News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« on: June 24, 2024, 09:55:51 AM »
Most of us who frequent this discussion group would agree that the best courses have interesting, high-quality greens.  Further, most of us would also likely agree that a variety of size, shape, and contours contribute (among other things) to producing high quality greens.  There are plenty of examples of very good sets of greens designed in the last 25 or so years.  A few that come to my mind include Rock Creek Cattle Co, Dormie Club, and Old Barnwell.  The ability of an architect and their team to design and build a cohesive, interesting set of greens that suits the land and the overall course design is one of many things about the gca practice that amazes me. 

Having said all of that, have some modern green designs gone too far? 

If you think so, would you be willing to share an example or two, including why you think so? 

It seems like there are several people raising this issue lately, and I have personally seen a few examples myself (which I will briefly touch on below).  Lastly, while I have always been a "don't judge a course from pictures alone" kind of person, I have seen an awful lot of greens on social media that appear to be, for lack of a better term, overdone.  Sometimes it is just a single green that sticks out, and in other cases, it is the entire set of 9 or 18 greens.  Additionally, it seems the phenomenon extends beyond new courses, as many have cited certain "restorations" and renovations as taking the greens a bit too extreme.

One example I will share to start is the original course at Arcadia Bluffs.  Due to its stunning location and some extremely bold design, it is a favorite of many on social media, and beyond.  Setting routing aside, I thought there were a number of really cool holes, particularly from tee to green.  Some were quite extreme, but sort of worked...until reaching the green.  I felt the greens there were simply too wild for a course that already has insane land movement throughout.  Massive humps in virtually every green may seem (to some) suitable to the already rollicking design, but I was in full contour overload on virtually every green.  I felt a little bit of restraint on/around the greens might have been warranted. They also rolled way too fast to handle the contours, which I suppose can't be ignored, as green speeds seem to factor so significantly into the discussion of greens these days.

So, what do you think?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 10:24:58 AM by Brian Finn »
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

John Handley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2024, 10:40:58 AM »
I tend to disagree.  Did they tell Willie Park Jr he went too far with the greens at Huntercombe?  Or Raynor and MacDonald when they designed the 16th at North Berwick?


Funky, undulating greens have been a part of golf since the beginning. I don't think it's a modern thing.  That said, if green speeds are going to be much faster as they are now, I do think that limits the amount of undulation you can have on greens because it could become unplayable.  I think Tom did a great job at Pacific Dunes with those greens as they are fun to play, but I wouldn't call them fast.







2024 Line Up: Spanish Oaks GC, Cal Club, Cherokee Plantation, Huntercombe, West Sussex, Hankley Common, Royal St. Georges, Sunningdale New & Old, CC of the Rockies, Royal Lytham, Royal Birkdale, Formby, Royal Liverpool, Swinley Forest, St. George's Hill, Berkshire Red, Walton Heath Old, Austin GC,

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2024, 10:44:45 AM »
I tend to disagree.  Did they tell Willie Park Jr he went too far with the greens at Huntercombe?  Or Raynor and MacDonald when they designed the 16th at North Berwick?

Funky, undulating greens have been a part of golf since the beginning. I don't think it's a modern thing.  That said, if green speeds are going to be much faster as they are now, I do think that limits the amount of undulation you can have on greens because it could become unplayable.  I think Tom did a great job at Pacific Dunes with those greens as they are fun to play, but I wouldn't call them fast.
To clarify, I love bold contours.  Many new (and old) courses execute them well.  I think some do not.  I am wondering if anyone agrees.
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2024, 10:53:14 AM »
Depends what speeds they're maintaining them at. I think that's a big part of the problem.


Look at the speed of the greens when Nicklaus and Watson were rivals... those speeds seemed to be about 8 on the Stimpmeter.








MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2024, 10:54:58 AM »
Oops...i thought you meant too flattened and neutered to accommodate ridiculous modern green speeds.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Charlie Ray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2024, 10:56:52 AM »
All the magazines have a private and a public list.  I apply this distinction when evaluating greens.  For example, last week I played The Country Club at The Golden Nugget (horrible name for a resort course; Lake Charles, LA)  The greens were disappointingly mild in movement (with the exception of #17).  I would get bored if this was my home course, but for resort play mild greens make sense. Arcadia Bluffs would be the opposite.  A bit too wild for resort play, but interesting as a 'members course.' 


My preference is that architects build crazy greens, that make shots interesting; and it looks like the majority are! 



What has gone too far is the wild use of 'native sandy areas' on courses that are built on clay.  The above course (Golden Nugget) being an example. 

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2024, 11:07:58 AM »
Or Raynor and MacDonald when they designed the 16th at North Berwick?
At the risk of taking my own thread off topic, those guys did not design anything at North Berwick.  They borrowed the brilliant concept, and implemented it on their courses throughout America.  Perhaps that is what you meant. 
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2024, 11:11:01 AM »
Oops...i thought you meant too flattened and neutered to accommodate ridiculous modern green speeds.
Well, yeah.  This is a whole different issue, and one that I think has been covered quite a bit here.  Perhaps my question has also been covered, but I couldn't find anything too similar with the search.  I'm just trying to raise some actual gca discussion.  I'm mostly just a reader here, but trying to contribute to the dialogue.
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Charlie Ray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2024, 11:30:38 AM »
3 modern courses that have been mentioned as 'too far' on the discussion board over the years are:  Kingsley, Lost Dunes, and Landmand.  Having only played one, I doubt they are more extreme than Crystal Downs.


I have not encountered any set of modern greens that have gone too far.  Its a good question, but I challenge anyone to name a modern course that's gone too far.  On the other hand, Fazio and Dye courses typically are too timid in my opinion. 








Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2024, 11:52:47 AM »
I think your last sentence is the most important:
"They also rolled way too fast to handle the contours, which I suppose can't be ignored, as green speeds seem to factor so significantly into the discussion of greens these days."

I've played AB once and I don't recall the greens being over the top, but also remember them being pretty puttable.  I think we had one putt go off the green, from the back left on 17 to a front pin (he made the comebacker for a great 3).  But if they're maintaining them too fast, that's a real problem, especially at a place that lends itself to long rounds to begin with.

We have pretty wild greens at my club by normal standards, but I don't think they ever really get them rolling above 10 or 10.5.  They'd be nearly unplayable if they got too much faster.  That balance is really the key.  I thought Ballyneal had greens even crazier, but they were slower as well, and I thought they were really well balanced in that regard.  But that was in 2012 and with a new grass mix they may be getting a bit quicker.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 11:54:34 AM by Bill Seitz »

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2024, 11:54:00 AM »
Surely there’s someone that can measure the slope on greens like the 9th at Crystal Downs or measure the contour elevations on green like the 16th at Pasatiempo and tell us how it compares to modern greens considered too over the top.

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2024, 12:03:47 PM »
Having only played one, I doubt they are more extreme than Crystal Downs.


I didn't find the contours at Crystal Downs to be extreme.  I thought they were much more subtle than Kingsley and Lost Dunes.  But the speed at which they were maintained (at least in 2012) did not seem in good balance with the contours.

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far? New
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2024, 12:19:38 PM »
I think this is one of the most interesting subjects for discussion on this site in some time.
One test for "gone too far" is how long after construction of a green do players demand a renovation of the green.  And I am aware of several instances of this.  I am somewhat reluctant to name names exactly, but I can point to courses where 4-6 of the greens were required to be softened within a year of construction, because of feedback/complaints from member and regular players.  Isn't the need for early redos a pretty good indicator of greens that have "gone too far?"
I do also think that focusing on modern green speeds as a function of "gone too far" is the right discussion.  I believe that greens speeds on many modern courses have gotten "out of bounds," and that is the primary reason for greens being seen as "gone too far."  You can't really have one discussion without the other.
I look forward to further thoughts on this subject!
« Last Edit: June 25, 2024, 11:22:55 AM by Jim Hoak »

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2024, 12:31:19 PM »
Oops...i thought you meant too flattened and neutered to accommodate ridiculous modern green speeds.
I think this is the dichotomy that makes everything complex. I have a theory that green speeds flattening contours have moved in tandem with golf tech to increase launch angles of clubs (especially wedges), which has changed the way we play. When taking the high-launch modern game to a place with huge contours, they might not work for that type of game because they were designed with lower lofted shots in mind, to funnel running shots one direction or the other. This would also account for the restorations.

That said, when the greens aren't slowed down to match these contours, I've been known to grumble. I was able to play the Meadow Club at the Fried Egg event, and while I thought the course was exceptional, my only complaint was that the big, bold contours made many of the putts just "putt 5 feet the edge of that ridge, and hope it trickles down the next 10 yards to the hole" because most of the pins were exactly that type of "this green was design exactly so the ball will stop when rolling down this ridge."
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 12:35:04 PM by Matt Schoolfield »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2024, 12:46:50 PM »

You won't get anywhere with this if you don't name names.  Otherwise the discussion is just too vague.


Lost Dunes is the course of mine that's most often named in such discussions, both because it's a severe set of greens, and because it worried Mike Keiser so much about what I might build for him.  It's a private club and I figured that the members would get used to the difficulty over time and appreciate the variety from day to day.  It opened 25 years ago and to date, the only green that has had any work done to it is the relatively tame 9th, because some garbage was buried underneath the green and it abruptly settled a few years ago.


The most daring / infamous green there is the 4th, with three distinct terraces including a very small back shelf.  It can be very difficult to putt from the back of the green to the middle.  But, the hole is a par-5 that's under 500 yards, and the idea of that was so that guys going for the green in two had to be cautious about going beyond the flag.  I joked with the client early on that the good news was that he wouldn't have to answer questions about the other 17 greens if that one stayed, and it has kind of worked out that way!  It grabs all of the attention, and if that one's playable then people don't complain so much about the others.


Arcadia Bluffs has been mentioned, and what I remember as a negative was the way the green contours affected the approach shots there.  The par-3 down by the water [used to be the 9th, not sure of the numbers anymore] has a big swell at the front of the green and then it falls away hard from there, which is not that appealing on a 200+ yard approach shot that's fully exposed to the wind.  The South course at Arcadia has some really difficult greens, too, and again, I think they're puttable but the approach shots are hard to control because so many of them are angled to the line of approach.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 12:48:31 PM by Tom_Doak »

Charlie Ray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2024, 01:23:56 PM »
Obviously the speed of the greens determines how much contour/slope can be built into a green. 


However, if a player is on a green in regulation, what is the reasonable threshold of three-putt avoidance?  Looking at my GHIN stats, I 3 putt 9% of the time.  However, when playing a difficult set of greens (Prairie Dunes for example) my expectations are that 3/4 Three-putts are to be expected.  Why should interesting architecture be curtailed by subjective expectations of #putts? 


I do admit that this would be a nearly impossible expectation to curtail/change.  If I 3-putted half the greens, I probably wouldn't want to play that course again.  Sorry architects, you can't make everyone happy. 

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2024, 03:33:35 PM »
Not sure modern greens have gone ‘too far’. Gone ‘too far’ when related to modern green speeds however, now that’s more likely.
Indeed modern greens could ‘go further’ if the desire for rapid green speeds was eliminated.
Not just a question of cost and equipment and inputs and turf health etc either.
There’s the aspect of player ability. How many players can actually handle speedy greens? Obviously there are dozens of supermen posting herein who have the touch of a surgeon over a highly polished marble floor but in reality how many players can actually handle speedy greens? Who enjoys 3-putting? And players taking more putts slows pace of play down. Put the ego away folks, it’s trueness of roll that matters.
And all this applies to entire green complexes and back up the fairway too as it’s not just what happens with a putter that’s at stake here but shots into and around the putting surface.
Atb


PS To paraphrase Basil Fawlty “Don’t mention Sitwell Park. I did once but I think I got away with it.”

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2024, 04:18:47 PM »

The most daring / infamous green there is the 4th, with three distinct terraces including a very small back shelf.  It can be very difficult to putt from the back of the green to the middle.  But, the hole is a par-5 that's under 500 yards, and the idea of that was so that guys going for the green in two had to be cautious about going beyond the flag.  I joked with the client early on that the good news was that he wouldn't have to answer questions about the other 17 greens if that one stayed, and it has kind of worked out that way!  It grabs all of the attention, and if that one's playable then people don't complain so much about the others.



I can't recall if we discussed this at the time or if it was just in my head from the way you described it (which has been consistent over time), but I recall thinking of it as a hole where instead of par being the number of shots needed to reach the green plus two putts, why can't it be shots need plus three putts?  O somewhere in between.  It's a made up concept anyway.  I think of the 18th at Greywalls like this as well.  Not that the holes themselves are at all similar, but it's reachable par 5 with what I think is a very difficult green to putt, albeit more subtly deceptive than the fourth at Lost Dunes.

Brian Finn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2024, 04:20:41 PM »
I think all of the comments so far regarding the real issue being rapid green speeds are spot on.  Theoretically, if most/all greens had "appropriate" speeds (let's just agree that is slower than most modern greens), there would be more room for bold, dramatic design.  However, this is not going to happen.  I simply don't see the tide turning on this, much as I would like it to. 

So, in the context of today's environment, is there a green that you think doesn't work due to the contours?  I'll raise another example, which I have commented on previously (following this course's renovation work).

I think the 2nd green at Southern Pines is too much.  I don't like it.  I think the contours are too sharp, don't fit the hole all that well, and aren't something I believe Donald Ross would have designed.  Now, obviously, Kyle Franz knows a hell of a lot more about all of that than I do, but that doesn't mean his work there is beyond critique.  Past discussion on this green had pretty mixed reviews.  Anyone care to weigh in?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 04:23:24 PM by Brian Finn »
New for '24: Monifieth x2, Montrose x2, Panmure, Carnoustie x3, Scotscraig, Kingsbarns, Elie, Dumbarnie, Lundin, Belvedere, The Loop x2, Forest Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs x2, Kapalua Plantation, Windsong Farm, Minikahda...

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2024, 08:03:55 PM »
IMHO it's the owners/members that have gone too far in demanding faster and faster green speeds...
We are no longer a country of laws.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2024, 09:08:54 PM »
Brian,
We just saw the game played at the highest level on one of the most severe set of greens on the planet at Pinehurst #2.  I was thinking as I watched those greens perplex and at times embarrass the best players on the world, maybe upside down saucer greens are an antidote to adding length.  When rolling at 9 or so those greens are plenty challenging for the rest of us but juice them up to 13 when the big boys come town and you don’t need to take the course to 8000 yards to challenge them.  They could have probably played #2 about 500 yards shorter and got similar results. 

The key, however, is the turtleback character as that is the primary challenge more so than internal wild contouring.  Pros tend to do fine on wild greens unless you get goofy with four different direction breaks on a 20 foot putt  :(

I only say this about doomed greens half in jest as maybe more should be built like this.  Just don’t claim they are done in the spirit of Donald Ross  ;)   And as has been said multiple times, it mostly comes down to green speeds. 

Brian Moran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2024, 09:23:05 PM »
Not sure modern greens have gone ‘too far’. Gone ‘too far’ when related to modern green speeds however, now that’s more likely.
Indeed modern greens could ‘go further’ if the desire for rapid green speeds was eliminated.
Not just a question of cost and equipment and inputs and turf health etc either.
There’s the aspect of player ability. How many players can actually handle speedy greens? Obviously there are dozens of supermen posting herein who have the touch of a surgeon over a highly polished marble floor but in reality how many players can actually handle speedy greens? Who enjoys 3-putting? And players taking more putts slows pace of play down. Put the ego away folks, it’s trueness of roll that matters.
And all this applies to entire green complexes and back up the fairway too as it’s not just what happens with a putter that’s at stake here but shots into and around the putting surface.
Atb


PS To paraphrase Basil Fawlty “Don’t mention Sitwell Park. I did once but I think I got away with it.”


First, I fully agree that people overly blame green speeds - difficult greens make the game more complex than simply length and accuracy. Americans definitely chase speeds too much - I've never heard of a stimpmeter mentioned in Scotland yet far too often I hear Americans describe a course with "These greens are at a 13!" (when in reality they're probably closer to a 10). Even with this fascination, I've seldom found a fast green in America to actually be unfair.


The issue is that people overly believe that this is all that matters in scoring, and that you should be virtually guaranteed a par if you reach the green in regulation without much thought, albeit on rare exception where you make a stupid mistake. I spent a semester in St Andrews and played with countless tourists and students - the people who enjoyed the Old the least were the ones who were overly dejected by three putts ruining their scores on what they thought should be an easy course given their GIR stats.


Contrary to popular belief, the USGA doesn't actually have any rules regarding pin placements, even though most people think a pin can't be on more than a 2% slope.


A superintendent friend of mine once said that people above a 5 handicap shouldn't be playing on greens faster than 11. This makes no sense, as short game is a much more equitable test of golf. It doesn't see age or gender, which may hinder some from being able to score with length. Therefore, it is an effective equalizer that can baffle the overconfident. Let them suffer as their ball trickles off the green when they couldn't properly strike a putt - that's a proper test!


Obviously, however, greens weren't designed to play as fast as they have. In this trend of softening greens, however, I believe most have gone too far. Hanse has done this at Winged Foot and Oakmont for the US Open, yet they were still able to host tournaments at insane speeds just fine before. And while the classic argument is that it frees up pin positions, it still dulls the test which the course presents and promulgates this idea that some pins are "illegal", when a properly struck putt would have no issue getting close to the hole.


Second, the main issue I have taken with modern greens is that they either 1) too severe for the shot being hit into them or 2) create wild double breakers that are not seen on golden age courses in America.


For the first piece, I think of many Jack Nicklaus courses. The one I've played the most is Old Corkscrew, where the 6th green features a massive plateau despite being 480 from the back tees and 420 for most mortals. It's an accomplishment simply to hit the green, and the last thing on your mind is getting on the top shelf. The same is the case on the 14th, where the dogleg green doesn't provide any angle to the fairway despite requiring a long iron approach for most players. While there are some proper outliers (such as the road hole), most American architects of the golden age held that the severity of the green should correlate to the shot being played into it. Think of Cypress Point - the 8th is incredibly severe but most have a wedge into it. On the flip side, the 16th features a fairly flat and inviting green, since from 230 it would be impossible to play for the right section of the green even for the best players.


Lastly, green designs have gone too far in creating inaccessible sections. Consider a double plateau - sure there are three sections to the green, yet they all slope from back to front, so putting from one to the other is not a complicated geometric effort. It's important to create nuanced greens with ridges and diverse slopes from hole to hole, however, I believe it's important that most greens slope to a common low point. Even on a severe double plateau, the putt is always breaking a certain way, the question is how much break to play. There are some greens, I can think of Streamsong Black or St Andrews Castle, where one may have a putt over a ridge that breaks one direction and swiftly comes down the slope in the opposite. Some of these become impossible when playing enough break will cause you to miss the ridge all together.


Long rant, and obviously a purely amateur opinion, but the question is nuanced and doesn't have a simple answer.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2024, 09:39:44 PM »

Lastly, green designs have gone too far in creating inaccessible sections. Consider a double plateau - sure there are three sections to the green, yet they all slope from back to front, so putting from one to the other is not a complicated geometric effort. It's important to create nuanced greens with ridges and diverse slopes from hole to hole, however, I believe it's important that most greens slope to a common low point. Even on a severe double plateau, the putt is always breaking a certain way, the question is how much break to play. There are some greens, I can think of Streamsong Black or St Andrews Castle, where one may have a putt over a ridge that breaks one direction and swiftly comes down the slope in the opposite. Some of these become impossible when playing enough break will cause you to miss the ridge all together.



Now there's a great example of someone creating a rule out of thin air that flies against everything I know.


The modern conception of designing greens is that every green should drain to two or three different places, so that all of the surface drainage during a storm doesn't go to one spot, and especially not to the approach.  I say "modern" but it's been that way for at least 60 years . . . we have been working on the greens at Crooked Stick just now and all of them drain to two or three different areas.


That wasn't true in the old days . . . Winged Foot has greens that are bunkered both sides, leaving nowhere for the water to go but out the front . . . but Perry Maxwell and Dr. MacKenzie were predecessors of the modern ideal.


I'm not saying greens should have four distinct breaks in twenty feet . . . I'd love to hear Mark Fine's example of where that's true, I think it's just a load of b.s. . . . but some modern greens are different than others.


P.S.  Just because the USGA doesn't have anything in the Rules of Golf does not mean they don't have limits on where the hole should be cut.  Their limit is generally 3%, but varies depending on what speeds they are trying to achieve.  I spent time with Mike Davis and with the agronomists when they were choosing hole locations for the Curtis Cup at Pacific Dunes and the U.S. Women's Open at Sebonack, and Mike carried a little "smart level" to check the slope in any given area.  [He was also amazed that I could tell him approximately how much slope there was in the spots he was checking at Pacific Dunes . . . because I had checked them myself when we were building it.]

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2024, 10:09:14 PM »
Brian Moran,
Just one quick comment on your post; I have been asked many times to “soften the slopes” on older greens particularly those heavily tilted from back to front.  I am always VERY hesitant to do it and it is usually is an absolute last resort.  First we try to expand the greens as much as possible to their original sizes if not larger to get more pinnable areas.  We also try to get courses to lower green speeds but have less luck with that.  What usually convinces me the most to make the changes is after sitting by a severe green for a few hours and watching players come through.  I once watched a series a six foursomes with decent players play a severe green and at least one golfer in each group five putted before giving up and picking up their ball.  When you see this, you know it is time to make some changes  ;)

I am not at all one looking for fairness.  But when you have a green where 80% or so of the surface is 6-7% slope, you will not have many spots where a moving ball will stop when greens are rolling 10 or more.  We had one green we rebuilt where I could drop a ball on the back edge and it would roll off the front.  It had one small shelf where a few holes could be placed.  It was meant to be kept at 4 or 5 on the stimp if there was such a thing back when it was built.


Tom,
Four breaks in 20 feet might be a bit of an exaggeration but we have both played greens that can get silly at high speeds.  You built some wild greens at for example at Apache Stronghold. Would any of them fit the bill?  Maybe not. What about #7 at Streamsong Blue? I am not saying any of these are bad greens but some are very severe. 
« Last Edit: June 25, 2024, 07:04:17 AM by Mark_Fine »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Modern Greens Gone Too Far?
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2024, 03:09:54 AM »
The two courses which come to mind are Tobacco Road and Castle. Neither are ott strictly for contours. TR has two issues, First, too many greens where a putt can’t be hit to a hole without putting off the green. Second, to many long and narrow greens. The Castle has some severe greens, but I don’t think that is ott. It is the combo of a forced aerial approach with the contours that is ott. Generally speaking, the more wild a green the more a ground option approach should be available.

That said, it is rare that I have issues with greens. Some may not be to my taste, but that’s fine.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing