Too much putting

[Garland Bayley]

I own a book titled Playing the Like, which is a collection of essays by
Bernard Darwin. One essay is titled "Twelve Holes" which argues for removing
six greens from a golf course so that it has twelve holes, thereby reducing
the importance of putting. In the essay, Bernard writes:
"... putting has come gradually to usurp a far larger and more important place
in the game than of old. This view has, of course, been advanced before,
particularly by those who want to have a larger hole, and I really think it
comes under the head of "fact." Any of us who have played golf for any length
of time can remember many a hole that used to call for three good shots to reach
the green, and clearly putting had not then the same relative importance as it
has to-day, when nearly every hole is for long hitters a two-shot hole. If we go
further back the argument becomes stronger. Consider, for instance, the length of
the five holes, which made up the course at Leith before 1821. Their respective
lengths were 414, 461, 426, 495 and 465 yards. Now in those days of the feathery
ball, a drive of 150 yards was a very good one, as we can see from the bets
recorded in the old bet books. So a hole of 450 yards must have corresponded to
one of nearer 700 yards than 600 yards as played with modern clubs and balls."

He further justifies the idea as the essay continues, which I won't quote as I
think you will get the concept.

He furthermore espouses the opposite opinion from one that all too often gets
expressed on this website.

"... the wooden club shot through the green remains, I venture to assert, the
finest and most enjoyable of all."

Please note that green does not mean the putting area, but rather means the golf
course like green was defined in the rule book until the 2019 revision of the
rules where they removed the definition of green as the area under maintenance
for the playing of golf.

"The fact that a hole took three full shots to reach the green was once not
deemed to be a bore."

His caveat is that modern equipment (of his time) might reduce the enjoyment
due to the longer walk between shots. Little did he know that people would
eshew walking for buggy rides, but not the buggy rides he would have been most
familiar with.

He goes on to say that such long holes should be architected so that shots
preceeding the approach need to be maneuvered to attain the best position for
the approach. His examples of such holes are Long at St. Andrews, and the
eleventh at Worplesdon.

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:


I presume you've noticed that there are no more wooden clubs?  The difference between the clubs Darwin was describing and today's hybrids and fairway woods is so great that I think it makes his general point moot.


The only hole I play semi-regularly where you have to hit three solid shots to get there is the 16th at Crystal Downs, and about half of my guests dismiss it as boring for not having more fairway bunkers.  They don't seem to appreciate the need to string together three solid shots, at all.  But I'm old enough to remember when things like that still mattered.


You are right that putting had less of a role back then, but short of building 1000-yard holes today, or changing the equipment, I don't know how we are going to get that back.  Just making the greens boring is not a solution; plenty of people can three-putt a flat green from thirty feet.

[mike_beene]

Putting is ever more important as we age. I like that. It gives me a punchers chance. Holing a key putt is much more memorable than my constant 7 woods.It is tough to break 80 when a 440 yard whole is a three shotter.
I still like kickers in American football. There is a crowd that would send kickers and putters (along with holders and punters)to hang out at some club. Probably with the curling team.

[Garland Bayley]

Putting is ever more important as we age. I like that. It gives me a punchers chance. Holing a key putt is much more memorable than my constant 7 woods.It is tough to break 80 when a 440 yard whole is a three shorter .
I still like kickers in American football. There is a crowd that would send kickers and putters (along with holders and punters)to hang out at some club. Probably with the curling team.

And, then we age into the yips! And, then putting is not so important! Or, you could adopt the Anthony Gray fast play practice of being bored with putting, and skip it altogether.

I assert that putting only 12 times a round instead of 18 times will shorten the time it takes to complete the round.

[Garland Bayley]

I decided to try to create such a twelve hole course from an existing 18 hole
course as was suggested be done in the essay. To do this, I chose the New Course
at St. Andrews as it would be known to many, and it has an out and back
configuration which I figured would be easier to combine holes on as often a
hole is succeeded by another hole running in the same direction.

In the figure below, you see that holes 3, 6, 9, 12, and 16 remain as they were.
In the twelve hole routing, the greens for holes 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, and 17 are
unused.

NewCourseRoutings by Garland Bayley, on Flickr

The original course routing is in red with hole numbers above the teeing area
for the hole, and yardages in red above the line showing the path of the hole.
The revised twelve hole routing is in blue with the hole numbers below
the teeing area, and yardages in blue below the line showing the path of the
hole.

My apologies if the routings don't appear clearly. Apparently doing routings on a more square property works better.

The original yardage from the back tees is 6625, and the yardage for the twelve
hole routing is 6595. Since yardage is added to the course when you play
a hole that includes the next green to tee walk, one would expect the twelve
hole routing to be longer. However, I did not find all hole combinations to be
holes that lie in succession in the original routing, so some length was lost
in routing one hole cross country.

For those of you that think there needs to be multiple teeing options, I would point
out that playing the like is terminology from the origins of the game where they did
not even count the strokes on a hole. Therefore, everyone plays from the same tees,
and all that matters is their progress relative to their opponent in match play as they
proceed playing the odd, and playing the like.

[Thomas Dai]

Putting is ever more important as we age. I like that. It gives me a punchers chance. Holing a key putt is much more memorable than my constant 7 woods.It is tough to break 80 when a 440 yard whole is a three shorter .

+1, and not just at 440 either!:)
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

The only hole I play semi-regularly where you have to hit three solid shots to get there is the 16th at Crystal Downs, and about half of my guests dismiss it as boring for not having more fairway bunkers.  They don't seem to appreciate the need to string together three solid shots, at all.  But I'm old enough to remember when things like that still mattered.

Wait. The 16th and not the 8th?!

Also, the 16th at Crystal Downs has that rare feature of a fairway and a putting green that move while the ball is in the air.

[JESII]

This is an interesting topic to jump into for me.


As a kid, we used to play cross country golf quite often in the off-season. You could "create" some really cool holes. I think it's a great way to play on occasion. That said, you don't have to worry about positioning for an approach until the shot before it...virtually ever. Unless a hole is going to be 150 yards wide, the idea that I'm going to to position my drive somewhere to help my second shot get somewhere so that my third shot can find the correct angle to hit the green with my fourth is a little bit of a stretch.


I feel the soul of golf is the two-shot hole because each shot effects, and is effected by the others. The hole location dictates where you should play from and your ability to recognize and execute should dictate success. That said, I think a course loaded with holes on the border of 2-3 shots would/could be most interesting...and considering the length, 12 of them would be fine.

[Peter Pallotta]

"I feel the soul of golf is the two-shot hole because each shot effects, and is effected, by the others."

Thanks for this. Par 4s have always been my favourites, and have always seemed the most 'golfy' of golf holes. Yours explains 'why' very well indeed.

[Tom_Doak]

I feel the soul of golf is the two-shot hole because each shot effects, and is effected by the others. The hole location dictates where you should play from and your ability to recognize and execute should dictate success. That said, I think a course loaded with holes on the border of 2-3 shots would/could be most interesting...and considering the length, 12 of them would be fine.

This is very well stated, and the main reason why par-4 holes are my favorites, too.


However the last line shows your bias a little bit, as a good golfer.  Great short par-4's are also appealing, because the closer you can drive it to the green, the more the angle of approach can be changed, and the designer can build a green complex that takes advantage of those different angles.

[Tim Martin]

The great green builders have been and will be immortalized because they require you to think and close the deal as a player. How many of us have walked off 18 green knowing that an uninspired set of greens put a damper on the course as a whole? I don’t think a course can be considered good(maybe interesting or compelling is a better adjective) with just a fair set of greens. Someone will make a liar out of me with an example of same but I think the statement generally holds up.

[Garland Bayley]

This is an interesting topic to jump into for me.


As a kid, we used to play cross country golf quite often in the off-season. You could "create" some really cool holes. I think it's a great way to play on occasion. That said, you don't have to worry about positioning for an approach until the shot before it...virtually ever.

Sounds to me like you were a lousy golf course designer as a kid.

Unless a hole is going to be 150 yards wide, the idea that I'm going to to position my drive somewhere to help my second shot get somewhere so that my third shot can find the correct angle to hit the green with my fourth is a little bit of a stretch.

Have you played links golf? Is there not links terrain that would make it advisable for the best players like Ben Hogan to consider where to place each shot on 800+ yard holes?

I feel the soul of golf is the two-shot hole because each shot effects, and is effected by the others.

I feel the soul of golf is match play, and each shot is affected by the shot of your opponent.

The hole location dictates where you should play from and your ability to recognize and execute should dictate success. That said, I think a course loaded with holes on the border of 2-3 shots would/could be most interesting...and considering the length, 12 of them would be fine.

Thank you for foreshadowing a future thread I was planning.

[JESII]

I think you were just looking for a bias...




I'm interested in your last line. No argument that a short hole delivers the opportunity for a player to approach from vastly different angles. That's just a math equation.


How is the designer limited in the use of angles on a longer hole? Feels like it's a fairness concern. The player may well complain they can't get to a particular hole location with a 5 iron in hand...but the temptation to try is the thing, right? Maybe this is where I get hung up on Par, as a concept.


Of the cool short holes out there, which ones fail as a long hole? Short and Long here should be thought of as simply the expected approach club.

[JESII]

Garland...that too is a math problem.


If you think you could gain an advantage on your 4th shot by giving up 50 - 100 yards on your first 3 shots...

[Garland Bayley]

I feel the soul of golf is the two-shot hole because each shot effects, and is effected by the others. The hole location dictates where you should play from and your ability to recognize and execute should dictate success. That said, I think a course loaded with holes on the border of 2-3 shots would/could be most interesting...and considering the length, 12 of them would be fine.

This is very well stated, and the main reason why par-4 holes are my favorites, too.

Aren't you the designer of 18 at Pacific Dunes? Is that not a three shot hole that can best be played by choosing the best position for both the second and third shots?

However the last line shows your bias a little bit, as a good golfer. 

I think he was just trying to suggest the configuration of a set of 12 holes that would take up the property that a typical golf course now takes up. That is of course while avoiding 4 shot holes which he already stated his objection to. His bias is for holes where he can take advantage of this accuracy. A category where a small % of the golfing population excels. Why do we always need to pander to such people?

Great short par-4's are also appealing, because the closer you can drive it to the green, the more the angle of approach can be changed, and the designer can build a green complex that takes advantage of those different angles.

[Garland Bayley]

...
You are right that putting had less of a role back then, but short of building 1000-yard holes today, or changing the equipment, I don't know how we are going to get that back.  Just making the greens boring is not a solution; plenty of people can three-putt a flat green from thirty feet.

  Putting only 12 times per round wouldn't diminish the importance of putting? And you don't need 1000 yards holes to do it. 12 holes averaging 500 yards gives you a 6000 yard golf course with a lot less putting.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
I like the concept.  I started a thread several weeks ago about the evolution of putting and whether it was a good or bad thing for golf.  I also started a thread about courses with smaller putting surfaces that helped focus the game on approach shots and recovery shots more so than putting (I used an extreme of on average 1000 sq ft greens). 


Also just think how much faster the game of golf could be played if there was a two putt max rule?  Yes it is a crazy thought but sooo much time is spent on the putting surface and time to play is one of the biggest factors that distracts people from playing the game. 

[JESII]

Continuous putting is a better solution than 2 putt max. Once you start, you keep going.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland...that too is a math problem.


If you think you could gain an advantage on your 4th shot by giving up 50 - 100 yards on your first 3 shots...

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at with your post.

However, let's consider the double dogleg par 5. It turns once to the right, and then once back to the left. If you position your drive short right, it could leave you with a second that would be at an angle that allows the ball to roll out considerable distance in the third leg to the ideal position for the approach. If you position your drive long left, then you are faced with a shot that will land and quickly go through the fairway of the third leg of the hole.

Now let them start building triple, quadruple, etc. doglegs?

Or, maybe doglegs aren't so necessary if placement of bunkers and terrain in the fairway can be used to influence positioning of shots. Perhaps Tillinghast was wrong in writing that the crucial bunkers are green side. Perhaps he was just following the flawed 1,2,3, shot hole theory. I would suggest that the origins of the game was not about shots to reach the green, but about plotting shot in relation to the progress of your opponent.

[JESII]

And 2 + 2 = ?

[Tim Martin]

Continuous putting is a better solution than 2 putt max. Once you start, you keep going.

I don’t like two putt max either but continuous putting removes strategy and intrigue in a four ball game.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
What do you mean by continuous putting?  Do you mean the guy who is going to five putt keeps going and lining up and missing his putts till it finally goes in the hole 

[JESII]

Yep...I was more thinking about weekend games where you have a few dollars on the line.


As much as anything, I think pace of play can really be driven by motivated players. Not sure what the best motivations are but if the three of us want to go play in 3 hours, we can. Then the "Time" argument goes away. If Kavanaugh has the day clear and wants to play in 4.5, he can as well...

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
No question some players are slow or fast if they want to be.  All I was saying is that the two putt max rewards the better approach shots (that hit the green and are closer to the hole) and the better recovery shots as you have a better chance of one putting the closer you can get to the hole.  Again it might be a silly idea but it clearly would speed up the game and lower the value of putting.  There are trade offs with everything but try it some time before you completely write it off. 

[Tom_Doak]

How is the designer limited in the use of angles on a longer hole? Feels like it's a fairness concern. The player may well complain they can't get to a particular hole location with a 5 iron in hand...but the temptation to try is the thing, right? Maybe this is where I get hung up on Par, as a concept.

Of the cool short holes out there, which ones fail as a long hole? Short and Long here should be thought of as simply the expected approach club.

Just from a practical standpoint, when I'm playing a 440-yard hole, it doesn't matter much whether I go to the right side of the fairway or the left, the approach looks pretty similar from 200 yards out.  I can't get to a place where I have a bad or good angle, except for my third shot, as Tommy W is talking about on another thread now.


The first hole I thought of as an example of the short par-4 using angles was the oft-cited 10th at Riviera.  [It's almost that time of year again. ]  It's a great hole at 300 yards when the best players are tempted to go up there by the green.  It would be a great hole at 500+ yards where the same was in play for the second shot.  But at, say, 425 yards, would it work very well?  Most golfers would have to just lay up their second shots at the front left of the green, they would never be able to get the angle to try to get any deeper into the green.


Of course, you are right that all of these judgments are based on our own biases about how far people hit the ball and what a "good shot" really means, from Tour pros to club pros to 10-handicaps to ladies to hackers.  The bottom line is that a green like the 10th at Riviera will still separate the men from the boys, because it will punish them for trying to do something they can't pull off, or for making the cardinal mistake of missing to the right.  But it wouldn't be nearly as POPULAR at certain lengths as at others.  If it wasn't 300 yards, it would more likely be infamous than famous.