Greens--the face of architecture?!

[TEPaul]

Although I leant the book out and can't quote the remark exactly it was Tillinghast who mentioned something to the effect that putting greens are the face of golf holes.

In that vein, most are aware of the importance (as mentioned by such architects as Tom Doak) of really well designed greens as surfaces to approach, chip to and putt on.

I've seen a pretty good number of interesting golf courses in my life and some courses that have a wealth of great greens such as NGLA, Cypress, Oakmont, Merion, PVGC--in those five cases almost an entire set of 18 great greens.

Of them all, and having just spent the last four days there, I just can't imagine a course that has better and more interesting greens--almost every single one of them than PVGC. It would take a lot of time to fully explain the intricacies of all the greens there to approach, chip to, recover to and putt on. And they are all well high-lighted by speeds that excentuate their subtleties and problems to the golfer. Some are enormous and a few others are miniscule. But all have both shapes and surface contours that are maybe the best in the world--at least they are to me. Certainly, to me, seventeen of them really are world class, the one exception being #14--a green that's surprisingly mild if only in comparison to the others (maybe this is because Crump did not see it built or perhaps the thought was if one could hit that green in that day one should be given relief from putting concerns. The entire right side of #14 is an area that does deserve some respect though).

And to think that of the twenty greens on the main course of PVGC probably only nine of them are as Crump built them. Of the remainder four are Hugh Alison's (#6, R9, 11, 17), two are Perry Maxwell's (L8, L9), perhaps four are largely Crump designed but built by the contingent from Merion--both Wilsons and Flynn (#12-15) as I doubt those four holes were completed when Crump died suddenly in Jan 1918, and one Tom Fazio (R8).

But all this makes one wonder--how great can a golf course really be if it does NOT have really great putting greens? Think of the courses in this world that have an entire set of really great greens--there aren't many of them and those that are considered to have them have almost invariably been right up there in what's considered to be at the top of architecture in this world.

Here are two things to consider. There's no question at all that the greens of Friar's Head are truly remarkable and how about the greens at Bethpage Black? The word has always been there're pretty bland. How good then must the rest of the course be to compensate for that? Might it be simply because from tee TO green Bethpage Black could be one of the toughest tracks anywhere?

This subject has certainly been discussed on here before but it's a good subject and there's no real harm in bringing it up again from time to time.

Also, greens #2 and #3 at PVGC are probably my two favorites out of a really remarkable group--so it's real hard to choose favorites among them. But my partner there wondered why a hole and a green like #3 PVGC (or even #2) has basically never been duplicated anywhere else. The shape and putting surface on #3 is right up there with any great redan or even my other most favorite par 3 (NGLA's #6) as perhaps the best par 3 green I've ever seen--or know of!



 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,

An excellent topic, of which of course will be totally mis-understood by many because it is clouded with talk of bias.

For me there is nothing like 18 different or provocative "faces" like you mention. I was so impressed by what I saw back there, and not one green seemed to be anything like any other. this is where I get off on making my accusations of certain "name" architects who seemingly in this modern age only produce green complexes by templete and mouse click.

So many great greens out there to be inspired by and study, and yet, so little time spent by many in producing them. This maybe one of the main problems in modern design, and worst then the dreaded "containment mound" aka Rees Pieces; Fazio Ridge; and Art's Hill's.

But what the heck! they all tie-in to the punch bowl-like containment setting in back of the green, thereby creating even more repeticious mediocrity. Ah yes, the Modern Mentality.......

[Mark Studer]

Tom- It is one of my favorite  CB Macdonald quotes from Scotland's Gift, Golf.  "Putting greens to a golf course are what the face is to a  portrait. The clothes the subject wears, the background, whether scenery or whether draperies- are simply accessories; the face tells the story and determines the character and quality of the portrait- whether it is good or bad. So it is in golf; you can always build a putting green. Teeing grounds, hazards, the fairway, rough, etc., are accessories."                      Wow! Great putting surfaces are what we talk about  at the 19th hole.  I think that the classic course putting greens are what  makes the old courses so special as compared to the best of modern designs, in fact the best of the new designs have replicated the fun factor with those wonderful undulating greens with wild hole placement possiblities.(example:Bandon& Pacific Dunes, Cuscawilla, Sandhills)   Mark

[Dan Kelly]

I believe it was not Tillinghast, but CB Macdonald, who said (I paraphrase slightly, perhaps):

The greens are to a golf course as the face is to a portrait.

Mark Studer beat me to it!

[TEPaul]

There could be a supreme irony at work here. That irony would be posed by the question--Would those architects who built those great greens like those at courses such as NGLA, Merion, PVGC, Oakmont, Crystal Downs etc have built them like that if they really knew that SOMEDAY greenspeeds would be up to what they are today? Would they have been as nervous about them as some architects seem to be today?

The second irony is so many people seem to admire high greenspeeds and so many people also seem enamored with the wonderful old dramatic high slope and high contour greens such as are at NGLA, Merion, Oakmont, Crystal Downs etc when their greenspeeds are up, but when someone even mentions the thought of duplicating the drama of some of those old greens today's golfers seem to object. Or at least it seems as if some architects seem to think today's golfers will object--and so most architects hesitate to build them or consider building them. And so the demand for and acceptance of flatter less interesting greens seems to continue.

Thankfully, some architects don't seem to be paying that much attention to the warning not to build dramatic green surfaces today. I'm actually an advocate of ratcheting the greenspeeds up on most of the dramatic green surfaces from both yesterday and today. I think there comes a point probably a stimp reading around ten or just a bit higher when greens like this become absolutely fascinating to play. On some of them just add a foot or two of speeds and you'd find it fascinating how the "imagination" factor of how to play them increases exponentally.

The only warning I'd offer would be if people, particularly those in control, think they're too much or over the top the ONLY solution should be to slow them back down again. The option of softening their contours just to maintain speeds that are over the top on original and highly dramatic contours should never be considered.

I sure haven't seen it all but I'll say again putting around some of the greens at Friar's Head was amazing. I wasn't even putting at anything--just putting the ball around some of those greens to see what would happen. Basically it's pretty rare to see a ball move like that across a green surface and I even doubt those greens are up to the speeds they may eventually get them.

Maybe I'll give up the long game altogether and just become a putter. Putting is also the most democratic area of golf--it doesn't take strength but it does take imagination--something anyone can possess.

Actually on the 2nd green at PVGC the other day--and in competition too I had a putt from the left side to a pin in the "slot" on the right side. My caddie told me to just play a ton of break intyo the slot but it looked to me like even that was too iffy as the ball might have either just kept on turning and going or even come to rest way above the pin. So I tried the modified "Zorro" putt of hitting the ball right through the slot and about 15 feet past and about 25 feet above the pin right up the other side of the slot--have it come to a momentary halt or just basically reverse directions and filter back down sideways from about 25 feet above the pin.

I'm not sure what my partner thought about that because the putt really did matter--but I did it and it worked. It pretty much made my day. I probably wouldn't have thought to try it but a year or two before in the same tournament in an overtime match I tried that "Zorro putt" (because there really didn't seem to be any other way at all) and I actually made it from about 50 feet above and left of that pin--and to win the match to boot. Probably the greatest putt I ever made and if it hadn't gone in the hole it undoubtedly would've gone right off the front of the green maybe 35+ feet below that pin!!

[TEPaul]

Mark and Dan:

You're absolutely right it was Macdonald who said that, not Tillinghast. I read all this stuff and of course I can never remember where I read it exactly. That happens when you either get old or lose your mind--things that seem to be happening to me simultaneously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I think that you have to temper your passion with reason.

Ask yourself, of those courses that TEPaul mentions, how many greens were constructed when stimp speeds were 10+ ?

I see increasing green speeds as the greatest threat and deterant to interesting greens and green contours.

TEPaul,

Greens within Greens can still exist at high speeds, but the contour within each sub-green will often be uninteresting.

Ross also felt that the heart of a golf course was its greens.

I think that the single greatest impediment to designing and building great greens with slope and contour is SPEED.

You and I also know what happens at PV when the greens get too fast for their design, putting chaos and negative claims.  You and I also know what happens at NGLA when their greens get too fast.

People, including many on this site, complain about slow play, but when you watch great amateurs 4 putt from 5 feet, you know that certain greens were never meant to putt so fast, and that it slows up play dramatically.

It's not an architect related issue as Tommy would like you to believe.  One only has to look at the Greens at Galloway National to see that Fazio has designed interesting greens, with both slope and contour.

You, and TOMMY are also aware of the great number of golf courses, including Winged Foot, which have reduced the slopes and contours in their greens due to their inability to handle increased speeds and membership acceptance.

At my home course in New Jersey, there are three great, double tiered greens, however, with today's speeds, if the pin is on the lower level, and your ball on the upper level, in most cases you can't hold the green.  Generally, people don't like to de-green their  ball.  It's embarrasing, takes time, and was never intended by the architect.  So what becomes the battle cry ?  Reduce the height differential in the greens, when it should be, lower the speed.

Montclair has had several of their Donald Ross greens softened in order to accomodate higher speeds.

The problem isn't the architects today, it's what they have to design to, in light of today's speeds.

With respect to Friar's Head, I liken their greens to NGLA in that there are some severe ones, like # 1, # 7 and # 9 with the others being less contoured.  You're not going to find a golf course built today, with greens that all look like
numbers 1, 3, 6, 11 and 15 at NGLA.

Speed, not architects is the impediment.

[JohnV]

Isn't really the little subtle intracacies of these greens that make them so interesting, not just the overall slope?  That is what seems to be missing from many modern greens (and even some older ones that were just slopes from back to front).  Look at the links courses in the UK, most of their greens are basically flat, but still are incredibly interesting to putt because of the subtelties.

Many greens today seem to be built around flat areas with slopes or ridges between them.  If the flat areas were constructed with interesting little crowns, dips and other features they could still be wonderful and could be puttable at todays speeds.  I think that the old architects would still have found a way to keep things interesting while accomodating the modern speeds.  Modern greens with these kind of features are being built, but it would be nice to see more of them.

Sometimes I wonder if some of these nuances were built in or have just evolved because of uneven settling over the years.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I don't see where I said anything that would apply I was of the opposite thinking. I think greenspeeds are ridiculous and uneccessary. If I had my choice, I would take smooth slower putts with huge contours over smooth lighting putts and much less dramatic surfaces.

I always say this to those who say a putt is too fast on a paticulary contoured green: "Cut it higher...."

[TEPaul]

Pat said;

"TEPaul,
Greens withing Greens can still exist at high speeds, but the contour within each sub-green will often be uninteresting."

Pat:

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that statement. In my opinion the faster greens get the more interesting they are to play and putt but obviously up to a point when there becomes no reasonable think to do. That's the point where greens start reaching over the top and at that point my only recommendation would be to slow them down to that point where they present maximum interest and challenge. But again as I said clearly in former post today--never think about recontouring and softening in the name of maintaining speed.

But NGLA, as you know, has some pretty dramatic contours on some of their greens and they're still OK (for some occassions) when they're up to around 12 on the stimp. Over that and even good players would struggle at their best and that's obviously getting over the top.

But greens like NGLA would be Ok for anyone around 9.5+ but take them up a couple of feet and they become a high-lighted ball for special occasions--with good golfers. NGLA was up around 12 for the singles and I think everyone had a ball and the members all seemed super happy with the way the course was and the way it was generally set up. I'd really doubt there was a single competitor in that field who didn't 3 putt at all but so what--that's just an indication of them probably being in the wrong place on some green (NGLA has real greens within a green as you know).

But when you say that as the speed rises (to the ideal and most challenging point!?) that the sub-green becomes more uninteresting--I'm not sure I get what you mean. I think it becomes more interesting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

My sense is that green speeds are sometimes exagerated.
I didn't play in the singles this year, but 12 and 12+ seem excessive, and I would have my doubts on that reading.

I can't see a ball staying on the green at # 1, # 3, # 6, # 12 or # 15 at those speeds.

NGLA also enjoys some unique soil and micro climate that other courses can't benefit from.

Rather then speak about greens preped for one three day event, we should discuss the subject in the context of the greens from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

Super speeds on sloped or contoured greens will invariably result in those greens being altered, which I'm against.
For some reason, clubs don't seem to want to return to slower speeds.  Perhaps TV is to blame

[Willie_Dow]

Don't the speed of greens make you think about your second, or third shot?
Go back to the strategy of the game plan, and the placement of your drive.  Wide open fairways will give this option.
Please, USGA, give up your narrow minded fairways!

[TEPaul]

Does anyone know why the delete button doesn't appear to work?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Your first post on this thread seems to indicate that you spent the last 4 days at Pine Valley, and yet your last one implies that you spent at least part of the same 4 days at National.  Are you that good to be omnipresent, or is it just a case of "seen one golden age course, seen them all....."?

PS--your (and the Oldies but Goldies) premise is correct.  A golf hole without a great green is like a day without wine, or a woman without je ne sais quoi.........

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom,

Your thread is, as usual, very thoughtful. Thanks.

I do have one question: Have you ever posted an opening "preamble" to a thread that is just a few sentances in length? (I dare you!)

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

Apparently what you think of as paragraphs I must think of as sentences.    But I'll accept the dare.

[Forrest Richardson]

The Guiness (say, that reminds me, I'm heading to Ireland in a few days and I'll just bet they have some there...) Book of World Records once listed the longest sentance, a massive account generated by a computer, but supposidly making sense. I only turned in a spelling assignment to use each of our spelling words for the week in a sentance. The teacher indicated we "could use multiple words in a single sentance" until done. Of which I wrote one:

This week my spelling words are yacht, stairs, winnow, sill, grout, plane, cattywumpus, culdesac, redan, and coffee.

[TEPaul]

"This week my spelling words are yacht, stairs, winnow, sill, grout, plane, cattywumpus, culdesac, redan, and coffee."

Forrest:

I think you should've included "flask" in that list of the week's spelling words. It'd help increase your imagination for my week's assignment for you.

Your assignment is to design a golf hole, or perhaps just a green that has a direct onomatopoetic connection on the ground to the word "cattywumpus"!!!

Great word!!

Don't dawdle or procrastinate or you'll be late or you'll get demerits. Just get out that flask, suck on it with alacrity as Tillie did and inspiration will fly at you!

[Forrest Richardson]

Why is it that "flask" is often synonymous with "empty"?

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

Because you're acting the part of the pessimist today. Don't do that! Think optimisitically--think full, think high, think smart, think Tillinghast! If you still can't get the idea of the synonymous connection of "flask" and "empty" out of your mind then at least think where all that good stuff is that used to be in the flask when "full". It's now in you and you can then think full, think high, think smart and think like Tillie did!

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes sir, I will.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Paul wrote ... "Here are two things to consider. There's no question at all that the greens of Friar's Head are truly remarkable and how about the greens at Bethpage Black? The word has always been there're pretty bland. How good then must the rest of the course be to compensate for that? Might it be simply because from tee TO green Bethpage Black could be one of the toughest tracks anywhere?"

Tom -- I have always been a huge fan of BB -- even before Rees and the USGA boys "found" the track. The greatness of BB belies the notion that only great greens can elevate a course to super stardom. The Black is without question one of the most intense driving courses you can play and there are only really a few greens --I'd say at the most six that are really challenging in the mold of the courses you mentioned (i.e. PV, Merion, etc, etc).

Yes, the USGA bumped the speed up because a good number of them are relatively flat but you're last statement proves that greatness can be had without resorting to wild contours that overly accentuate the role of putting.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

When I say "goofy golf" I mean things such as:

--the "infinite putting" at courses such as Pastiempo which cannot be finished if pins on certain greens are placed malevolently.
--holes which take extreme skill to 3 putt, and are probably effectively "infinite" to the average golfer

Sure, at very elite tournaments (e.g. the Masters) such situations can be interesting to the afficionado, but on a day to day basis for the average--or even very good (e.g. you)--player?  Not.

Some greens were just not designed to play with the stimpmeters du jour.  The answer is to stimp down the courses with great contours and leave the 12+ (or whatever) readings for the new courses with little serious elevation changes (see the immortal Pete Dye interview on this site for guidance) for the "X-games" speed merchants.

[David_Tepper]

There is an interesting article that touches on this subject in the current issue (July/August) of Travel & Leisure Golf written by Arthur Hills. You can find it at:
www.tlgolf.com

Scroll down to where it says "July/August issue" and you will find it.