Green Style Preferences

[wsmorrison]

There seems to be two distinct styles of green designs.  One, which seems very popular these days, contains a great deal of internal contouring, even on rather small greens.  While the breaks are evident, they are hard to putt because of the severity of the contours.  Another style, mostly found on classic courses is that of interplays of slopes rather than contours.  These look benign yet are hard to read and make putts on because the breaks are not so apparent.  While I think the internal contours work particularly well on resort or public courses where the time to learn the greens is often not available, I think for private courses I lean towards the integrated slope designs because the learning curve is far greater, there's more of a home course advantage and they tend to look more natural in general.

Which types of greens do those on this website prefer?  I've gotta go, so I'll try to post photos of the different styles a bit later today.

[Adam Clayman]

Wayne,
  Having to figure-out what the shaper was thinking, is not my idea of fun putting. Allowing the terrain and the internal contours to assist the mathematically creative, is a way more fun way to play golf, imo.

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

I am not sure I understand your associations correctly?  Are you saying that you feel resort and public facilities work better with greens that "contains a great deal of internal contouring" and private ones do better with "interplays of slopes rather than contours."

If so, I think the opposite might be more fitting and I am reminded of this after viewing the recent photos posted of Ballyneal and The Sand Hills.  I would think that it would be more engaging and interesting to learn the great contours on my home private course and leave the less dramatic and internalized slope surfaces to the resort and public golfer.  Granted, they (the great contoured surfaces) can be a lot of fun, but most of that may apply more so to folks like those who frequent this site and appreciate this type of feature as opposed to those who are out for a relaxing weekend round with friends, because I have played those types of surfaces and yes while they are a blast, they are anything but relaxing to putt

[Kirk Gill]

Are the two styles mentioned mutually exclusive? Going with the "Green within a green" style, where broad, severe contours separate distinct, relatively flat areas, can't the subtler "interplay of slopes" exist on those flatter areas? The more severe slopes would only be tackled by those who "miss" with their approach.........

[wsmorrison]

Scott,

It is my assertion that the bolder internal contouring is more overt so that the breaks are easier to see--but difficult to execute. The subtler interplays of slopes may be just as difficult to execute but for different reasons; namely the are more difficult to read.

I believe that it is better for guests of resorts and public courses to have more apparent difficulty and it is better for members of private courses to have greens that are harder to read and require a longer learning curve.  

Of course the psychological impact of the two different styles are also different.  Having bold internal contours offers greater reward for making putts since it is obvious that there are contours that must be solved.  Its almost like you know its a difficult putt and don't expect to make it.  On the other hand, with subtle interplays of slopes that may be just as difficult to putt, many golfers look at this type of green as less challenging (only because the visual cues are not so apparent) and get beaten up a bit psychologically because they expect to make more putts.

Maybe this doesn't make much sense and maybe plain wrong, but it is something I've been mulling for a long time and it seems true to me.

Kirk,

Just read your post.  Good point.

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

Thanks for the clarification, but I can't agree with you...not entirely anyway.  I like where you are going with the psychology of this element and I do agree that there is a distinction as to how a public-vs-private-vs-resort golfer assesse's their situation, that is much of what an architect is looking and hoping for I believe. However, it has been my personal experience and from watching countless golfers at private and pubic courses putt on both of these surfaces (this is what I do as an architect when considering improvements as such) that they have more trouble with surfaces that contain bolder contours as opposed to more subtle integrated slopes.

It seems that speed is more the hot issue on boldly contoured greens and I see more people come up way short or blow by the cup and way off line without giving as much thought (their mistake perhaps) to the break.  On the other hand, I see many more golfers manage themselves much better on surfaces without as much contour...they seems to read the break far better and also do better with speed.  It is as though they are simply not as worried about both speed and break, and almost inherently have more confidence that they will read the green good enough and their main thought is with the speed.  This does seem to be in line with what the teaching pros tell their students..speed will cost you more putts per round that reading the green perfectly, in general golfers are okay with this aspect.

As noted, this has been my experience  

[Jamey Bryan]

I'm going to weigh in with a strong preference for the green complex slope as opposed to a relatively flat complex with severe internal mounding.  It seems to me that when the green complex itself is the contour, the green has a strong impact on more than putting-- ie the ideal position from which to hit the approach, the positioning of the approach shot itself (below the hole), and only then can the golfer approach the putt (or chip).   On my home course, a Walter Travis routing with Donald Ross greens, there are several holes where a front pin  is best attacked from the front fringe while anything above the hole is either birdie or bogey.  I love the fact that a pin position and the green complex itself  affect the strategy of the drive, the approach, AND putting.

Having said that, it probably is more appropriate to limit the severity of green complexes on public and resort courses.  The internal mounding within the complex preserves the challange of par or birdie while allowing the golfer a straight forward green-in-regulation approach to the green itself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

At least one of the old guys, probably MacKenzie, weighed in for long slopes vs. the "puny" little interior contours, if I catch your drift right.

Despite the current popularization of "internal" or "random" green contours by a few architects, I suspect most players prefer the long slopes starting outside the green and working their way across.  As Jamey says, they affect the approach shots as much as putts.  And then, when putting, I think most players would say a long slope (or even interplay of long slopes) gives them a chance to make a putt, if properly read and stroked.

Do random contours allow that?  At some point, if there are numerous little bumps and hollows, it crosses over to impossible to read, thus negating the benefits to a degree of strong iron play, and making it more luck than skill to make a putt, no?

Related question - is defending par at the green with green a good thing, or does it throw the golf course challenge too far out of balance with putting/short game over accuracy?

Lastly, I think it depends a bit on the site. If there are a lot of humps and hollows everywhere else, an internal contour green might fit in.  On a gently rolling midwestern site, I think the long slopes working into the green from the edges may look a lot more natural.

[Paul Payne]

Wayne,

I tend to like more subtle slopes on a green but this does depend on green speed. I play mostly public courses and if they cannot keep the greens in condition it negates any of that subtle break. After a few over-read puttts you soon learn to not play the break and everything becomes a straight putt.

I also really like breaks that are not only hard to read but come with an optical illusion. There are a number of setups which can do this but I like when I think I have a putt read, only to miss and then walk to the other side of the cup and see what I had failed too see at first. This always reminds one to look from more than one angle.

Although I do enjoy greens with more severe slopes they are all about a different kind of putting, and you are rarely fooled, the break usually moves in an obvious direction.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Impossible to read are what caddies are for.  

But seriously, some of the best greens aren't impossible to read, but are hard to tell where the grades converge.

 So many times it isn't what you see, it's what you know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Out of curiosity, what happens when a combination of subtle contours and hole locations make it a matter of luck to hole a putt?  Do you like that?

The obvious examples would be a hole location on a tier or little knob (set by an inexperienced employee, of course)  But what if a small knob just ahead of the hole would certainly deflect any putt on line away from the hole, even if you read it correctly?

Now, I can agree that sometimes thats a good thing, at least once in a while, and it may be near impossible to have that happen to you 18 times in a round even if every green was full of random contours, given the various angles you might be putting from.

However, I have heard many, many good golfers wail loudly at just one instance of having to putt over a little hump as I just described.  I have been told (sometimes quite forcefully) "I am an idiot" for putting such knobs in a green.........

[Paul Payne]

Jeff,

It probably depends on if there is really a reasonaboe chance of stopping the ball on top of the knob from say 15 feet. Further out you could maybe say it was a poor shot in, but at some point there has to be a chance.

I remember playing Tobbacco Road once and the pin position on the par 5 #13 was such that if your ball was below the hole it would be about 8 feet from the cup. No matter how you hit your putt, if you missed the cup it would roll back to its original position at 8 feet.

Now I have to say I LOVE TR but that particular putt boardered on goofy golf. The reason I feel is that there was simply no chance to even lag close from only 8 feet out.

[Tags:]

Tags: