed in winter, which I started to consider in design after getting tired of hearing, "Hey asshole architect.....don't you know greens in Texas speed up a lot in winter?"  (I can take most criticism that doesn't start with, "Hey, Asshole") LOL


I have had a few different "periods" in my career, including a few years where I did some very contoured greens.  Going back and playing all my own courses, right now, I am finding the greens I designed at a nice rolling 2-3% in cup areas, and maybe a bit more on the rolling edges seem to look the best and play the best.  Those 90 shooters are my peeps!


Granted, those internal Diddle Bumps (invented by Bill Diddel?) can look great in those evening shadow photos, but I have been told its often wrong to design for photos and awards these days.......but it's not something I just dismissed out of hand.  I come by it honestly after a bunch of soul searching deep thought sessions.  Maybe if I drank more I would come to different conclusions, but moderation seems to me to be the key to life, even in contouring putting greens, LOL.

[Ally Mcintosh]

As an aside the Himalayas Ladies Putting Course at St Andrews and other such facilities akin to it are full or crazy, wacky slopes and hole positions yet are incredibly popular with golfers of all sorts of ages and abilities including lessor players, novices and total beginners.
If crazy, wacky slopes and hole positions are okay by them, who are the group of golfers most likely in need of help with scoring low, well perhaps it suggest something about those more experienced and more skilful players who complain about ‘impossible’ hole locations on regular courses?
Atb

Don’t think I’ve ever played a hole location on the Himalayas at St. Andrews where I couldn’t knock my first putt to three feet if I judged it right.


And I’ve played it a lot.

[Pete_Pittock]

Experienced two in one round at Tetherow, once was an outlier as my ball ended up atop a narrow ridge and faced a long putt along the ridge. The other was on the 9th when my ball wrong tiered and there was no escape.  I have been wronged tiered before and survived by playing away from the hole to a built-in buttonhook point (once at Sagebrush, once at Grand Cypress New Course where a made a 120 ft putt that started 20 feet from the hole).

[Brad Lawrence]

Ideally, I think there should be some way to get every shot close even if it’s extremely difficult and close to impossible.  But I’ve never seen a hole that I considered unfair. In fact, the more often a hole is called unfair, the greater the odds are I will like it.  Accept  the challenge of trying to manufacture the best score possible in the face of obstacles. Isn’t that the fun of golf? If it’s not, we might as well settle our differences on the driving range.

[David Ober]

Not sure that players have a divine right to always expect to 2-putt or 1-putt. Sometimes you have to take the medicine.
atb

+1
Especially given that the green was reached in one under regulation.
Evidently, on that day, with that pin, the play was something short of the green, or at least the pin.


One of my favorite holes in golf is very short par 4, where if the pin is on the front, or even the middle, the best play is long, or simply past the hole with the approach or tee shot. You will not get the putt close from the front fringe, but so many try to get cute with their approach and end up making 5.

YES!


12 at Rustic is a perfect example of this. When downwind, and going for it with driver, the play is actually to be LONG of the green and shooting BACK at the green!


Not that I can drive over the green anymore, regardless of the wind, but hey ....

[Will Lozier]

Not sure that players have a divine right to always expect to 2-putt or 1-putt. Sometimes you have to take the medicine.
atb

+1

[Kyle Harris]

Still not buying it.


As with all things artistic, a steady dose of *anything* is likely in poor form. Nobody is advocating for 18 putting surfaces that are like this.

That being said, how much of this argument is based on explicit context and then implied skill? Would Matt have posted if his tee shot were on the other side of the hole and he made it for eagle? Bet not.

A perfectly judged putt will always go in. Period. If you're not aiming your putt for the hole than what the heck are you doing?

If you don't think you can make the putt than you pick a target that most significantly increases your chances of holing the next shot.

Was Matt trying the first or the second? Did the *temptation* of going for the first ruin a good shot for the second? Why is putting somehow exempt from the "trading distance for position" argument made by the strategic set?

I happen to know Matt is an exceptional golfer so he gets some form of pass here. But then again, I'm sure many that day birdied the hole so it seems like sour grapes that this particular context got the best of him. That day. Is the argument here really that greens should be designed that this *never* happens?

I've eagled the controversial 14th on Streamsong Black. I've also five-putted for 6. To the same hole location. Different days. Different contexts.

This is the old assumption where the golf course is only as good as the day I saw it under the conditions I saw it using the skills I brought to the golf course that day.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Kyle,


I’d like to know how many architects have designed greens where they deliberately want this to happen? Sure, make a putt incredibly difficult to get close. I’m all for that! But impossible to stop within 10’ because of slopes and speed of green?


My guess is that not one green built in the Golden Age deliberately had this feature (save for perhaps 6 at Riviera). I could be wrong (I don’t know a lot of US course histories) but greens were built for green speeds of the day. Pin positions were pinnable because you could stop a ball close. Even the most outrageous greens we know (Sitwell Park) probably weren’t this severe.


Any green built since 1990 with this feature? Well was it deliberate or has the architect now just developed his story to say it was?


I’m not decrying it altogether. Variety and occasional WTF moments are what golf is all about. But I built a set of greens in Ireland that are completely on the edge and if this occurred for one of the main tier / bowl pin positions, then I would have asked the club if I could try again.

[Kyle Harris]

Ally,

I think the term "design" here is the critical element.

I'll paraphrase a statement from my favorite movie, Apollo 13:

"I don't care what it is designed to do, I care what it can do." And that phrase works both ways. Matt Ginella was rather vocal in his dislike for two of our greens at Streamsong because he couldn't two-putt from above the hole to them. I've done it countless times, and once on a day where he was here. Did he read the putt the same way I did? Did he see he could aim 20 feet right of the direct line to the hole and use a different slope/fall line to track the ball away from further trouble?


Is not the design simply identifying our relative strengths and weaknesses? Does the golf course offer opportunities elsewhere that balance those strengths/weaknesses out in our fictitious "match?"

Also, we don't have really have a control for what is or is not a perfectly judged putt - except for holing it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask an expert golfer to make a 10' putt for par, though. I also don't think it's unreasonable to ask an expert golfer to get down in 3 shots from any distance within 100 feet.

As par is defined by what you'd expect an expert golfer to make... where's the problem? If the golf course allows for those cases, still... the game isn't really broken, is it? We can argue to the taste of the matter, and again, nobody is advocating that a steady diet of these scenarios is compelling.

This does seem to balance out an attack pattern of one particular skillset and in quite the vexing way. I know I'd feel particularly satisfied if I figured out the problem against a field that largely couldn't.

Why would you want to take that feeling away from me because someone else didn't like it?

[Brad Lawrence]

[size=78%] “Matt Ginella was rather vocal in his dislike for two of our greens at Streamsong because he couldn’t two putt.”[/size]

[/size]
[/size]I have to roll my eyes when I see a player hit their own golf ball into a difficult position and then blame the course.  Maybe don’t hit your ball beyond the flag if getting it close from there is impossible.  [size=78%]

[Jeff_Brauer]

I talked with Ron Whitten when he was writing his review of Streamsong, and he thought Doak's greens were a bit over the top.  I offered to let him use my assessment of the greens....."Doak greens treat me like a baby treats a diaper."  He wisely chose not to use that phrase in Golf Digest, LOL.

[Rob Marshall]

I talked with Ron Whitten when he was writing his review of Streamsong, and he thought Doak's greens were a bit over the top.  I offered to let him use my assessment of the greens....."Doak greens treat me like a baby treats a diaper."  He wisely chose not to use that phrase in Golf Digest, LOL.

Funny, When I played the Blue I didn't think the greens were bad at all. Cruised thru with a pretty good score. I'm sure it was just the days locations were pretty easy. If I go back again it could be on a day when they are a bitch.

[Matt_Cohn]

A perfectly judged putt will always go in. Period. If you're not aiming your putt for the hole than what the heck are you doing?


Not true here; not possible to get it rolling softly enough around the hole to actually go in, other than by luck of the bounce off the flagstick or the back of the cup. And the smart play on my putt was not to aim for the cup at all. I think that's part of my point; having a putt that you shouldn't try to make feels weird.

If you don't think you can make the putt than you pick a target that most significantly increases your chances of holing the next shot.


Correct. Yet there's something wildly unsatisfying about doing this on a putt.

Was Matt trying the first or the second? Did the *temptation* of going for the first ruin a good shot for the second?


I thought I could putt towards the hole and not end up worse than if I'd played out safely to the side. Playing out safely to the side would have left me 10 feet. As it turned out, my judgment was wrong. Based on some experimentation afterwards, an incredible effort playing towards the hole would have left me 10-15 feet. My so-so but not terribly executed effort went off the green and left me a 30 foot chip.

Why is putting somehow exempt from the "trading distance for position" argument made by the strategic set?

Well, this is the question. A putt of this type leaves me no opportunity to use even extreme skill or cunning to my advantage. For example, if I have a near-impossible pitch shot, I could try to play a super-flop that lands in just the right spot in the rough and bounces out; or a crazy spinner, if I have that shot; or whatever else. But on an impossible putt, there's nothing I can do, really. There's no trajectory, spin, shape, anything. (I briefly thought about trying a flop off the green but didn't want to take a big divot!) In short: there's no recovery shot. How is it any different than a pitch-out from 6-inch rough or behind a tree?

I happen to know Matt is an exceptional golfer so he gets some form of pass here. But then again, I'm sure many that day birdied the hole so it seems like sour grapes that this particular context got the best of him. That day. Is the argument here really that greens should be designed that this *never* happens?


I've eagled the controversial 14th on Streamsong Black. I've also five-putted for 6. To the same hole location. Different days. Different contexts.

This is the old assumption where the golf course is only as good as the day I saw it under the conditions I saw it using the skills I brought to the golf course that day.

[Ira Fishman]

Matt,


Do you know if it is a pin placement that they use regularly and then gets a lot of complaints? Weaker players probably end up with second shots that finish where your drive ended up. So maybe it is just not a suitable pin on that particular green. Or maybe the hole is designed to have a lot of risk reward for the stronger player.


Ira

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt,


Do you know if it is a pin placement that they use regularly and then gets a lot of complaints? Weaker players probably end up with second shots that finish where your drive ended up. So maybe it is just not a suitable pin on that particular green. Or maybe the hole is designed to have a lot of risk reward for the stronger player.


Ira

No idea. There were a few spicy hole locations in general that day, but I don't know if they always set it up like that or not.

[Jon Sweet]

Folks, you can take this too far. From the middle of the green, 10’ is too far away for the best putt you can muster.


Bad pin position at the foot of a mound.

Bad approach shot to the top of the mound*

[jeffwarne]

wouldn't this fall under the age old adage of keeping the ball under the hole?

[Jon Sweet]

wouldn't this fall under the age old adage of keeping the ball under the hole?

I mean…

[Rob Marshall]

wouldn't this fall under the age old adage of keeping the ball under the hole?

Doesn't it just come down to local knowledge? You're going to hit the ball in a few wrong spots when you've never played the course before. Next time out you know you have to lay it up or hit to the front of the green.