[CHrisB]

Do architects care whether their greens are easy or difficult to read?

And if so, what methods do they use to make their greens easy or difficult to read?

There is a course here in central TX that is quite a decent layout, but almost everyone agrees that the greens are absolutely baffling to read, which actually turns out to be a negative for the course's reputation (people like to make putts, after all). I'm trying to figure out whether the architect is responsible for the trickiness of the reads (there seem to be a lot of "slopes against slopes", where the general slope of the land goes one way, but the green is tilted another), or whether it's a (un)happy accident--maybe the greens have somehow "settled" in such a way that they roll inconsistently, or maybe the grain grows in different directions... Whatever it is, I am amazed at how many times people (including me) get fooled out there on the reads.

Is this something that architects think much about? I suppose every architect strives to create greens that make putting both interesting and challenging, but how much emphasis is placed on making them deceiving as well?

Are there other courses out there whose greens are universally tricky to read? If so, what makes them that way?

[ForkaB]

Greens that are composed of a number of types of grass are hard to read, at least for me (disclosure--I have a mild form of red-green color blindness).

Played Elie (which has robustly variant greens) last week and had a lot of trouble picking out the lines, particulary on short putts.

I think this sort of variety is one of the really cool things about  British and Irish courses.  Not sure if it would play in Peoria......

[Sean_A]

Chris

I have this sort of unreadable experience whenever I play greens on hills with contrary contours.  It is next to impossible to read.  One has to play the hole many, many times and then just pick a line and hit (of course these putts are even more reliant on good speed).  My home course has a few of these dingers which are hit and hopers.  

These type of greens don't bother me.  I am not a good putter so I reckon these holes work against the guy who putts well.

Ciao

Sean

[Tom_Doak]

Every once in a while we will build some contour in a green thinking deliberately that it will be hard to read, but not throughout a course.  That doesn't mean they're easy to read -- for the average golfer no green is easy to read -- but just that we're not deliberately trying to confuse anybody.

The courses which are baffling are those where there is a pronounced tilt to the entire property, whether it's on the side of a mountain or just draining to one spot.  Your eye tends to want to flatten these places out, so that every putt breaks toward the low point more than it looks.  I don't really know what an architect could do to counteract that, if one wanted to.

[CHrisB]

The courses which are baffling are those where there is a pronounced tilt to the entire property, whether it's on the side of a mountain or just draining to one spot.  Your eye tends to want to flatten these places out, so that every putt breaks toward the low point more than it looks.  I don't really know what an architect could do to counteract that, if one wanted to.

A good example is Riviera, where the property tilts down the canyon toward the 6th green. I remember having a caddy for my one round there, and I don't think I even tried to read any of the greens myself--I just went on his read all day. I remember marveling at some of the lines he chose for putts--it didn't even look close to that in my eye--but he was right every time.

On a course like that you really have to read putts with what you know more than what you see.

I remember the first time I played Pinehurst #2 (before the latest greens re-do) in the North & South Am, and there were a couple of short putts where I intentionally went against my read because I figured I would get it wrong... Those greens are so raised from their surroundings, that it is hard to use the "lay of the land" in your read.

I really am not trying to be a contrarian, but

Aren't "hard to read greens" a good thing?  Isn't one showing skill whence one deciphers them?

I think "hard to read" greens certainly are a good thing, especially if it takes skill to figure them out. That's why I was wondering what, if anything, architects try to do to introduce deception into their greens.

Some greens, however, roll very inconsistently even once the line is figured out, and those aren't quite as fun to putt. I'm certainly not looking for perfection (although I will say that the greens I saw at Sand Hills in late July were the closest I've seen--Crenshaw came back to Austin a week after I was there and said that the greens as he saw them at Sand Hills were the best that he had ever putted on--think about that for a minute), but I would like to know that if I choose a good line and speed for a putt, that is at least worth watching as it nears the hole...

[Kris Spence]

I think hard to read greens are a great way to add challenge to a course that is length challenged.  I generally try to create sections or halves of a green that tend to break up hill  or straighten out when the player thinks he or she sees an obvious break.  Tom Doak is exactly right in that a long sloping property tends to produce this better even when not intended.

Some of my best greens are the result of the shaper doing exactly what I told him visually, however when the laser is used to check the slopes it breaks in the other direction.  I leave alot of these greens alone if the drainage works because the player will see it the way the shaper viewed it visually.  I see alot of Ross's greens do this especially when he built a green site on a long slope going away from the line of play or to one side or the other.  Whether he did it intentionally or not is another subject.

[TEPaul]

If any architect has some opportunity to make greens that're hard to read I think it's practically encumbent upon him to do so!

In my opinion, the real deal between the architect and the golfer is that of the eternal chess game. I feel the golf architect should use any legitimate and stylish deception or  trick in his bag to make it so!

And if this general subject isn't a great one for a separate thread I can't imagine what is!  

[John Foley]

Would Maxwel's greens be considered hard to read?

[Mike Hendren]

Two words:  Lookout Mountain.

The question I have:  Is it really design/construction genius, or mere happenstance?

[Kyle Harris]

Does a lot to read necessarily equate to difficult to read? There have been instances where I have had information overload on a green; try to discern the different breaks in one putt, however, the individual parts weren't difficult to read. The Maxwell greens I've seen and played seem to be more of this category.

Then I play a course like Lulu or Huntingdon Valley where just trying to get a read on one break gives me vertigo.

[John Foley]

Kyle hit the point I was trying to think about and it was because of maxwell's style. The more information overload for me the tougher the putting becomes. I would venture to say that a double plateau while difficult in terms of the approach, is not that difficult to read. Unless the putt is from one plateau to the other and then it that case it's still an approach!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like Tom, I don't consider trying to make greens hard to read specifically.  Site factors often influence that more. Other than the optical illusions of sloping sites, as to what is hard to read, I do hear many players say that reading a flat putt is harder because you WANT to try hard to read break into it.

The most I do is try to vary the basic slope of greens throughout the couse.  Rather than settle on, say 1.5, 1.75, 2, or 2.25% for a "basic" slope, I try to use some of each in appropriate places in an effort to try to keep golfers from "knowing" how much putts break on the course.

I really have no way to know if that theory works, but I can't see any harm in varying the greens, so I keep doing it!  Interesting point though, how do we really know if any particular design theory works, other than evaluating it ten years or more down the road?

[Doug Wright]

I really have no way to know if that theory works, but I can't see any harm in varying the greens, so I keep doing it!  Interesting point though, how do we really know if any particular design theory works, other than evaluating it ten years or more down the road?

Jeff,

Good point.

Out here in Colorado greens in the foothills and mountain courses are very hard to read (eg Broadmoor and Hiwan, which have quite severe greens with "mountain break" and grain that are challenging and either fun or frustrating depending on how you fare).

[cary lichtenstein]

Bill:

I quite enjoyed putting on the Colorado greens this past summer. Here is what I found.

At Red Sky, the Norman Course, the greens were very difficult to read. Ditto at the Weiskopf course in Steamboat. Both werre very frustrating.

I got to know pretty much every inch at Lakota in Glenwood Springs, so they were a lot of fun to putt having the local knowledge. I never really mastered the 14th green there, despite all my rounds there. I had trouble figuring out if the putts were uphill or downhill on that hole. Maybe I should have stood on my head.

I always loved the difficult poa greens at Cog Hill #2, a Chicago course that I played often. I for one, like grainy greens, I think they add another element to the round.

One course's greens that I hated was Avaria, with the convergence of the canyons, I just gave up.

[Pete Lavallee]

"Mountain greens" are fun, plumb bobbing helps tremendously here; Crenshaw does it and that's good enough reason for me.

The front to back effect at Rustic Canyon is unique in American golf; where else can you find 8 greens that slope imperseptably from front to back? It is hard to see and feel, but the effect is very apparent.

Unquestionably the hardest greens to read I've ever seen are at Royal North Devon in Westward Ho! The greens have settled over time and with an absense of top dressing to level them out they are almost 20 greens within a green. This surely provides the ultimate course knowledge edge to those who play there regularly. There is really no other way to figure out these greens without numerous plays. This course made me realize just how yearly topdressing tends to homogenize the overall slope in the green. Later in the same trip we played Royal Ashdown Forest, who confirmed that they regularly topdress. I was never once confounded there.

[wsmorrison]

Greens that are surrounded by mountains are difficult to read, the slopes seem minimized in contrast to the surroundings.  

I've said this before, but a downslope can be used to alter perceptions and in my mind are the hardest putts to read correctly in terms of speed rather than direction.  Two downhill par 3s that come to mind as excellent examples of this are the 3rd at Rolling Green and the 4th at the Cascades.  In both instances the overall topographic movement is significantly downhill.  The architect softens the slope of the green so that the green actually still runs front to back but at less of an angle.  The eye falsely perceives the slope as running back to front.  Even standing on the green the eye remains fooled.  At Rolling Green the top lines of the flanking bunkers are higher in the rear than in the front to enhance the effect.  These are the hardest greens to read I have ever seen.  The visual cues do not correspond to reality in a way that leaves the golfer scratching his head believing he stroked the putt poorly rather than not understanding the slope.

I also think that complexities of slope rather than internal contouring are more difficult to read.  The interactions of the slopes vary greatly by position on the green and are far more subtle and require careful study to figure out, often taking many rounds to begin to figure out.  These are perfect for private clubs where you'd like the learning curve to be longer so as to keep the learning experience extended over a longer period of time.

I concur with Cary, grain in greens makes reading the greens a far greater challenge.

[Ian Andrew]

I agree with Wayne's assesment of landforms that overwhelm the senses, but the trickiest of all have to be flat greens where subtle settlement has left inperceptable movement. You never seem to make a putt unless your close.

[wsmorrison]

Ian,

The psychological impact of missing putts that are apparently easy to read and are missed start to have an significant negative effect.  The mental collapse is always followed by the physical collapse which leads to extended remediation at the bar afterwards  

[igrowgrass]

What makes greens easy to read?  What courses have you played where you walk onto the greens and say no matter what I have the line I'm going to make this putt, because the greens are easy to read?
I find it easier to read break, no matter where I play, when I seem to be putting well.  If I make a couple putts early on to get things going, no matter the line I just have a sense of its going to go in.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()