Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: PCCraig on September 28, 2010, 11:40:07 AM
-
It seems that an obvious trend in modern design are greens that feature big and bold shapes with dramatic contours. Tom Doak’s greens at Old MacDonald, Ballyneal, and Lost Dunes are praised by many on GCA and in the golf world as “wild and fun.” Perhaps as an extension of the modern minimalist movement in golf course architecture, but other architects have also begun to err on the side of heavily contoured greens. Most notably, Jack Nicklaus’ firm has built what many have called “crazy and stupid” greens at courses such as Dove Mountain and Harbor Shores.
What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?
At which point are architects just adding “contour for contour’s sake?”
How important is restraint in the design of greens?
At what hole yardage does the architect start to smooth out contours of a green to make the hole more “fair?”
For reference, links to pictures of Lost Dunes as well as Harbor Shores, 10 miles apart situated on similar sites:
Lost Dunes: http://www.golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/Michigan/Lost%20Dunes/index.html
Harbor Shores: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=44963.0
-
What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?
The politically correct answer is that the contours on a Doak, Hanse and C&C course are either natural, look natural or blend in with the surrounding natural environment and the wild contours by the others do not. Therefore, the greens are wild and fun rather than contrived and unrestrained.
I will agree with you that it is often difficult to understand why a course like Kingsley Club is criticized for lack of restraint and courses by the architects you listed above are celebrated.
-
Pat, an interesting aspect of your questions, is that Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus worked on Sebonack together. There are various conversations in regard to the severity of those greens and who did what with them. It would be interesting to see if the designer himself could influence whether they were thought of as "wild and fun" category or the "crazy" category. In other words, have some designers build up a bank of credibility that others have not? If someone played Sebonack and was told it was Tom Doak that designed the greens, could they come out saying they were "wild and fun" but if that same person played and believed that Nicklaus did them, could he say they were "crazy"
-
Pat,
It's an interesting topic and one that I've been thinking a lot about lately. I think the key factor is the amount of thought that goes into the contours and how they fit with the surrounds. I think wild contours can be a blast if they are done right, but are absolutely no fun when done wrong, which is probably why it's such a fine line. For me, I think it comes down to one thing -- even if I'm on the worst place on the green relative to the pin position, I want the opportunity for a well-executed lag putt to give me a 4-6 footer left for par, even if the consequences of a less-than-well executed lag putt are far worse. I can live with that. I enjoy that. Where it goes wrong is when the contours lead to an automatic three-putt.
-
Keith:
Certain fan clubs exist on this site -- certain people get more leeway with such efforts while others get panned as being excessive.
Nicklaus did excellent greens at Red Ledges in UT but from some certain quarters there are people who see the greens there as excessive. Candidly, if someone played the course and did not know Jack did the course and for the sake of an experiment a substitute preferred archie were involved the likely reaction would be different.
The sad reality is that people need to move away from blanket assertions for certain designers -- the fallacy that whatever certain people do is marvelous -- while what others do is over-the-top.
-
Crazy and Stupid = Greens that are not "wild and fun"
;D
-
Pat,
Interesting topic. Couple of points. In general the movement back towards more interesting green contours is a good one. It's only the crazy speeds that some club players have become accustomed to which makes some contours OTT. Particularly for club members who play the same set of greens perhaps hundreds of times, interesting greens are the main thing that keep it fun over long periods. I also think you need to look at the course as a whole and not individual greens. A few holes with wild contours are a lot of fun. 18 of them becomes goofy golf. I don't think there's a proscribed distance at which one must provide an "easier" surface. Nothing wrong with one hole that requires a very challenging up & down for par. Side topic-why are naturally found wild greens cool and man-made large contours silly?
-
Part of the answer lies in who is playing the golf course and when. The reason Dove Mountain took stick was that the first anyone heard of it was the Tour going there. Greens that are fun for travelling golfers when they run at sensible speeds can easily be at the centre of a big row if they're cranked up to 13 feet and the Tour comes to town.
-
I played Lederach in PA this past weekend and the greens and their surrounds were "wild and fun". Nice job, Mr. Moran. Something I noticed was with slower green speeds - in the morning dew in my case, or just slow greens as a course setup - one cannot take advantage of some banks and mounds to work their putts close to holes. Bold greens need to be fast without being OTT.
-
I am wondering if there ever was a trend for wild and fun greens to get back to. Most classic courses I know of don't have wild greens, they may have a few which are extreme and maybe ott, but most are just fun. I have yet to see a course where I thought the greens were crazy and stupid. The last modern set I saw that I really liked was at Lederach, but oddly, they were running too slowly to shine. Get those at 9ish and they would be lovely. Much more than 10ish and I suspect many of the greens would be silly. This is my fear wild greens with the speeds of today. Given the climate for quick greens imo its best to temper them somewhat, but throw in a handful of zingers. For those that like ground game options courses, I would also say that when greens become quick it is hard to get the right meld of fairway speed and green speed. When the two are far apart in speed the course won't play as well as it might.
Ciao
-
Pat:
I don't think it has much at all to do with what's perceived as "natural" v. "man made", at least any more than anything in architecture is less accepted when it's taken to be artificial. For the record, I've built maybe 3 or 4 greens out of 30 golf courses that were really and truly natural ... the other 500+ of them required SOME manipulation [often not too much] to get the slopes within reason and/or to make them more interesting.
Of course, the thin line you describe is a moving target, if the green speeds are going to change from owner to owner or from situation to situation. As Adam suggests, I think it would be next to impossible to create "wild and fun" greens for an owner who wants his greens to roll 12 or 13 on a regular basis.
[At Sebonack, Mr. Pascucci swore they wouldn't be that fast everyday, but that's where he tells his superintendent to get them during the season.]
My feeling is that is where Mr. Nicklaus is having trouble now. He wants to get wild and fun greens, because he understands it's the only way to make the course difficult for the pros anymore, and because he is more into fun golf than he used to be. But he is working for owners who want 13 on the Stimp, whereas most of my owners are fine with the idea of 9.5 to 10.5 on a regular basis and 12 to 13 only for a two-day event.
The other half of the equation is that when you are building in such short game challenges, you have to have a good enough short game to imagine every shot that might occur and to address the potential problems while you are building them. If you were going to hand that assignment to someone, would you hand it to Ben Crenshaw or to Jack Nicklaus? Building severe greens requires a much greater time commitment by the architect, because you are opening yourself up to criticism in a 3-D medium that can only be judged on site.
I used to have a pretty good short game myself, and I can still decide as well as anyone whether my greens are "crazy and stupid" or not. I know some people will call them that, regardless of what I think; but in most cases, it's because they have a poor short game, or a poor imagination as to how to position their approaches and/or play their recovery shots to give themselves a bit more buffer for error.
And Matt, I don't think it's all about whose fan club you're in. I don't agree with that at all. Perhaps Bill and Ben and I get more of the benefit of the doubt than others, because we've done it before ... but in the end, if you're not pointing to some of our greens and showing us where they are too severe, then it's not bias. If others' courses can withstand similar scrutiny, then they'll be good to go, too.
-
The broader trend has been to make them flatter and faster.
If an architect is going to experiment - they had best be on site to watch them develop.
It is an art - not everyone is an "artist".
Part of the answer lies in who is playing the golf course and when.
It also depends on who is maintaining the course.
-
8) Do they fit the circumstances or is the circus in town?
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/DSC00392.jpg)
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/TXSeve/DSC00535.jpg)
-
While impossible to do, I'd love to be able to compare qualitatively the experiences of golfers in the 1920s playing on courses/greens by the likes of MacKenzie and Maxwell with golfers today playing on courses/greens by our top designers.
Of course, besides being impossible, the exercise would probably also be futile, i.e. it wouldn't be of any practical use. So much has changed -- technology, maintenances practices etc - but probably nothing in golf has changed so much as golfers themselves, and their expectations.
I can't imagine what today's golfers would say if they had to play the modern equivalent of Crystal Downs in the 1920s, played at 6,600 yards with the clubs and balls and turf conditions of that day, and hitting tee/approach shots into those greens.
But if that experience is a 'standard' by which we shoud measure/judge the playing experience of today's golfers, it's also hard for me to imagine any green being 'crazy'.
Peter
-
While impossible to do, I'd love to be able to compare qualitatively the experiences of golfers in the 1920s playing on courses/greens by the likes of MacKenzie and Maxwell with golfers today playing on courses/greens by our top designers.
Of course, besides being impossible, the exercise would probably also be futile, i.e. it wouldn't be of any practical use. So much has changed -- technology, maintenances practices etc - but probably nothing in golf has changed so much as golfers themselves, and their expectations.
I can't imagine what today's golfers would say if they had to play the modern equivalent of Crystal Downs in the 1920s, played at 6,600 yards with the clubs and balls and turf conditions of that day, and hitting tee/approach shots into those greens.
But if that experience is a 'standard' by which we shoud measure/judge the playing experience of today's golfers, it's also hard for me to imagine any green being 'crazy'.
Peter
Pina Colada,
The greens are likely faster today at Crystal Downs than they were 70+ years ago and I've always found them to be a great joy to play on. The turf conditions were probably more favorable for a golfer at Crystal Downs as it is more likely the turf was firmer and faster than it is today. The times I've been lucky enough to play Crystal Downs, the turf has been quite lush, particularly the summer rounds.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
-
The other half of the equation is that when you are building in such short game challenges, you have to have a good enough short game to imagine every shot that might occur and to address the potential problems while you are building them. If you were going to hand that assignment to someone, would you hand it to Ben Crenshaw or to Jack Nicklaus? Building severe greens requires a much greater time commitment by the architect, because you are opening yourself up to criticism in a 3-D medium that can only be judged on site.
I used to have a pretty good short game myself, and I can still decide as well as anyone whether my greens are "crazy and stupid" or not. I know some people will call them that, regardless of what I think; but in most cases, it's because they have a poor short game, or a poor imagination as to how to position their approaches and/or play their recovery shots to give themselves a bit more buffer for error.
Tom,
Isn't this passage of yours the same as the old line from Player or Nicklaus about knowing what a good shot is?
-
Chris Buie,
IMO, The 5th hole at Tot Hill Farm is ruined by the green area. The hole is in a scenic setting, the fairway has great width, there's great elevation changes, and then once you cross the creek it becomes ridiculous. Just looking at your photo is evidence enough.
-
The obvious factor with which I forgot to mention in my first post was the speed of greens today vs. historically. Sure, fast greens (13+ stimp) can make almost any green harder right away. But is it impossible for undulating greens to be playable even high speeds and remain interesting without going over the top? How about Augusta National…big undulating greens which are kept at high speed during the Masters (and toned down quite a bit for regular play…but not a ton) but tends to “work” for most players?
But for argument’s sake let’s assume that we’re in a maintenance “vacuum” and that all green speeds are the same…and just discussing the design.
I think it’s safe to say that many on here enjoy playing the Macdonald / Raynor School of design partially because of the fantastic template green complexes. What strikes me about those classic greens is that the design is dominated by one elaborate feature. For example, the barritz has the swale; the redan features a sweeping right-to-left tilt that calls for a distinct shot type, a thumbprint green, etc… These are simple, yet bold, features that dictate strategy throughout the playing of the entire hole.
Instead of focusing on one distinct feature, today’s greens seem to feature a number of swales, humps, & bumps and can need a roadmap to figure out all the different pin positions. These can be fun due to the sheer amount of information a player needs to process in order to hit a lag putt or a chip, but at what point does that become too much?
I raised the comparison of Lost Dunes to Harbor Shores for a reason. I played them one day apart two weeks ago and it gave me a great opportunity to compare two courses which share similar traits:
*Lost Dunes and Harbor Shores are 10 miles away from each other in Southwestern Michigan
*Both feature sandy soil due to the natural surroundings
*Their respective properties would be classified as “industrial” as LD was an old sand quarry bisected by *I-94 and Harbor Shores was built using urban land once used by Whirlpool
*Both feature a dune within their design.
*Both are known for their “wild” greens.
I played them one day apart two weeks ago and it gave me a great opportunity to compare the two sets of greens and as to why one set works, and one doesn’t.
The perfect example of the differences is evidenced by the comparison of the Par-5 4th hole at Lost Dunes, and the Par-5 10th hole at Harbor Shores. Both are short par-5s with wide landing areas off the tee and being easily reachable by many better players with even high handicaps being able to get their second shots within pitching distance. The obvious strategy is that while the player can hit their second shot directly at the green with the hopes of a makeable eagle putt or chip, if the player does not succeed, it will be one very hard up and down for birdie. However a player that knows what lies ahead can lay up to a comfortable spot and test his or her luck by hitting a full shot to a tucked pin.
I went for both greens in two, both times reaching the green. At the 10th hole at Harbor Shores, I was in the front fairway presented with a back pin…behind a 10ft wall of a green which was really the largest swale I’ve seen on a green. There, I had one option…either hit a putt hard and hope it gets up the hill or flop a wedge up there and hope it sticks in the shallow landing area.
At Lost Dunes, the pin was located middle left on a little shelf between the flat front part of the green and the quasi-punchbowl back portion of the green. I hit my shot which ran up to the back portion of the green and faced a putt that to a player that had never seen the green before looked like you would have no option other than to putt the ball towards the ledge hoping it would trickle down the slope and somehow stay on the green. However, I remembered what Tom Doak had said during the Midwest Mashie and hit my putt about 45* left, allowing the ball to pick up a gentle slope pushing it further left, then grabbing a separate slope which swung the ball back right toward the hole. Tom’s words were something to the effect that “the best greens give you two options to attack each pin.”
Another observation that I made was that while at HS I faced numerous 3-4 footers which I had to play a sizable amount of break on, most of my shorter putts at LD where somewhat flat and makeable…almost making up for all the wild long pitches and lag putts over shelves and ridges.
-
Tom,
Isn't this passage of yours the same as the old line from Player or Nicklaus about knowing what a good shot is?
Jim:
Yes, it is. Two can play at that game. :)
However, it is a bit different of a statement coming from me than from, say, Gary Player. I am not a world class player, so if I say that a certain green is playable for me, and getting the results I intended, then it should follow logically that it ought to be okay for any world class player. It may not follow that it works well for players worse than me (if there are any left).
Whereas Gary Player is usually saying that a certain hole designed by someone else DOESN'T work for him ... which doesn't really prove much of anything, does it?
-
there is no line.
Oh, maybe that Tot Hill photo got me thinking ;D
-
Pat,
Another interesting part of your comparison of Lost Dunes and Harbor Shores is that the two greens in question were probably built by the same guy ... Jerame Miller, who shaped all the greens at Lost Dunes back when he worked for Landscapes Unlimited, and who is now an associate and shaper for Nicklaus Design. So while I am sure that Jack has never been to Lost Dunes, I suspect the idea to do a similar green probably came from Jerame.
He is a very talented guy, but when he is reporting to different guys you may well see different results.
-
This green at my club always causes a fair amount of consternation amongst some. Three strong tiers, steep slope from back to front, at the end of a long par five.
(http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj26/fingal_album/PeninsulaSouth8.jpg)
Perhaps it all depends upon one's mindset. It's good fun, with a lot of options if you miss, all varying depending on where the pin is. Pretty good green for a par five.
-
I struggle to define this beyond "I know it when I see it." Here is my effort which probably could be improved with some open source input:
I generally prefer undulating greens that have a general theme to the green as a whole (with interesting variations - usually spines or slopes away from side bunkers) rather than sections or worse - random humps and hollows. I find approach shots most enjoyable when I know I should bail out to one side or the other, but want to try and hit it close and thereby take the associated risks.
By contrast, as a general rule, sectioned greens are almost impossible for most if they are firm and a lawn dart game if they are soft. It is pretty difficult to size the sections such that they provide the right level of challenge for a wide variety of players.
I have played a couple of courses where the greens seemd to be random collections of moguls. There is nothing more frustrating than hitting the middle of the green on a 430 yard par four only to realize that I will either make the approach putt or have a long return. I don't mind being placed in that situation if I can anticipate it based on information available before I hit the shot but in some rare cases, I have not been able to discern the challenge until it is too late.
-
Tom,
Isn't this passage of yours the same as the old line from Player or Nicklaus about knowing what a good shot is?
Jim:
Yes, it is. Two can play at that game. :)
However, it is a bit different of a statement coming from me than from, say, Gary Player. I am not a world class player, so if I say that a certain green is playable for me, and getting the results I intended, then it should follow logically that it ought to be okay for any world class player. It may not follow that it works well for players worse than me (if there are any left).
Whereas Gary Player is usually saying that a certain hole designed by someone else DOESN'T work for him ... which doesn't really prove much of anything, does it?
Tom,
do you mean that because Ben C has a better short game than Jack N then Jack will build more playable greens? Maybe this is the same line of thinking as using the village idiot ;)
Jon
-
Chris Buie,
IMO, The 5th hole at Tot Hill Farm is ruined by the green area. The hole is in a scenic setting, the fairway has great width, there's great elevation changes, and then once you cross the creek it becomes ridiculous. Just looking at your photo is evidence enough.
What is the purpose of the lower tier portion of the green. It looks unnatural and contrived. If you hit it deep on the back tier and it is pinned in front like the photo is it possible to 2 putt? This must fall in the latter category of crazy and stupid.
-
Tom D:
There are clear fan clubs here on this site. Nothing wrong with that but let's not play it down because it does exist.
My only point was that certain people get rave comments in almost all cases because those making such statements truly like what that individual or individuals do. On the flip side -- you get certain people and if Jesus blessed them they would still get dissed.
Nicklaus gets hammered from a good many people on this site and frankly many of those folks are basing that belief on layouts that don't reflect the best of what Jack has done.
Tom -- you do get mega benefit of the doubt and other architects get often times little of it. What DeVries did at Kingsley is first rate stuff in my mind -- ditto what Spann did at Black Mesa. Jack's work at Red Ledges is also well done but often times you get people trying to handle such courses from tee lengths that only adds to their overall problems. The end result? Blame the architect for greens that are "out of control."
Candidly, Tom, although I love the 5th at Old Macdonald -- I can see people making the claim that such a green is utterly excessive in terms of green contours. I think it works because of the length of shot that most players will play there. If Jack's name were substituted for the work at that hole instead of the team that did it -- the net result in my mind would be a thumbs down from many people. The bottom line -- who the designer is often dictates the fanfare -- good or bad -- that comes from it.
-
JC - you're right on both counts, but if you conclude that CD was not any harder to play for the average golfer back then as it is now, I think I'd venture to disagree. But I'd suggest that the more important difference between golfers back then and those of today is that, back then, golfers gave the challenges of (and extra strokes caused by) undulating greens a weight and a validity equal to that of any other shot.
That Sweet and Frizzy Drink
-
Matt,
The above is the weakest argument you've ever made on this site.
You "can see" how others would criticize the 5th at Old Macdonald? Anybody can see that -- but the only thing that matters is whether it's a valid criticism or not, and you say it's not. If Jack built it, would you say any different? Or would you only set up a straw man about what "others" would do?
I'm not the biggest fan of Kingsley, but the severity of the greens themselves is only an issue for me on one hole -- it's the severity of some shots around the green that I'm not a fan of. Black Mesa's greens are fine (except the 16th) as long as they don't go above 9 on the stimpmeter. Red Ledges I have never seen, though I agree with you that the length at which people play a course has a definite effect on how they perceive the greens ... As it should be, as you implied re Old Mac, and as Sebonack is the closest course Ive built to over the line.
But, don't substitute Red Ledges for Harbor Shores or other Nicklaus courses you haven't seen. Fair enough?
-
If Jack's name were substituted for the work at that hole instead of the team that did it -- the net result in my mind would be a thumbs down from many people. The bottom line -- who the designer is often dictates the fanfare -- good or bad -- that comes from it.
I disagree - there is a difference between one architects greens and another's.
One problem that Tom has identified is that Jack wouldn't be able to defend the green by defining all the shots that work.
He doesn't think through as many possible pin to chipping locations as Tom.
-
Mike Nuzzo alludes to this in post #11, but I would interject that no matter who the designer is, "wild and fun" greens become "crazy and stupid" when a pin is imprudently cut or greens are shaved beyond fun playability.
In my (extremely limited, compared to many people on this site) experience, the best "wild and fun" greens have a lot of flattish areas to offset their big slopes. The best example of this combination that I have seen has been at the Macdonald/Raynor courses I have played: Hotchkiss, Yale, Old White--and especially at Yale. You have these huge back and side slopes on which you can manipulate the ball's path, but there is always a place to put the pin at high green speeds such that you can still have a fighting chance (rather than face a make-or-die situation on a putt, which I don't think anyone thinks is truly fun). But on greens that have big slopes and few or no substantial flattish (NOT 'flat') areas, the "crazy and stupid" designation is going to come into play. The key, as most here would undoubtedly agree, is to have the maintenance meld be in sync with the designer's vision of how the course (and, for the sake of this discussion, the greens) ought to play on a daily basis.
Aside from the Macdonald/Raynor greens I have seen, I would add Ballyhack and Shelter Harbor as courses whose sets of greens could be maintained up to the edge of reason, green speed-wise, and still retain numerous interesting pin positions because of their decent flattish areas. These five courses contain the best sets of greens I have ever seen, and so I've got to believe that this commonality has something to do with it.
-
I don't isolate the green in an analysis like this
You have to take for account the green in itself combined to the surronds. A wildish green can work if there's room around it to legitimetely play safe of a wild contour (think The Old Course).
now take a wild green on the Old course and surrounds it with bunkers or deep swales... than it becomes stupid.
I think that's where the time spent on site is important, to find that balance between great and stupid.
-
I don't isolate the green in an analysis like this
You have to take for account the green in itself combined to the surronds. A wildish green can work if there's room around it to legitimetely play safe of a wild contour (think The Old Course).
now take a wild green on the Old course and surrounds it with bunkers or deep swales... than it becomes stupid.
I think that's where the time spent on site is important, to find that balance between great and stupid.
Philippe Binette,
I think it is interesting that that the surrounds are getting so much attention here. Crystal Downs has some pretty wild and crazy greens. It also has some of the most impossible and severe surrounds I have ever seen. #1, #7, #8 and #9 all have wild greens and 2/3 of the surrounds on those greens leave the golfer without the possibility of an up and down. Interestingly, that has never been an issue for me or anyone else that I have seen.
-
Tom D (and others),
How much effect does the length and width of a course have on the interpretation of the wildness of the greens?
Without having been there, is it fair to say that the wild greens at Crystal Downs work because the course has so many 350 yard par 4s, and the same greens wouldn't work on a 7500 yard course?
Also, do the challenge of wild greens provide less need for narrow or rough lined fairways? Are sometimes wild greens just too much if there is a lot of other stuff going on in the holes before you get to the green?
-
My brother golfed at Black Mesa last year. His one over-riding comment after his return flight was that he'd love to golf Black Mesa again, except he won't because the greens were crazy, over the top. Three putts were common in his group. He said that got old pretty quick. (and these guys are all ~10 handicaps).
-
That picture of the green at Tot Hill reminds me of a three-tiered green on a tough par 3 at a local course. With a pin cut on the lowest level and a tee shot which ends up on the middle tier (or upper tier), if you don't hit the cup with your (initial) putt it's off the green.
-
Tom D (and others),
How much effect does the length and width of a course have on the interpretation of the wildness of the greens?
Without having been there, is it fair to say that the wild greens at Crystal Downs work because the course has so many 350 yard par 4s, and the same greens wouldn't work on a 7500 yard course?
Also, do the challenge of wild greens provide less need for narrow or rough lined fairways? Are sometimes wild greens just too much if there is a lot of other stuff going on in the holes before you get to the green?
David,
Absolutely. The greens can never be judged in isolation, they are part of a bigger picture. That's another reason Jack Nicklaus gets criticized for building wild greens and I don't ... Because his courses are 7450 yards and mine aren't.
-
While we are getting hung up on little stuff surrounding this topic, I will offer a few examples.
16 at North Berwick seems to me one of the most obvious examples of ott in classic design I can think of. Put it in context with water to cross, oob hard right protecting the best angle of attack on offer (the best angle is from oob), a green oblong (very much like Sea Headrig) to the fairway with a huge swale in the middle. If this doesn't qualify as mad (and I don't believe it does) what possibly can?
13 at Prestwick is a long, punishing hole with the two tierish green facing the wrong direction (it looks like it was designed for another hole and I think it was). Often times, it is best to ignore the green in two and just get in position on the left to have an easier chip up the gut. Is this not crazy given the length of the hole is what 450 yards? I don't thiink so, but then what could be deemed as crazy?
Granted, these two examples are suspect as much for the positions of the greens in relation to the fairway as much for the greens themselves, but still, North Berwick's 16th can only be descibed as severe even with a wedge in hand. To me, these greens work for a few reasons. There are relatively few of these sort on any given classic course. I also think that issues back in fairways such as blindness, wonky lies and even odd green sites in a way "make up" for what are often relatively tame greens. For green sites I am especially thinking of table tops and benched greens. These can often be very difficult to hit and the recoveries are often difficult, but the greens themselves aren't severe.
Ciao
-
The fine line is this:
When you de-green a putt, or three putt repeatedly, its fun.
When I de-green a put , or three putt repeatedly, its crazy.
-
Tom D (and others),
How much effect does the length and width of a course have on the interpretation of the wildness of the greens?
Without having been there, is it fair to say that the wild greens at Crystal Downs work because the course has so many 350 yard par 4s, and the same greens wouldn't work on a 7500 yard course?
Also, do the challenge of wild greens provide less need for narrow or rough lined fairways? Are sometimes wild greens just too much if there is a lot of other stuff going on in the holes before you get to the green?
David,
Absolutely. The greens can never be judged in isolation, they are part of a bigger picture. That's another reason Jack Nicklaus gets criticized for building wild greens and I don't ... Because his courses are 7450 yards and mine aren't.
Tom:
An interesting note about Harbor Shores is that it's only ~6860 from the tips and its only ~6250 from the next set of tees. It's a par 71, but it features 3 par 3's and two short par-5's on the back. Generally speaking most of my approaches were mid and short irons. Since they were so limited in space for their routing, I would understand if Jack felt that the course would need a hard set of greens to test the better players and allowed his shapers to have at it. (Note: the Senior PGA is being held there in 2012 and 2014).
-
Mike Nuzzo alludes to this in post #11, but I would interject that no matter who the designer is, "wild and fun" greens become "crazy and stupid" when a pin is imprudently cut or greens are shaved beyond fun playability.
In my (extremely limited, compared to many people on this site) experience, the best "wild and fun" greens have a lot of flattish areas to offset their big slopes. The best example of this combination that I have seen has been at the Macdonald/Raynor courses I have played: Hotchkiss, Yale, Old White--and especially at Yale. You have these huge back and side slopes on which you can manipulate the ball's path, but there is always a place to put the pin at high green speeds such that you can still have a fighting chance (rather than face a make-or-die situation on a putt, which I don't think anyone thinks is truly fun). But on greens that have big slopes and few or no substantial flattish (NOT 'flat') areas, the "crazy and stupid" designation is going to come into play. The key, as most here would undoubtedly agree, is to have the maintenance meld be in sync with the designer's vision of how the course (and, for the sake of this discussion, the greens) ought to play on a daily basis.
Aside from the Macdonald/Raynor greens I have seen, I would add Ballyhack and Shelter Harbor as courses whose sets of greens could be maintained up to the edge of reason, green speed-wise, and still retain numerous interesting pin positions because of their decent flattish areas. These five courses contain the best sets of greens I have ever seen, and so I've got to believe that this commonality has something to do with it.
Tim:
You make two great points.
I agree with you that the typical Macdonald/Raynor courses generally feature flat pinnable areas that allow the player to have a realistic opportunity to make a 10-20ft putt. I also liked your description of "make-or-die" greens....those would be Jack's greens at Harbor Shores to a T. Depending on the hole location in relation to your position 5 footers were turning into 20 footers often.
-
The other end of "wild and fun" greens to me were at the Castle Course at St. Andrews (Kidd). LOTS of contour overbalanced by such slow green speeds that it was mentally tough to get an uphill putt close to the cup. Of the eleven courses we played while in Scotland, these were much slower than any others. I would have preferred speeds a little closer to the others, knowing at times I could be penalized excessively.
-
Years ago, I noticed that Fazio really put a lot of contour in his greens. At the same time, the bigger the ridges, the flatter the cupping areas to allow a putt to stop near the hole. And, he seemed to balance the greens from all gently rolling to wilder humps and flatter pin areas quite nicely.
I have measured the slopes on a few of his greens and they actually have some (presumably USGA) areas right at 0%. I am not sure I would do that, preferring some surface drainage in all areas, but paying attention to the combination of slopes is important.
BTW, who says JN wouldn't consider all the different types of shots TD would? How do we know that?
-
Don't you think the best greens are complicated but must be simple enough to be visualized for your approach shot from the fairway? After a few rounds a golfer gets excitement knowing the options, risk and rewards but if it gets too complicated or if the areas are too small to achieve success it gets frustrating. Raynor's and MacKenzie's greens provide great examples to me.
-
Tim,
I agree. Good players look at the green contours and not hazards in forming their approach shot, but there are limits to their accuracy. JN once told me that he wouldn't aim for a plateau less than 40-45' across, for example. Tour stats show that the vast majority of shots there end up within 10% of the length of the shot - i.e. a 200 yard approach will be within 20 yards left to right. (distance control is better) Thus, adding wild contours on a smaller scale than that will more likely reject a shot than allow an aggressive strategy.
Which is why I think the Raynor greens work well, too. You avoid the swale, use the Redan bank, etc. Perahaps its best stated that there is one, perhaps two features within the green to consider, and there is enough room to fly them, allow the ball to roll out over them, etc.
There are a few modern greens where the internal contour is just too much for even a player of JN's caliber, including a few JN has built recently!
When I think of MacKenzie greens, or really any golden age green (with exceptions, of course) I think of gently rolling and a dominant slope one direction. Thus, the challenge may be to aim "just left of center" to allow a slope to carry the ball down to the pin, etc. For most, that is more than enough challenge, and its fun, accounting for the popularity of those GA courses. How much more do we need to overcook most greens?
-
Jeff,
I believe the point about JN was not a criticism of his short game but rather that the more complicated the greens and surrounds, the more time on the ground is necessary to revisit options and make subtle adjustments accordingly....
-
And as to putting, this always raises the question of whether a putt with a 10 foot break is inherently harder than one with a 10" break? It may not be harder to read, but probably the potential for a bigger miss is there.
I am pretty sure that a putt with both uphill and downhill components is harder than one either all up or downhill, with uphill being even easier. In that case, I presume that a larger uphill component makes judging the putt harder than just a little knob, because gravity will inevitably take hold and affect ball speed more. Thus, the Fazio "bigger humps equals flatter cup areas" theory.
But that is mostly to allow a ball to stop, period, and not so much to allow perfect distance judging, I think. Just like some gca's would have built that Stranz green with the huge tier, with a little lip on the front to keep putts from the upper level on the green.
Jud,
Oh, I understood it was a critique of JN as a gca! I still wonder how Mike N knows that?
It does raise another interesting question, IMHO. Pro players often go all around a green asking "what if I miss it here? Can I get it close?" For many, the distinction is just that....does the green take my ball away from the hole on any putt or chip? I would say that there can be some close to impossible areas to miss and the golfer needs to factor avoiding that miss into his approach shot.
Of course, I know that any green edge knob, if you hit the wrong side of it with your chip can really direct you way off course, and that is half the challenge - landing your ball right where you want to. From my experience, most players intuitively think those knobs near the green edges where they are trying to land a chip are fair, but a subtle (or not) slope in the middle of the green that accelerates a dying rolling ball can be considered unfair. Again, its the old "If I have the skill to get it close, why should the course negate that?" The golfer can only control how high and long the ball flies off the club, and not the roll afterwards, so an accelerating slope near the pin is frowned upon, unless its on one side only and the choice is to make sure you miss it.
Even Colt was against greens that cause putts to run away from the cup like a "swine possessed by the devil" .
-
The golfer can only control how high and long the ball flies off the club, and not the roll afterwards, so an accelerating slope near the pin is frowned upon, unless its on one side only and the choice is to make sure you miss it.
Hefe
You got some splanin to do with that statement. With one fell swoop you eliminated the entire concept of controlling the ball after its lands as the basis for f&f golf.
Ciao
-
Getting it right or cocking it up is a fine line. Without stating the obvious the faster the green the flatter it needs to be, or else it becomes beyond the barriers for serious golf. Realistically if you have greens stimping at plus 10 you cant put much twist in unless you design greens in segments. If you consider 10 stimp as the mark, plot your green, shade your 3 metre perimeter and your non pinnable slopes plus 5 metres around each lower slope you might only have 10% of the green pinnable. Everything works okay at 8 stimp, but go past 11 the 'cock up' comes into play. Some like wild greens some will call the crazy, probably better golfers will edge to crazy but it is a great way to defend a low score.
-
Don't you think the best greens are complicated but must be simple enough to be visualized for your approach shot from the fairway? After a few rounds a golfer gets excitement knowing the options, risk and rewards but if it gets too complicated or if the areas are too small to achieve success it gets frustrating. Raynor's and MacKenzie's greens provide great examples to me.
Tim:
I agree to the extent you mean "visualized for your approach shot". I've heard several people [both players and architects] go one step further and say that you ought to be able to SEE all of the important contours in a green from the fairway. In most cases I've seen, that results in oversized shoulders at the edges of the greens to sell the contours, making for awkward short game shots; and it pretty much eliminates internal green contours which sprout up on their own, unless they're very large ones.
-
Oh, I understood it was a critique of JN as a gca! I still wonder how Mike N knows that?
Do you think I am wrong?
Tom has indicated that Jack Nicklaus used to criticize him on site for taking too much time to make a decision about something.
Tom wrote that Jack is very efficient with his time because of his busy nature.
With that information I find it hard to believe that Jack ponders over a subtle break and all the different angles one would encounter this break. The design of a green is a work of art and engineering - Jack Nicklaus works as neither an artist or an engineer - his responsibility is as a player, marketer and a manager.
Cheers
-
Pat,
Another interesting part of your comparison of Lost Dunes and Harbor Shores is that the two greens in question were probably built by the same guy ... Jerame Miller, who shaped all the greens at Lost Dunes back when he worked for Landscapes Unlimited, and who is now an associate and shaper for Nicklaus Design. So while I am sure that Jack has never been to Lost Dunes, I suspect the idea to do a similar green probably came from Jerame.
He is a very talented guy, but when he is reporting to different guys you may well see different results.
And here I thought Jerame was a loose cannon capable of... well... anything. ;) The only shaper who is as entertaining to watch work as his creation is fun to play. We were going soooo well up to the point I gave him a few beers!
-
Tom Doak - Would be interested to hear where you think #17 at Pete Dye Club falls in this scale.
My guess is you feel it is fine though wildly out of character with the rest of the design and thus a but much in its current setting.
-
Greg,
That green on Pete Dye GC was still in the dirt the last time I was in W Va, with only the front nine open.
I was told Mr LaRosa the owner suggested to Pete he should make it the smallest green in the world, so he went the other way instead.
-
Greg,
That green on Pete Dye GC was still in the dirt the last time I was in W Va, with only the front nine open.
I was told Mr LaRosa the owner suggested to Pete he should make it the smallest green in the world, so he went the other way instead.
Local legend has it that it was built by LaRosa and Dye decided to keep it rather than continue to fight the guy.
-
Mike N,
I didn't say you were wrong, I asked how you knew that.
Still I always have wondered whenever I have seen Tour Pros critique designs, again from the "what if I miss it here" perspective. What percentage of shots end up in an exact location when a pin is in a certain location? Certainly one out of every 6 or 7 due to pin rotation, and then perhaps 1% max of any given shots in a day. If a course plays 200 rounds a day, 7 days a week, that is a max of 0.0015% chance of any given "deeply thought out" chip ever happening, and in reality, its probably more like 0.0000001%.
My point is, I suspect JN and others know this and believe that creating random, gently rolling slopes, or long consistent slopes that may give a variety of ball positions just off the green a similar challenge is probably more practical than thinking you are really doing something great by obsessing over a chip shot to one position from one position. That really strikes me as playing to this crowd more than something that really happens on a regular basis in the field with most gca.
-
Can you clarify that last statement Jeff? Are you calling me a liar, or just saying you think I am wasting my time?
-
Ops – Duck Guys looks likes the Sh#T is about to hit the fan or we are about to see the Fight at The Non Ok Corral Castle Course with Doc Doaks and Jeff Watt.
Melvyn
-
I played Tetherow today and I felt that there some greens that were over the top, but most were wild and fun. A lot of the green contours there were not visable from the fairways which was interesting for a 1st time play.
-
Here is another Tot Hill green for your consideration.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/jkmoore1120/Tot%20Hill%20Farm/028.jpg)
-
HUH?!?!? ???
How does a green like that not make for goofy golf?
-
The fine line is this:
When you de-green a putt, or three putt repeatedly, its fun.
When I de-green a put , or three putt repeatedly, its crazy.
That sounds about right!
My 2 cents is that I have almost never found a green too wild. I get that the situation at the 18th at Olympic many years ago was just stupid, but putting that aside, I have no problem with putts from certain portions of a green almost manditorily resulting in a 10+ foot comebacker. The way I see it, if I am playing the Road hole, I know that if I stick one in the road bunker I am going to have to play one sideways, then chip on, and then try to salvage a bogey. As long as there is some general rhyme or reason to a green I feel that I should be able to identify the danger zones and then play away from them if I do not want to flirt with disaster. If we cannot accept a probable 3 putt for then why do we accept water hazards?
Having said that, I prefer greens that generally offer an alternative (but risky) route for the player that really wants to leave a 4-5 foot next putt.
-
What was the logic behind the greens at The Old Course? Were shot values being assessed when they were laid out? My answer is yes to the second question, but not to the extend some might think.
-
Mark
What was the logic behind the greens at The Old Course? Were shot values being assessed when they were laid out? My answer is yes to the second question, but not to the extend some might think.
I trust you are not referring to TOC, if you are could you be so kind as to explain ‘Shot Values‘ to the likes of Allan Robertson and Old Tom.
Shot values are just another way of trying to define golf, to categorise it in the hope of make the unthinking THINK - its as useful as a Fart in a Spacesuit and serves just as much purpose too. It falls into the waste of time crap that includes distance aided etc. – Tell me why do golfers always underrate their potential and ability believing that they need outside assistance to weigh up the course staring you right there in the face.
Come on Guys have a little faith in your own abilities
Melvyn
-
Melvyn and Kelly,
The point of my post was that I DON'T think Allan and Old Tom were worrying about things like chipping positions and so forth and the impact of the wild contour of the greens. The only "shot values" they might have had in mind were related to things we don't discuss here.
Regarding "golf course raters"; I've never met a golfer who was not a golf course rater. Every golfer "rates" the golf courses they play as does every green committee I've ever dealt with. As an architect, you deal with it and you edcucate and I've found most open minded people come around.
Mark
-
Tom D:
Fan clubs exist on GCA - nothing wrong with that and you certainly benefit from them.
My point was that if Nicklaus had his name tied to the 5th at Old Macdonald the reaction from quite a few people would be far different.
Certain people get the benefit of the doubt -- and others don't.
To say otherwise -- is not being really fair given the preferences stated here many times.
One other thing -- when Jack has a 7,400 yard course -- the usual bitching and moaning occurs from people who should not be anywhere near the tip tees. These folks want it both ways -- play the tips and then piss in their shorts when they dont' have sufficient game to handle the requirements involved.
-
Tom D:
Fan clubs exist on GCA - nothing wrong with that and you certainly benefit from them.
My point was that if Nicklaus had his name tied to the 5th at Old Macdonald the reaction from quite a few people would be far different.
Matt:
I don't think your statement is quite fair. There is little doubt in my mind that Jack Nicklaus' design work and Doak's design work would not be exact replicas..the same could be said for any two designers. I think that it is quite possible that even subtle differences lead to different opinions and that the "name" on the work is not the only difference.
I will not deny, in any way, that bias and preconceived notions affect opinion....but the 5th green at Old Macdonald is good design, no matter whose name is on it and I believe many on GCA would praise it as such.
Bart
-
Bart:
There's nothing unfair about what I said.
There are people on this site with clear preferences and they do give the benefit of the doubt to certain people. Unfortunately, their minds are quite unwilling to give credit to others who do rather similar type work.
Bart, with all due respect, don't be so naive. Preferences for architects exists here. Jack's work has often been panned by people here who have only played a smidgeon of what he has done -- many of his more recent efforts are extremely well done in my mind.
Bart, let me just say this -- blindfold a number of GCA people and don't tell them who did the design. Then float a name by them -- if it's someone they like they will love it -- float another name and they will say it's excessive. It happens more than you care to admit.
Just my opinion.
-
Kelly
Raters, the scourge of the modern game, the destroyers of reputation and worst still the purveyors of disinformation. Unsung heroes, my God Kelly, I trust you jest or at the very least pretending to pull my plonker (excuse my English).
Mark
Yes we may all have an opinion but they are generated by our ability to face each and every course we play. They come from our hearts and not from a list designed to judge results from the lowest common denominator – no proportional representation thank you. That’s the first step to anarchy or surrendering our hard fought Rights.
MHO is that producing a List of top courses is yet another modern practice that has little to do with golf, certainly nothing to do with GCA and is purely a method of attracting people attention to obtain money. I understand the financiers and magazines pushing them as it sells their products but why Ran or GCA.com tolerate them is out of order as they have no merit in any GCA debate or discussion.
Again it’s this amalgamation of peripheral crap that is drowning the game – Shot values, distance aids, rating lists. Whatever happened to a game called golf, that simple walking and thinking game we all loved so much that we decided to play it throughout our lives. Have we all become that shallow, just like those modern bunkers that we are happy to see the game weakened by the greed of money and the laziness of MAN.
Melvyn
-
Matt:
All of your posts about the bias on this board are b.s. on the order of Fox News. They don't mean squat unless you are providing SPECIFIC examples of a green Jack Nicklaus built that would be beloved if Bill Coore or I built it, but is unfairly panned because it's Jack's ... Or, a green that I have built which is over the top, but gets a pass. So far all you have come up with is a green of mine THAT YOU THINK IS GOOD, which other unspecified people would not like if it was Jack's. Which is total speculation and bullshit.
So have you got any specific examples for us of great Jack Nicklaus greens that have been unfairly panned?
I also disagree on your last point to me. I think I can decide whether a certain green is appropriate for a certain length of hole, even if I don't play from the 7400 yard tees. The funny part of your argument is that it implies short jitters would complain loudest about a severe green on a long approach shot, when in my experience, it is the long jitters who complain that is unfair.
-
Matt:
All of your posts about the bias on this board are b.s. on the order of Fox News. They don't mean squat unless you are providing SPECIFIC examples of a green Jack Nicklaus built that would be beloved if Bill Coore or I built it, but is unfairly panned because it's Jack's ... Or, a green that I have built which is over the top, but gets a pass. So far all you have come up with is a green of mine THAT YOU THINK IS GOOD, which other unspecified people would not like if it was Jack's. Which is total speculation and bullshit.
So have you got any specific examples for us of great Jack Nicklaus greens that have been unfairly panned?
I also disagree on your last point to me. I think I can decide whether a certain green is appropriate for a certain length of hole, even if I don't play from the 7400 yard tees. The funny part of your argument is that it implies short jitters would complain loudest about a severe green on a long approach shot, when in my experience, it is the long jitters who complain that is unfair.
Tom, With all due respect, if you do not believe there is some validity to what is being stated then I fear you are not being completely objective. It happens in all professions and all walks of life, including golf architecture. It's "his thing" but if the other guy tries it... it's stupid. Pretty simple really. Because it is Jack I feel each side gets a little more testy than need be. Just my opinion.
-
Kelly
Great, am I relieved - on both counts ;)
Melvyn
-
I played Tetherow today and I felt that there some greens that were over the top, but most were wild and fun. A lot of the green contours there were not visable from the fairways which was interesting for a 1st time play.
I concur completely.
-
Tom D:
Wake up good man.
BS ???
Tom, there are groupies on this site. If you don't think so then you are in major league denial. In the time I have posted on GCA -- in the event you may have missed them -- I have noted a variety of courses by others who get less free pr here than others.
Red Ledges in UT is a first rate design. I've played more than 75 Nicklaus courses and I can see the details that Jack's team did there.
Jack gets panned there because people have a bug up their butt on his work -- likely tied to the fact that they bite off more than they can chew regarding the demands faced when heading to the tip tees. If I took someone out to Red Ledges blindfolded and then took them to any of the greens there and they never knew who designed the course -- then I announced the name -- and if it is someone on their preferred listing they would be gushing about its magnificence.
Tom, you have your own fan club here. People give YOU the benefit of the doubt -- ditto for C&C. Not everything you folks do is home run type stuff. Ditto on the Nicklaus side -- not everything Jack does is half ass or worse.Sorry to say otherwise but when people start thinking that preferences / biases don't exist then you my friend are in serious denial.
The issue is not whether you can decide such matters on the appropriateness of a specific green -- but whether others can do at the same level. Most cannot. Tom, in my experience, short hitters often bitch and moan about length (lack thereof). Sure you can find long hitters who complain -- but given the length element they have far less club to hit into such targets and the criticism is usually all wet.
The folks who play many Nicklaus courses generally size up the layouts by taking on more course than their games can provide. Therefore they throw the course under the bus.
-
Ward.....your time has past, my brother.
You have run out of catch phrases to drop. You no longer have any new takes to offer. Your mindless, opinionated banter has drug your reputation right into the catch basin.
My good friends Strunk & White think that broad generalizations are no way to make a compelling argument. I happen to agree.
There is nothing more absurd than thinking you have your finger on the pulse of gca.com.
So, please just go ahead and start refraining from making any comments resembling a "state of the gca.com nation" because you are far too out of touch with sanity to be trusted with the written word any longer.
Might I suggest a career change? You would do fine work as a lobbyist, or perhaps working on Sarah Palin's campaign...
-
Matt
there are groupies on this site Should you say 'wake up good man' as it could, well you know give the wrong impression ;)
I know, I keep getting asked to meet fellow Members for a drink or two. ;D Groupies to the left of me , Groupies to the right of me, but I see no groupies just friends and a bunch of great guys.
Calm and cool it Guys, as you may find you will live longer that way 8)
Melvyn
-
Mike Dugger,
At Tetherow, we had that one crazy front right pin on the 6th green that you had posted on during a picture thread. Absurd.
-
Sean,
Glad to hear you also found that pin ridiculous, the Tetherow folks seems to think we are just being wimps. ;)
I also thought the 7th green was a little too harsh, there is a spine running through it and to be on the wrong side of the pin renders a two putt nearly impossible.
I need to get back there and see what changes they've made since opening. What did you think in general?
Like it? Hate it?
-
I do not know how to draw the line between fun greens and stupid greens, but perhaps the architect that wants to err on the side of bold greens might be comforted by the fact that 1) greens can always be slowed down and 2) hole locations that prove to be over the top can be abandoned.
-
Michael:
Broad generalizations?
Sanity?
Surely you jest. Great ploy -- shoot the messenger.
I've provided examples many times. It just seems certain people on this site don't want to be called out regarding the predictable actions of the groupies that reside here. People wave broad agreements on certain designers but simply play down or never acknowledge the contributions of others.
Michael, certain people are biased on this site -- Nicklaus just happens to be a favorite punching bag for many. If someone played Red Ledges and didn't see the details -- greens included -- then they need some serious eyeglasses. The greens there are demanding but very fair.
Amazingly -- we do agree on Tetherow - amazes me how the course gets far less love than the original 18 at Bandon. Go figure.
One final thing -- I am a demo so the Palin comment hits below the belt. ;D
-
There may well be some groupies here but it's gotta be the fugliest collection on record....
-
There may well be some groupies here but it's gotta be the fugliest collection on record....
Depends on whether you're looking for action or to fill the membership of a remote club..... ;)
-
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and here is what I've come up with. "Wild and fun" greens just might follow the natural contours of the land better than "crazy and stupid" greens.
Think Ballyneal 7. It is such a wonderfully well positioned green with great contours and these contours flow so perfectly with the surrounding land.
On the other side of the spectrum...I just played Atlanta Athletic Riverside, a course I really like and think is quite good. The greens have great contour and are fun to putt on...but something just isn't right about them. They catch your eye as being a bit odd. As I noticed this and really studied them today, the ones that seem the most odd simply don't follow the flow of the land upon which they sit. A natural piece of land wouldn't ever develop those contours. That is why they seem odd.
To me this is what seperates "wild and fun" from "crazy and stupid". But I think the average American golfer would think Ballyneal's greens are "crazy and stupid". In fact, Jim Colton started a thread citing a complaint that the greens are "retarded". BUT I think the sportsman golfer will LOVE those greens.
So in the end it is personal perference regarding how you like your golf and your greens. But I think the natural flow of the greens contours plays a huge part in their level of acceptance and respect.
-
Matt Ward,
CAN YOU READ?
Below is my post from last time. You ignored everything I said in your response.
There is no doubt that some people are fans of certain architects ... Just like they are fans of certain players, and those players bank on it carrying over to their architectural work. I am not arguing with you about that.
GOLF CLUB ATLAS is supposed to be above that. We are supposed to discuss specifics, not generalities. But you keep refusing to do that, and compound it by criticizing others for doing the same.
Mr. Nicklaus' greens at Harbor Shores and that TPC course in Tucson are the ones which have been criticized on this thread. You keep bringing up Red Ledges, but Red Ledges has not been criticized. You imply that Red Ledges is representative of Jack's work and so people are not up to date, but the other two courses are just as new.
If you have not played those other greens, why do you think anything you say is relevant to this thread?
Matt:
All of your posts about the bias on this board are b.s. on the order of Fox News. They don't mean squat unless you are providing SPECIFIC examples of a green Jack Nicklaus built that would be beloved if Bill Coore or I built it, but is unfairly panned because it's Jack's ... Or, a green that I have built which is over the top, but gets a pass. So far all you have come up with is a green of mine THAT YOU THINK IS GOOD, which other unspecified people would not like if it was Jack's. Which is total speculation and bullshit.
So have you got any specific examples for us of great Jack Nicklaus greens that have been unfairly panned?
I also disagree on your last point to me. I think I can decide whether a certain green is appropriate for a certain length of hole, even if I don't play from the 7400 yard tees. The funny part of your argument is that it implies short jitters would complain loudest about a severe green on a long approach shot, when in my experience, it is the long jitters who complain that is unfair.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
yikes!
whats the point of building something like that?
-
Tim:
I've heard several people [both players and architects] go one step further and say that you ought to be able to SEE all of the important contours in a green from the fairway.
is that a silly statement!
very good thread Pat!
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
yikes!
whats the point of building something like that?
Paul-how many Mike Strantz golf courses have you played? This green actually fits right in with much of the work he does and much of what they have at Tot Hill Farm. However, note the thick trees. Because of the trees, they actually struggle to grow grass in places. There is a tee box directly behind this green that had no grass on it last time I played there. And part of the 13th green was closed off because of turf conditions.
As to the main question, where is the thin line. Well it has to do with green speeds first off. The speeds must fit the contours and the greens must be big enough to support both the contours and the speeds. The line is crossed when you try to put large contours on small greens and still run high speeds. This leads to very small portions of the green being reasonably pinable. And that is when you get the crazy and stupid greens.
Of the three Strantz courses I have played, they all have size enough to support nearly any speed on the greens, at least for a short period of time.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
This looks OK. If the pin is in the front then the golfer has been put on clear notice not to miss long and has a nice backboard to play with.
-
played quite a few John: MPCC, Royal New Kent, Stonehouse , Tobacco Road
that hill is TOO steep, imho
-
played quite a few John: MPCC, Royal New Kent, Stonehouse , Tobacco Road
that hill is TOO steep, imho
Well, i used to build houses, so my 'line' to determine if something is too steep is whether or not you can walk up it without help. I walked up this hill, it probably gains 5 feet in 12 or more feet of distance. Its no steeper than the front slope on #7 or the middle tier on #16 at Tobacco Road, IMO.
-
On that Tot Hill green, if you putt from the upper part to the lower, and miss the cup, where does your ball stop rolling?
I'm also curious to know what putts are like from the lower to the upper.
Without ever playing the hole, I agree with Wade. Strantz made it real clear where not to miss, and from the looks of it, gave plenty of room to do so. I also note that 16 at Pasatiempo -- on more than one "best 18 par 4s played" lists -- features a green that one GCA member putts off of intentionally, so he can try to chip close and hopefully save a 3 putt. Showing that the line between "wild and fun" and "crazy and stupid" is, like beauty, often in the eye of the beholder.
-
Jim N,
If you keep posting I might have to agree with Matt ... I can't believe the green pictured would be so well defended if it had been built by somebody other than Mike Strantz. I've never been to Tot Hill and never intend to go, because everything I've seen of it suggests it is silly to extremes.
So, please desist. I do not want to have to agree with Matt that you are showing bias.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
Paging Paul Cowley... this green gives me an idea of how you might spice up the 9th at Diamante! ;)
-
Jim N,
If you keep posting I might have to agree with Matt ... I can't believe the green pictured would be so well defended if it had been built by somebody other than Mike Strantz. I've never been to Tot Hill and never intend to go, because everything I've seen of it suggests it is silly to extremes.
So, please desist. I do not want to have to agree with Matt that you are showing bias.
Serious breaches of GCA.com code here. The double standard coupled with the judging of a course based on pictures. Shall we see if Mr. Doak floats?
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
How important is the selection of a proper greensite in creating greens that are more on the “wild and fun” side?
To be honest, I think the green above looks to be over the line and too much on an extreme for my personal taste. But in looking at the picture and trying to see what I would do differently, I don’t see much. I could see taking out the front tounge all together and bringing the sand/rocks over to the left to form a green that plays a lot like Stranz’s blind green at Tobacco Road. But I’m still not so sure that would be any good either.
Are some greensites just destined (forced) to have extreme greens? How should/would an architect tone down an extreme greensite (assuming they were forced to build there) to feature a more playable green?
-
Another very polarizing set of greens is at Pinehurst #2. Obviously, #2’s greens have evolved quite a bit over the years through topdressing and are not the same greens that Ross knew. However, do you think those greens could be built today and be praised?
-
Tom Doak:
When you ask me if I can read -- I can say the same thing to you.
I listed Red Ledges as a good example of a most recent Nicklaus course that has challenging greens. It gets panned because a number of people have a burr up their butt against most anything that Jack designs. These same people are groupies and love just about anything you design. If one were to beam (star trek term) any one of these "open-minded" folks to Red Ledges and not tell them who designed it prior to playing -- and then say you were the guy after the round the likely result would be a love fest.
Tom -- I would hope GCA is "above that" approach.
I also try to provide details when I post about different courses and the like. I never opined on the two Nicklaus courses mentioned but I did want to say that other recent Nicklaus courses are outstanding and far from being crazy and stupid greens.
I'm not suggesting everyone is like that but more than a few are commited to a certain person -- not assessing that specific individual project. GCA should be "above that" but it's far from it on many occasions. Nicklaus has decided to design and build numerous courses around the globe. So be it. His batting average in doing so will be lower than yours given the work load levels and attention to detail that time can provide.
The sad reality is that many people are not up to date on some of the more current projects. Jack's has had his share of duds -- all architects have their share -- contrary to the egos all of you folks have. I never said Red Ledges is representative of all of Jack's designs now --part of the problem is what I mentioned -- Jack's business model is about cranking out courses like gum drops. In such a rush the details will be missed and you do get some glaring errors. But, I stand by what I said -- that certain people here are in love with certain designers no matter what they create.
-
A couple of details to add on about that green at Tot Hill Farm. The hole plays 535 according to the card, but it plays on a fairly large dogleg/cape where you can cut off a fair amount, plus it plays downhill. So, if the hole is cut up front, you can go for the green in two and have an easy pitch from short of the green over the creek. If the hole is cut in back, then the proper play is to lay-up short of the creek and hit a good wedge into the back portion of the green. The green dictates the strategy of the hole. Sure, the green site is somewhat extreme, but whatever. Sometimes I like stuff that way. Its not out of character with the rest of the course.
Tom Doak-At the risk of being skinned like Matt Ward, it does happen on here that people will praise the features of a course by one designer and complain about those same type features at another course by a different designer. I detailed that in my Pine Valley thread. Like I said there, I can't give specific examples because those little tidbits were picked up from reading thousands of threads over the past three years on this site. As to whether or not someone would think less of a green built exactly the same on the same site by yourself and someone else, I can't say. But I have seen 'this' feature at a well regarded course said to be good, while 'that' feature at another course, which is essentially the same as 'this' feature on the well regarded course, is said to be bad. If you have never seen that in all your reading here, then I am not sure what to say.
-
A couple of details to add on about that green at Tot Hill Farm. The hole plays 535 according to the card, but it plays on a fairly large dogleg/cape where you can cut off a fair amount, plus it plays downhill. So, if the hole is cut up front, you can go for the green in two and have an easy pitch from short of the green over the creek. If the hole is cut in back, then the proper play is to lay-up short of the creek and hit a good wedge into the back portion of the green. The green dictates the strategy of the hole. Sure, the green site is somewhat extreme, but whatever. Sometimes I like stuff that way. Its not out of character with the rest of the course.
Tom Doak-At the risk of being skinned like Matt Ward, it does happen on here that people will praise the features of a course by one designer and complain about those same type features at another course by a different designer. I detailed that in my Pine Valley thread. Like I said there, I can't give specific examples because those little tidbits were picked up from reading thousands of threads over the past three years on this site. As to whether or not someone would think less of a green built exactly the same on the same site by yourself and someone else, I can't say. But I have seen 'this' feature at a well regarded course said to be good, while 'that' feature at another course, which is essentially the same as 'this' feature on the well regarded course, is said to be bad. If you have never seen that in all your reading here, then I am not sure what to say.
Through this thread what comes to mind the most is Dismal River.
-
I agree that there's a bit of a fan club here, hell I'm probably in it. But I also agree that I'd like to see a comparison of two specific courses by two designers where one is clearly slagged and/or one is improperly elevated because of the GCA. It's not enough to generically say a certain green feature gets differing reviews without delving into the specific details of the subtleties, transitions and approach angles involved...
-
Wild and Fun or Crazy and Stupid? And why?
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/BDQuarry17II.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal3.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/DismalRiver11green-1.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal7III.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/DismalRiver10I.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/TobaccoRoad7.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/CCC12green.jpg)
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/PDGC17greenIV.jpg)
-
Nice array of some good, some bad.
-
Wild and Fun or Crazy and Stupid? And why?
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/BDQuarry17II.jpg)
Did not care for the hole to begin with and to be honest don't remember the green
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal3.jpg)
Looks fun from that angle
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/DismalRiver11green-1.jpg)
Looks fun
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal7III.jpg)
looks funky - not sure
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/DismalRiver10I.jpg)
Uhhhhhh... no
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/TobaccoRoad7.jpg)
looks cool from the angle and distance
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/CCC12green.jpg)
Cannot tell much
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/PDGC17greenIV.jpg)
I really don't know what I think of this green other than to say it has never bothered me that much when playing it.
-
After reading all this stuff..three things...
IMHO..
1. The architect that gets by with the most due to "fan club status" re getting by with greens that are over the top/crazy stupid/ whatever you call them is not TD...try Mike Strantz....with respect...
2. At the end of the day one may call a particular green "wild and fun" over "crazy and stupid" due to one thing..where the supt places the pin...if you get the wrong guy cutting pins a good solid green can become stupid....
3. IMHO I have found the shaper to have a much greater role in determining a "wild and fun" green vs. a "crazy and stupid" green. If you have a shaper that understands golf/ plays golf at a high level and can shape..then you are much less likely to have a "crazy stupid" green than if you are working with a shaper you haven't worked with and knows the machine better than the game. Now this is not to say that the architect can't sit there and work with such....he can but it will still not flow like the former....JMO
As for fan clubs and the average golfer on a green committee and what they are programmed to think...I go with the Milgram Experiment...we all have to realize what they consider the AUTHORITY..USGA and tour players...think about it..... ;)
-
1. The architect that gets by with the most due to "fan club status" re getting by with greens that are over the top/crazy stupid/ whatever you call them is not TD...try Mike Strantz....with respect...
I agree with you Mike...100%. I've played two Strantz courses and I just don't get the fascination with them at all. I'll chalk it up to different strokes for different folks and I respect each and every one's right to like what they like, but Strantz is not for me.
-
Mac:
Have you played Bull's Bay ?
Curious to know the two Strantz courses you played.
One size doesn't fit all -- that's for sure.
-
Hey Matt...
I've played Tobacco Road and Stonehouse.
I've heard Caledonia might be more up my alley, but haven't had the chance to play it.
-
Mac:
Strantz isn't the only guy with weird greens.
No doubt it's in the eye of the beholder.
Try Bull's Bay when you have the chance -- it's far from a low country type course but it's clearly unique and Mike S did a very solid job there.
-
After reading all this stuff..three things...
IMHO..
1. The architect that gets by with the most due to "fan club status" re getting by with greens that are over the top/crazy stupid/ whatever you call them is not TD...try Mike Strantz....with respect...
You are probably correct with that. However, speaking only for myself, from the first time I played Tobacco Road, I liked the style. I didn't walk off the course thinking any part of the greens and their undulation was stupid or how the course was laid out was stupid. My opinions have not changed. I did think some things were bad about Tot Hill Farm, but nothing that couldn't be fixed by eliminating a bunch of trees. And I saw many of the same features at RNK. Of course I tend to keep more of an open mind than most. I certainly don't judge based on designer as many seem to do. I think a lot of my thoughts on course design were changed by going to the Crump Cup. Pine Valley is quite the exercise in opposites: both exceptionally manicured and yet ragged; not monstrously long but very difficult/testing; very penal if offline yet very rewarding if online; isolated but wide open. To see those things made me rethink what I thought was great, good or bad about a golf course. I see a lot of those things in Mike Strantz's golf courses, and that is a good thing.
-
Mac:
Strantz isn't the only guy with weird greens.
No doubt it's in the eye of the beholder.
Try Bull's Bay when you have the chance -- it's far from a low country type course but it's clearly unique and Mike S did a very solid job there.
Matt,
Bulls Bay is nice....and you are correct..not the only guy with weird greens....but IMHO he has enough weird ones for me to stand by my post...and as I said..JMO....
-
Mike:
I just noticed this thread and haven't read it all but I wonder if your definition is the same as mine for "greens within a green" and if so what you think about the concept or philosophy.
-
After reading all this stuff..three things...
IMHO..
1. The architect that gets by with the most due to "fan club status" re getting by with greens that are over the top/crazy stupid/ whatever you call them is not TD...try Mike Strantz....with respect...
2. At the end of the day one may call a particular green "wild and fun" over "crazy and stupid" due to one thing..where the supt places the pin...if you get the wrong guy cutting pins a good solid green can become stupid....
3. IMHO I have found the shaper to have a much greater role in determining a "wild and fun" green vs. a "crazy and stupid" green. If you have a shaper that understands golf/ plays golf at a high level and can shape..then you are much less likely to have a "crazy stupid" green than if you are working with a shaper you haven't worked with and knows the machine better than the game. Now this is not to say that the architect can't sit there and work with such....he can but it will still not flow like the former....JMO
As for fan clubs and the average golfer on a green committee and what they are programmed to think...I go with the Milgram Experiment...we all have to realize what they consider the AUTHORITY..USGA and tour players...think about it..... ;)
I have only seen two Strantz courses. Bulls Bay didn't have anything which was ott in terms of the greens, but I do question a few of the par 5s. Tobacco Road does have some greens which are ott. Two issues: 1st, the can't get there from here deal. More than one of this sort of green is imo ott. 2nd, the wide, but not deep combo - too many of this sort of green on the course. That said, this extreme concept of defending par at the greens does balance the short yardage of the course for the better players. Only thing is, I think for the better players these issues with the greens aren't nearly as problematic as they are for a 15 capper. Consequently, I think the slope rating for Tobacco is very skewed to be accurate for higher markers, but not accurate for scratch like players. A proper scratch player should eat Tobacco Road for breakfast.
Ciao
-
Mike:
I just noticed this thread and haven't read it all but I wonder if your definition is the same as mine for "greens within a green" and if so what you think about the concept or philosophy.
Tom,
What is your definition?....IMHO greens within greens came about as a cop out when one was going to send drawings in to be bid and they were not going to be there enough to work the "transitions" within the green...plus some bigtime signatures decided playing to "tiers" within a green via the correct distance was more critical than placing the shot below the hole. BUT all of that is just my opinion.. ;D ;D
-
A couple of details to add on about that green at Tot Hill Farm. The hole plays 535 according to the card, but it plays on a fairly large dogleg/cape where you can cut off a fair amount, plus it plays downhill. So, if the hole is cut up front, you can go for the green in two and have an easy pitch from short of the green over the creek. If the hole is cut in back, then the proper play is to lay-up short of the creek and hit a good wedge into the back portion of the green. The green dictates the strategy of the hole. Sure, the green site is somewhat extreme, but whatever. Sometimes I like stuff that way. Its not out of character with the rest of the course.
Tom Doak-At the risk of being skinned like Matt Ward, it does happen on here that people will praise the features of a course by one designer and complain about those same type features at another course by a different designer. I detailed that in my Pine Valley thread. Like I said there, I can't give specific examples because those little tidbits were picked up from reading thousands of threads over the past three years on this site. As to whether or not someone would think less of a green built exactly the same on the same site by yourself and someone else, I can't say. But I have seen 'this' feature at a well regarded course said to be good, while 'that' feature at another course, which is essentially the same as 'this' feature on the well regarded course, is said to be bad. If you have never seen that in all your reading here, then I am not sure what to say.
Through this thread what comes to mind the most is Dismal River.
Dismal River was designed to be a experience different from what you get at home. Holes were designed to provide variety - the overall experience is MORE than spectacular. The greens are a blast but you must put the ball in the right place to score. Early on, Dismal did a lot of things wrong but the course wasn't one of them. Several greens were softened due to impact on play from the wind and in consideration of pace.
The most "wild and fun/crazy and stupid" greens I have played are at Augusta National - food for thought.
Who cares if there may be designer bias or favorites here or anywhere else? From ice cream to blue jeans, we all have our favorites - why should golf design be any different? IMHO - some here are a bit harsh on Jack and his extensive body of work over decades. When he steps out of his comfort zone at a place like Dismal River - many seem to pan him merely for that effort. Is if fair? Does it matter? Nobody likes everything! Golf is a game. Me? - I like and very much appreciate variety and diversity.
Dismal is often compared to two other "greats"; Sand Hills and Ballyneal. That is very flattering even though all three are very different. Being mostly third in that discussion is just fine.
We close today and I, for one, can't wait until the spring! I hope many here can make the trip out to see us next year! As a good friend at Callaway Golf once told me..."we aren't curing disease here...we sell fun".
-
Sean,
Glad to hear you also found that pin ridiculous, the Tetherow folks seems to think we are just being wimps. ;)
I also thought the 7th green was a little too harsh, there is a spine running through it and to be on the wrong side of the pin renders a two putt nearly impossible.
I need to get back there and see what changes they've made since opening. What did you think in general?
Like it? Hate it?
Mike,
I liked it quite a bit. Just thought a couple of the greens were over the top. They changed the green on the first par 3, and changed a bunker on the first par 5 on the back side, plus scalped all of the tufts of grass in the fairway. Doak 7 in my book.
-
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal7III.jpg)
looks funky - not sure
That is definitely a fun one!
-
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal7III.jpg)
looks funky - not sure
That is definitely a fun one!
From ewhat angle is the approach?
-
There is a variety of approach angles because that is a short par 4, the seventh at Ballyneal. But most people are approaching from 20 or 30 degrees to the left of the picture.
-
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/ballyneal7III.jpg)
From what angle is the approach?
I believe that is my photo from a round in August, which shows you my angle of approach from greenside right. Three putted from there. Did that a LOT that day!
Definitely one of the coolest greens ever.
Eric
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3031/2780215424_4f4c9f952c_b.jpg)
A Kyle Henderson photo of Tot Hill. I'll let you decide which category this green goes in.
yikes!
whats the point of building something like that?
Paul-how many Mike Strantz golf courses have you played? This green actually fits right in with much of the work he does and much of what they have at Tot Hill Farm. However, note the thick trees. Because of the trees, they actually struggle to grow grass in places. There is a tee box directly behind this green that had no grass on it last time I played there. And part of the 13th green was closed off because of turf conditions.
As to the main question, where is the thin line. Well it has to do with green speeds first off. The speeds must fit the contours and the greens must be big enough to support both the contours and the speeds. The line is crossed when you try to put large contours on small greens and still run high speeds. This leads to very small portions of the green being reasonably pinable. And that is when you get the crazy and stupid greens.
Of the three Strantz courses I have played, they all have size enough to support nearly any speed on the greens, at least for a short period of time.
Sorry to come so late to the party - I disappeared from the site since the PGA because of OTT work requirements, but am now able to breathe again and hope to chime in.
When I look at greens like the one above and consider their place on the "fun vs stupid" continuum, I need to see much more than a picture of the green alone. IMO, the most important consideration are the shots that lead up to the approach.
In the case of this hole (Tot Hill #5), I have no problem with the green, because this is a fairly reachable Par-5. It provides two fairly precise targets (front tongue or upper deck) which completely change your strategy for playing the remainder of the hole. I thought variety was something we applauded in the GCA world.
I've played this hole twice, with a pin on top and below, and had completely different strategies both times. When the pin was up top, I had the option of a traditional aerial approach from 110 yards, but I also dropped a second ball and tried a long punch 6-iron that skipped into the bank. With the pin below, I had similar options in my approach, as well as numerous options for atacking the hole (lay back to 100 yards short of the creek pictured, or go for the green in two with plenty of safety short right if I want a little pitch shot). The 30 yard pitch shot may be great for a lower pin, but can be tricky if the pin is up top (especially if just past the fall). The extremely narrow width of the lower tongue places a premium on planning your angle of attack.
Yes, Stranz can create extreme-looking greens. But I think it is too simple to dismiss them as "aesthetic-only gimmicks", especially if you don't factor in the strategic considerations that result from them.
A picture of the green alone is never enough to assess "fun vs. stupid." The same green can be considered fun & strategic if it is usually approached with a short-iron in regulation or provides numerous options, but stupid and OTT if the hole requires a medium-long iron approach.
From my experience with Strantz, many of the more controversial greens fall in the former category, but I think the strategic implications are overlooked due to the shocking aesthetics.
To Tom Doak's point about Tot Hill - I wouldn't be surprised if most of the pictures he has seen of THF are exterme. Those are typically the ones that are used to get people talking. But for the most part, each one has some strategic implication that shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
Besides, if you want to find something to criticize about the picture, the shape and slope of the green is the least of my concerns. The rock outcroppings from the bunkers on the other hand.... :o
-
On that Tot Hill green, if you putt from the upper part to the lower, and miss the cup, where does your ball stop rolling?
I'm also curious to know what putts are like from the lower to the upper.
Without ever playing the hole, I agree with Wade. Strantz made it real clear where not to miss, and from the looks of it, gave plenty of room to do so. I also note that 16 at Pasatiempo -- on more than one "best 18 par 4s played" lists -- features a green that one GCA member putts off of intentionally, so he can try to chip close and hopefully save a 3 putt. Showing that the line between "wild and fun" and "crazy and stupid" is, like beauty, often in the eye of the beholder.
From my limited experience with the hole, I recall that a ball from the top will still stay on the front half of the lower tongue. You wouldn't be able to stop it next to the pictured pin, but I know of many "traditional" green designs that will punish you similarly for missing a back pin position long (and most of those don't give you the "last chance" backstop for a slightly thin approach).
I was also able to 2 putt from the lower to the upper deck, but there could be a scenario where you wouldn't be able to get to certain pin positions on the upper deck with a putter. I'm generally not a fan of those types of scenarios (i.e. needing a wedge on a green). However, given the short length of the intended approach, I don't find the severity of that punishment to be disproportionate to the difficulty of the required shot.
-
What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?
The politically correct answer is that the contours on a Doak, Hanse and C&C course are either natural, look natural or blend in with the surrounding natural environment and the wild contours by the others do not. Therefore, the greens are wild and fun rather than contrived and unrestrained.
I will agree with you that it is often difficult to understand why a course like Kingsley Club is criticized for lack of restraint and courses by the architects you listed above are celebrated.
I agree with you completely on Kingsley....and to some extent Greywalls too and the criticism of its greens. I find it sort of funny when people say Kingsley's greens are too extreme and 40 miles away is a course everyone praises that has some crazy greens (just a lot older), Crystal Downs.
I think that some architects get carried away but I recently played Harbor Shores and really thought the greens were a breath of fresh air from a Nicklaus course (except for a few holes like #7). Were they crazy, Yea!, but interesting, Yea to that one as well. There were things I didn't like about the course but overall the greens weren't one of them.
-
Brian / Pat:
Who designs a course often sets in motion the underlying preferences / biases that people then bring to the table. If someone could play Kingsley and then Lost Dunes and not be told who designed the course it would be interesting to see the reaction -- ditto Crystal Downs.
Kevin L:
In the pic that's been posted -- someone has to explain to me what the theory is in having the bottom portion of the green. Frankly, all that's missing is the clown's mouth and the loop-to-loop !
-
What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?
The politically correct answer is that the contours on a Doak, Hanse and C&C course are either natural, look natural or blend in with the surrounding natural environment and the wild contours by the others do not. Therefore, the greens are wild and fun rather than contrived and unrestrained.
I will agree with you that it is often difficult to understand why a course like Kingsley Club is criticized for lack of restraint and courses by the architects you listed above are celebrated.
I agree with you completely on Kingsley....and to some extent Greywalls too and the criticism of its greens. I find it sort of funny when people say Kingsley's greens are too extreme and 40 miles away is a course everyone praises that has some crazy greens (just a lot older), Crystal Downs.
I think that some architects get carried away but I recently played Harbor Shores and really thought the greens were a breath of fresh air from a Nicklaus course (except for a few holes like #7). Were they crazy, Yea!, but interesting, Yea to that one as well. There were things I didn't like about the course but overall the greens weren't one of them.
Brian:
What didn't you like about the 7th Green?
-
Aren't "crazy greens" more a matter of quanity (and green speed for that matter) than style? I think most people can accept a few or a small handful of crazy greens, but certainly not a majority. Otherwise, how in the heck does North Berwick's 16th or even the 13th ever get love? Furthermore, crazy, wild, stupid and fun all are really the same thing.
Ciao
-
Why do these two descriptions have to be mutually exclusive? Any green that approaches the mystical "line" of demarcation can go from great fun to counfounding depending on the weather conditions/set up/strategy employed/skill of the player/etc. (See McIlroy, Rory 2010 Open Championship).
I've always subscribed to the theory that variety and challenge were two of the most appealing qualities of the great game of golf. I feel sorry for anyone who is dismissive of the greens at a place like Tot Hill (which clearly pose their own set of strategic challenges) based on aesthetics or preconceived design philosophies.
Next time you find yourself bemoaning a green as "crazy and stupid," I implore you to either relax and crack open an ice cold beer (God forbid you might even extract it from the cooler on a cart) while you remind yourself that you could be at work or hit the rest of your approach shots that day to tap in range.
-
Kevin L:
In the pic that's been posted -- someone has to explain to me what the theory is in having the bottom portion of the green. Frankly, all that's missing is the clown's mouth and the loop-to-loop !
Matt,
I'm not really sure what you mean - is your concern that there are essentially "two greens" on this hole? If that’s your concern, the lower tier provides variety and a different challenge on the approach than the upper tier.
Or is your concern that the lower tier seems awfully small and difficult to hold. If that’s the concern, I would argue than many “traditional” greens have tiers and plateaus that are effectively just as small (and usually not with a flip shot club in hand).
In general, I think the concept of the green is to provide two very-difficult-to-hit targets at the end of a relatively easy Par-5. The approach shot taken in the photo is from approx. 70 yards, based on my recollection of the hole.
When the pin is low, the very narrow green provides a reward for taking risks in the shots leading up to your approach. This hole has a ravine down the entire left side. However, if you flirt with the left side on your second shot, you are rewarded with the full effect of having a “backstop” on your approach, as you would be hitting directly into the bank (this reduces the demand for precise distance control). However, if you play away from the ravine to the right side of the hole, then the narrow characteristics of the green will reward you / punish you according to how much risk you take.
Playing to the right side, if you lay back to 70-100 yards (as shown in the picture), the target is very small and the narrow width demands precise distance control. Conversely, if you play right but hit it far enough to carry the small creek 30-40 yards short, then the narrow width of the green isn’t much of a factor on a short pitch.
On the upper deck, the challenge is completely different, as the elevated green provides an additional element to consider. In that case, brute strength doesn’t necessarily reward you. For example, being 20 yards short and right may be ideal to a lower pin, but may be a difficult “half shot” to an upper pin, especially if the pin is tucked on the upper right. The additional size of the upper tier accommodates the longer required approach and increased challenge of an elevated shot.
In my mind, this green has a strategic purpose that fits very well with the challenges of the hole. I don’t believe that “aesthetically shocking” and “strategic” are mutually exclusive.
-
Pat,
I don't know if you can define "crazy and stupid", but, like obscenity, you know it when you see it.
The line of demarcation may be when a green transitions from "fun" to "laborious."
-
What is the difference between the greens that Doak, Hanse, & C&C create and are generally accepted and those that are built by other modern firms that go too far?
The politically correct answer is that the contours on a Doak, Hanse and C&C course are either natural, look natural or blend in with the surrounding natural environment and the wild contours by the others do not. Therefore, the greens are wild and fun rather than contrived and unrestrained.
I will agree with you that it is often difficult to understand why a course like Kingsley Club is criticized for lack of restraint and courses by the architects you listed above are celebrated.
I agree with you completely on Kingsley....and to some extent Greywalls too and the criticism of its greens. I find it sort of funny when people say Kingsley's greens are too extreme and 40 miles away is a course everyone praises that has some crazy greens (just a lot older), Crystal Downs.
I think that some architects get carried away but I recently played Harbor Shores and really thought the greens were a breath of fresh air from a Nicklaus course (except for a few holes like #7). Were they crazy, Yea!, but interesting, Yea to that one as well. There were things I didn't like about the course but overall the greens weren't one of them.
Brian:
What didn't you like about the 7th Green?
The way the whole hole plays off the tee, then uphill to a green that just doesn't seem squared to the approach. I don't mind the green as much if you were coming at the hole from straight over the pond, but you aren't.
-
Kevin:
What is the approximate length of the average approach into the hole ?
Total length of the hole from the tips ?
When you say other holes you have seen have similar type designs -- I'd have to know the length of such holes and get a precise take on the amt of square footage that's available.
-
Kevin:
What is the approximate length of the average approach into the hole ?
Total length of the hole from the tips ?
The “Tips” are only 535 yards, and the entire hole plays downhill. With a decent “tip-caliber” drive, you should be in range to have a go at the green in two. When I played this spring, our group had 2nd shots ranging from 210-270 yards. Even with modest length, your 3rd shot should be in the 70-80 yard range (and that distance is to the middle of the green, which is the “back” of the lower deck). From that distance, the narrow green is a reasonable trade-off. (Looking at the Yardage book, the lower deck looks to be approx. 21 yards deep (to crest of hill) and 10-12 yards wide).
While that narrow width is a bit much for a long iron or wood approach, that should only come into play if you’re trying to get home in two. Also, Strantz provided plenty of room to land short & right which would leave you a fairly simple pitch (at which point, the width is irrelevant).
In the last paragraph you said “I'd have to know the length of such holes and get a precise take on the amt of square footage that's available.” That was actually my first point when I entered this thread. People dismissed the green as OTT simply from the picture without any consideration of the length of the hole and required approach (or angle options / bailouts provided, etc.).
From my perspective, this green matches up well the rest of the demands of the hole and shouldn’t be so easily dismissed based on jarring aesthetics. Now, if this green was at the end of a 420 yard Par 4, I’d join the parade of criticism.
-
Kevin:
How often is the pin placed in the very front ?
There are times when pins are placed in such "odd" positions because of the need to spread the amt of wear and tear out.
Appreciate the explanation -- I'd like to play the hole myself and judge from a firsthand experience. It still appears harsh but I acknowledge that my take is only from photos not from a personal play.
thanks ...
-
Kevin:
How often is the pin placed in the very front ?
There are times when pins are placed in such "odd" positions because of the need to spread the amt of wear and tear out.
Appreciate the explanation -- I'd like to play the hole myself and judge from a firsthand experience. It still appears harsh but I acknowledge that my take is only from photos not from a personal play.
thanks ...
Regarding frequency, I think they use a standard “1,2,3” pin placement rotation, so I imagine the lower portion of the green is used 1/3 of the time. I have only played Tot Hill twice, but the pin on this green was up top the first time, and below the second. As a result, I was able to see the difference in the strategies / options presented from either spot.
I agree that the lower deck is difficult to get to, but the difficulty is justified considering the rest of the hole. As I discussed on a number of Strantz-related threads, I think it is too easy to dismiss some of Strantz’ greens as “eye-candy” only, while the strategic considerations are often overlooked. It’s not that I think Strantz hasn’t missed at times with some bad greens (RNK #18 jumps to mind), but I think this particular green works.
But I agree that it would be best for you to see it live & judge for yourself.
-
Very interesting thread. I think it is a mistake to attempt to qualify a difference, especially with some as finite a "a line".
As with many topics here on GCA, there is an attempt to gain an understanding of an element of design by examining just one parameter, to develop some sort of litmus test. I think this thread is a good example of how one must bring a myrid of other parameters to bear on such a discussion.
My take is that there are too many variables. Perhaps the biggest ones having nothing to do with the physical course but rather the psyche of the player. What his baseline is, what his expectations are. Perhaps that's why we aren't all married to the same women. We all have different tastes Taking the analogy a step further, look at the divorce rate. They all loved it (her) enough to think they wanted to spend the rest of time with them. However, either taste changed or they discovered enough annoying things (some which may have been initially endearing) to cause a change in heart.
Trying to qualify or quantify an abstract concept is a fool's errand (leading to the "I know it when I see it" conclusion). But, in the process, it helps identify elements of the concept which one person may have looked past. Distilling this thread (leaving out the Fan Club sidebar) it seems there are a few common denomenators like boldness of contours relative to green speed, alternate routes vs make or die, architects reputation in the hands of maintenance decisions/personnel, a simpathetic (to the surrounding terrain) aesthetic, green size vs amount of contouring vs anticipated approach shot in, ability of the turf to allow for pitch and run vs an "aerial only" approach, etc.
Of these parameters, the one that GCA's don't have much control over is architects reputation in the hands of maintenance decisions/personnel. Therefore, this, more than any other reason is why most GCA's tend to err on the side of less "wild,crazy,fun" because "stupid" is just around the corner. Ironically, (was it Joe Dye?) who said "we (the Tour) are not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, but rather identify them"? Heavily contoured greens can add another dimension to the equation. As for the "you can get there from here" arguement, when I posed that early in my career to a long time PGA Tournement Director, his response was "if you are there but want to be here, obviously you have played the wrong shot. Why should you get the same reward as one who hit the correct shot?" Unfortunately, and here's the rub, recreational players don't have that degree of accuracy in their game and hence have a different baseline of expectations. In his world he "expects" just being on the green enough of an accomplishment to be rewarded with a possible one putt.
-
Tim,
Excellent summation of the thread.
Like you stated, in most of these long discussions, I'm not necessarily thinking anyone is going to find a finite "answer" or an irrefutable conclusion. Why I enjoy getting into discussions here is for the chance to be introduced to different considerations or points that I may never have even considered.