Shallow greens should be EMBRACED

[Jim Thompson]

As much as this may seem like a gratuitous Barneyesque contrarian thread, it is not.  After considering the “Shallow greens SHOULD be extinct” and the “Do you like golf today?” threads I think I had a mini revelation.

Is the design exodus from the use of the shallow green a contributor to what is wrong with the game today?  I couldn’t help but notice how the “playability” of the shallow green relative to the player’s ability to spin the ball kept being discussed.  The conclusion being that the shallow green wasn’t, and I cringe as I type the word, “fair”.  As I read it the first time it made sense, players of lesser skill levels struggle with SPINNING the ball and therefore old shallow greens are extremely difficult to play.  However, when I read it a second time through I read, players of lesser skill levels struggle with spinning the BALL.

So…  Were the old shallow greens as difficult to play when they were constructed?  When they were played with the balls of their time?

I think not.  I don’t believe any designer of any era intentionally went / goes out to make features unplayable.  Difficult, perhaps; unplayable, no.

Now, for the “Do you like golf today?” twist.  After perusing that thread the “today” factor got me to thinking along the lines of “what do I miss most from yesterday’s game?”  The course I began playing on used to have small, firm, dry greens and tight dry fairways.  It was built in the late twenties and a fine test at 6500 yards.  A sentiment echoed many times on this sight.  Today its greens and fairways are kept moist to minimize roll and maximize hold, as the course has no room for expansion.  In the good ‘ole days we played it with a tour balata.  Holding our breath on every tee shot in fear of dreaded sidespin.  We all knew we could hit rocks farther and safer off the tee, but didn’t dare to play them as the margin of error into the greens would have been nil without a soft juice ball.  It was sooooooo important that we all, and this is something we don’t hear anymore, sacrificed distance to maximize feel, control, spin etc…

To whom does the duty of defending the future of the game from technology and smash ball fall?  Are we to put our faith in the R&A and USGA or do we implore the wisdom of those creating the courses of tomorrow, and renovating the courses of yesterday?  Was not the concept of the reverse Redan the first act of architectural compromise?  After all the Redan required a perfectly placed and played cut or nerves of steel to hit the draw.  But the reverse Redan made the margin of error for the cut greater and eliminated the draw all together.  None of this is to suggest building holes without ground options, BTW.

So here’s the deal venerated archies… Please, please use shallow greens.  If they make you to nervous, use average greens with shallow pin areas / tiers.  If every nine had a shallow green, and a shallow split average depth green, the masses would be clamoring for soft balls that spin again, and greens could be healthier with less water, and maintenance budgets could drop, and golf could be more affordable, and 7500 yards would be ridiculous long, and we’d actually hit mid irons into par fours after good tee shots, and we could play the game of the twenties again.  To paraphrase Herbert Hoover’s 1928 “chicken in every pot” campaign slogan – “A 2 iron in every bag, and a balata on every tee.”


For your consideration-

JT

[DMoriarty]

Interesting theory Jim, but I am not sure I buy the underlying premise-- at least as I understand it.  

Sure balata balls spun more, but dont today's balls make up for the lack of spin with the new trajectory?  Iron shots seem to drop straight out of the sky, settling near where they land.  Heck, some better golfers of today dont get much bounce or roll with their drivers, much less their irons.  

[tonyt]

Given the number of modern "go" balls that also stop like a dead bird falling from the sky, I don't think so.

The ball that has added 30 yards to a lot of people's tee shots not only stops on a dime, but does so without having to be crushed like an old balata did.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

My guess is that your formula is a prescription for golfers to demand that their superintendents water the greens every night.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jim- I wonder how many lawyers would be willing to represent your's and other clubs of similar architectural styles and predicament. The mark is of course wally, et al, and their decision to no longer make the balata piloto.

reverse the fear !

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Jim,

Although you asked for venerated architects to reply, I hope you do not mind if I jump in.  It seems to me there are two different games being played.  One by those of lesser skill to whom the ground game still matters.  Those of  highly advanced skills whom play a trajectory game.  It seems both types of players can be challenged by and enjoy a shallow green. If the terrain in front of a shallow green, or off at an angle, is open and of an interesting shape to challenge the rolling ball then the less skilled player should derive some challenge and enjoyment from positioning themselves at the best angle from which to play this shot, although it might be one shot more than the approach shot.  If there are options for the advanced player to place the tee shot at a favorable angle from which to enter the narrow pin area, or be forced to play the high trajectory shot to stop it quickly at the pin then this player is likewise challenged, and derives enjoyment that extends back to the choices he/she must make at the tee.  Those golfers whom used to play at a high level but do not possess all the skills any more still enjoy playing the bump and run if given the opportunity because of the sheer enjoyment of the shot even though a high trajectory shot is an available option as well.  I think once you depart the serious world of high stakes play, you learn better to enjoy the aesthetic qualities of attempting certain shots like the bump and run to the approach area, which is an extension of the green,  in hopes of keeping the ball on a shallow green.  In large part the high stakes game caused by the pro circuits has sucked the life out of the game, diminished the aesthetc qualitites of certain styles of play, adversely affected the mindset of the typical player, and intimidated governing bodies to the point of inaction.

[TEPaul]

This to me is the interesting part of Jim Thompson's intial post;

"The conclusion being that the shallow green wasn’t, and I cringe as I type the word, “fair”.  As I read it the first time it made sense, players of lesser skill levels struggle with SPINNING the ball and therefore old shallow greens are extremely difficult to play.  However, when I read it a second time through I read, players of lesser skill levels struggle with spinning the BALL.
So…  Were the old shallow greens as difficult to play when they were constructed?  When they were played with the balls of their time?"

Jim Thompson seems to be asking about the playable characteristics of the old balls vs the new balls and their capablilty of "spinning" off the clubs of various levels of players. This is a really excellent question, the answer to which has ALWAYS been little known and understood, in my opinion!

I'm not a physicist or scientist but I think it's generally accepted that the higher a ball's spin rate the greater a ball's ability to check and hold on a green and the old balata type balls very likely had a higher spin rate, maybe much higher than most any ball on the market today!! This is something I believe few golfers and practically no higher handicappers understand particularly well or have ever understood.

In a short sentence, most unsophisticated goflers have no idea at all about the spectrum of playing characteristics of golf balls or I should probably more accurately say the allowable spectrum of playing characteristics (under the USGA/R&A golf ball rules and regs) as they relate to something like spin and spin rate and what it does when a ball hits a green.

It's always amused me when an unsophisticated golfer looks in awe at a tour pro spin a ball onto a green, check it and suck it back 5-10-20 or more steps) and wonders why he can't do that. Well, first of all, it does take swing speed to mazimize that type of spin, check and suck back but that's not all it takes! It also take a particular type of golf ball with a high spin rate--something very few higher handicapper ever play.

And these unsophisticated golfers looking at what those pros do have no idea either that Tiger Woods or any other pro or high class player could not possibly do that with the type of golf ball those unsophisticated golfers use--call it a pinnacle or a rock as that's a good example of a generic low spinning characteristic golf ball that almost all high handicappers use.

So, if these unsophisticated golfers want to even attempt to spin, check and suck back their ball on a shallow green, for instance, the first thing they must do is use a ball with the same spin characteristics as the pro uses, or perhaps a ball with even higher spin characteristics but most certainly not a ball with lower spin characeristics.

Obviously, they will never be able to spin, check and suck it back so well as the pro because they generally don't have his swing speed (which is necessary to a large degree) but at least these unsophisticated players will be able to spin, check and suck back their balls better than they do now with a low spin characteristic ball such as a pinnacle.

But the larger point and one that might answer Jim Thompson's concerns about shallow greens in design's future even better is there may be a huge spectrum of presently untapped spin potential that the manufacturers are not today employing!

This kind of thing gets into a matter of diminishing returns after a while. In other words, I don't believe there's anything within the USGA/R&A rules and regs for golf balls that limits the manufacturers in how much spin they can design into the ball. The thing the USGA/R&A rules and regs are primarily concerned with regarding golf balls is what their distance potential is, not necessarily just their spin rate--although they certainly are linked in physics!

I see no reason why the manufacturers could not offer the weaker, shorter player a golf ball with an extremely high spin rate so they could better stop their ball on a green. Obviously, a pro wouldn't use a ball like that because with his higher swing speed he'd probably spin it all over the place and lack control!

Since I am no physicist or scientist I imagine that a really high spinning ball would have a lot to do with distance and trajectory characteristics too (probably negatively to the distance and trajectory of the weaker player) but we've just seen these manufacturers come up with some interesting wrinkles in what they generally refer to as "optimizaiton". Optimization to me is getting to be sort of a weird science but they're apparantly now able to manufacture a club/ball symbiosis that allows a low spin rate off the driver and a much higher spin rate off the wedge!!

If they can do that for the good player I would imagine they can probably also figure out how to make a ball that will enhance distance/trajectory and also spin rate for the weaker player at the other end of the skill spectrum. And if they could do that it would be a potential answer to how a weak, short player could stop his ball on a shallow green better.

But of course the first thing he'll have to do is understand the playing characteristic differences in golf balls better, at least potentially. I'd think there just might be an enormous untapped market here for manufacturers in both advertizing and production!!

In other words, the spin rate spectrum seems to be almost unlimited within the USGA/R&A golf ball rules and regs so the manufacturers should now figure out how to both R&D it and use it in production and play for the weaker, high handicap player!

To answer one of Jim Thompson's intial questions--if the higher handicapper today used a ball with as high a spin rate as the old balata ball (which was once the only ball in existence before the two piece "rock's" inception in the 1960s) they'd definitely be able to spin, check and hold the ball on shallow greens better!

There's a good reason, matter of fact about the only reason, the higher handicapper and weaker and less skilled player gave up that old soft higher spinning balata ball in favor of the new "rock" when it entered golf. That reason is because when you missed a shot with the old balata type it cut and was done and the new rock didn't cut!! So they gave it up for that reason alone and apparently either never knew or completely forgot what the differences in playing characteristics were all about.

One would think they may have at least wondered why all higher handicappers played the rock while virtually not a single pro or good player ever did!! I guess golfers mostly aren't very inquisitive!

[Michael Dugger]

"fair"

There is that word again.  All Tom Doak is advocating is we OUGHT not build too many shallow greens with bunkers front and back.

The amateur player faces much difficulty holding them.

It has nothing to do with fair, it has to do with building courses that are fun and PLAYABLE for all classes of players.  

[TEPaul]

m:

Do you think there's something distinctly unfun or unplayable about some golfers having to decide to hit a ball over bunkers surrounding a shallow green (with perhaps bunkers behind) or perhaps laying up in front of them and making up that shot with a chip and a putt?

Personally, I don't think that's unfun or unplayable if offered in limited doses! I think something like that shows any golfer better what "whole hole" strategy is all about for THEM as opposed to multiple single shot options for all and all the time!

Many of the best of the old golden age architects called things like that "shot testing" and it was something many of them were very much into "back in the day"! And what was offered to one in this limited dose "shot testing" sense was offered to all!

[A_Clay_Man]

With 20 million + dozen in golf ball sales last year, What would that number be if they still cut, just looking at them?

Have the ball manufactuers been fiduciarily irresponsible by making a ball tougher to lose and cut?

[Michael Dugger]

TEPaul,

I think we see this the same way.  I really do.  

In his post Mr. Doak did not advocate eliminating the idea all together, he merely said that too much of it was not a good thing.  He then went on to cite how Jack used the shallow green with bunkers front and back on a lot of his designs in the 80's and 90's.  I see that influence in our vaunted Pumpkin Ridge here in Oregon.  Thank you Bob Cupp!  

Mr. Doak cited a couple of examples where he has done the very thing himself, but in moderation, or he eliminated the front bunker allowing for run up options.

I have no personal problem with the design, I really don't, and I fully agree with you that it is a nice tester for the player.  Lay up......go for it.....what is the crummy hack to do?

Variety, we both find this integral to good design.  Wide greens, big greens, tiny green, shallow greens, hourglass, kidney bean, oval, square......I love em all!  

[TEPaul]

"Have the ball manufactuers been fiduciarily irresponsible by making a ball tougher to lose and cut?"

Now that's a completely novel thought Adam. Some of us should show up at the golf manufacturers annual meetings and threaten to sue them for fiduciary irresponsibility unless they promise to manufacture high spinning golf balls again (like the old "easy cut" balatas) that check and suck back on shallow bunker-surrounded greens for little old ladies from at least 200 yards out. And we'll also tell them if those same balls can't be cut as easily (as the old balatas) by grandma with the slightest mishit we'll be back at next year's annual meeting and threaten them again with fiduciary irresponsibliity!

[TEPaul]

Adam, you're definitely onto something here with this fiduciary irresponsibilty thing!

If the manufacturers would just agree to reproduce those old "easy cut" high spinning balatas, even if in limited numbers, our argument is bullet proof and we can even nail grandma too if she's heard to make a peep of criticism about her heaven wood zooming across a shallow bunker surrounded green.

I'd just grab her by the neck and say:

"What the f... kinda golf ball are you playing there grandma and why?"

She'd say:

"Wellll, I'm playing the pinnacle because it doesn't cut and I won't have to buy so many golf balls."

And I'll say:

"Grandma, you dumb sh...., do you want your heaven wood to spin and check and suck back on that bunker surrounded shallow green or don't you?"

Grandma:

"Wellll, yes sonny, that would be niiiice!"

And I'd say;

"Then get your cheap, short hittin' old ass into that pro shop at a full sprint before I come after you again and tell them to order you about five times more of those high spinning "easy cut" golf balls than the amount of those no cut rocks you've been using all these years!"

You're a genius Adam, this can be a "win/win/win/win" situation for everyone except grandma's pocketbook! But if grandma wants to check and suck her ball back 10 steps on a shallow bunker surrounded green with her heaven wood she's just gonna have to damn well pay for it!