[Ben Hollerbach]

My parents has been a member of an old Donald Ross course for 27 years.  It used to have traditional old classic course greens, surface drained with a clear predominant tilt (usually back to front) and undulations within that predominant tilt.  During a full course "renovation" that was completed last spring, the greens were redesigned to a much more modern segmented style with very clear, multiple tiers (up to 6 per green) of 2-3 feet high and fairly flat segmented areas. 


My brother said after his first round on the course: "this place will be much harder now for the mid and higher handicap players as the tiers will drive them crazy, but for a good player who has decent control of his game, this course is now much easier."


Most of the membership would attest to the statement.  I wasn't sure the greens would be easier for the better player until I watch my brother (a former D1 college player) shoot 67 today.


After the round he explained: 


"With the old greens, it strategically made sense to play 10-15 ft below the hole.  Putts even with the slope would have a foot or more of break, and were not likely to go in.  Putt above the hole were very delicate, playable for a two putt, but if you judged the slope  wrong, you would leave yourself a hanging 3-4 footer, or a 6-foot putt coming back.  On average it paid to be below the hole, therefore to shoot a low score, you had to make 10-20 foot puts.

The new course is very different.  The segmented tiers themselves are fairly flat.  No reason not to aim at the hole.  The tiers aren't problematic either.  Pins below the tiers have built in funnels around them to bring average shots back to the flat segments, leading to more birdies.  And there isn't any reason to fear missing a tier on the high side, because the superintendent isn't going to put the pin where a ball that drifts over the top tier will not stop within three feet of the hole.  If he does, the membership will have him fired.  Therefore the judgment is very easy from the top tier, find the fault line  and die the ball from there. It is much easier to judge this putt compared to one with a steep continuous slope.  In total, you can confidently fire at all these flags.  You couldn't do that before."


He closed with this: "I get he feeling modern architects think greens with many tiers make a course difficult for good players.  They don't.  Greens with large areas of meaningful tilt are much harder.  This is the #1 reason why courses like Shinnicock, Merion, and Oakmont are difficult for pros, and places like Erin Hills and Bellerive are not.  But for some reason, architects keep designing courses that are hard for average players and easier for good players."


What causes this differentiation? Is it  the age and settling of the land? or is it simply the construction of modern greens often bypass the smaller micro undulations that drive better players crazy for grander, but more consistent features within the greens?

[Peter Flory]

The classic greens were built for a much slower green speed.  Now they still retain their pitch and undulations, but at an 11+. 


So, I think they are indeed tougher than most modern greens because of that. 


With the classic back to front pitched greens, there is also the issue of the drop off on any shot hit over the green, which is rarely going to result in a par save.  Modern courses don't have that nearly as often or as severely. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Fascinating, Ben (and Ben's brother):

I've often wondered, from afar, whether in the hands of *some* modern architects the impressive, photogenic and difficult *looking* greens actually mask/hide big swaths of flattish and easily pin-able & putt-able areas among the contours and slopes -- the latter a stylized nod to the golden age, the former a clever concession to the modern one (and to today's more demanding sensibilities and all- important pocketbooks) -- especially so given that on-the-ground supers likely tend to err on the side of 'caution' when setting up the course for everyday play.

Peter     

[Ronald Montesano]

Two questions: where did your brother play, and which course is this?


This is an extraordinary thread, quite meaningful. I hope that it receives the attention it deserves.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, it depends on whose greens you are talking about!


I can assure you I don't think tiered greens are more difficult for good players, for exactly the reasons your brother described.  Honestly, I doubt many other architects make that mistake, either. 


But when you have greens that are 4% back to front, and the club insists on keeping them above 10 on the Stimpmeter, something has to give.  It's either divide the green into tiers, or take a foot out of the back of it to lessen the tilt, which is not always possible depending on the green site.  Plus if we cut it all to 3%, we might have to rebuild it again in ten years when the asylum keepers decide to make the greens even faster.

[Thomas Dai]

"the asylum keepers", that's a wonderful description!
And then there's the relationship between tiers and the number of pin-able hole locations and overall green size etc etc.
Subtlety is good. Where I mostly play there are some MacKenzie greens from the late 1920's, and lovely they are too. But they mostly have severe slopes and tiers. One however, if you study it really closely, has 3 tiers but they are so slight and gradual as to be almost imperceptible to the naked eye. Guess which is the easiest to 3-4 putt, yes, it's the subtle, slight, gradual one. On the others the tiers are so obvious that even lessor players immediately know what's likely to happen when the ball starts rolling but on the subtle, slight, gradual green things are very different.
atb

[jeffwarne]

"The new course is very different.  The segmented tiers themselves are fairly flat.  No reason not to aim at the hole.  The tiers aren't problematic either.  Pins below the tiers have built in funnels around them to bring average shots back to the flat segments, leading to more birdies.  And there isn't any reason to fear missing a tier on the high side, because the superintendent isn't going to put the pin where a ball that drifts over the top tier will not stop within three feet of the hole.  If he does, the membership will have him fired.  Therefore the judgment is very easy from the top tier, find the fault line  and die the ball from there. It is much easier to judge this putt compared to one with a steep continuous slope.  In total, you can confidently fire at all these flags.  You couldn't do that before."He closed with this: "I get he feeling modern architects think greens with many tiers make a course difficult for good players.  They don't.  Greens with large areas of meaningful tilt are much harder."

I agree and have said this many times.

I'll also add that significant tilt makes angles for approaches far more meaningful

Add in that classic greens were once slower, and often with more tilt (many have been altered) and/or holes were placed on steeper slopes because they could.

A 30 foot uphill on a green stimping 6 is VASTLY different than a 30 footer downhill on the same stimp and takes great skill to feel the difference. Remember a 30 footer on a slow green can be very fast if the pin is placed on a steep slope that wouldn't be used today on a faster stimp. The uphiller requires judgement and a solid strike with a large stroke-the downhiller-judgement and touch.

a modern tiltless green with a stimp is 14 is the nearly same speed both directions-fast-requiring a tiny stroke hit nearly anywhere on the club

[Jon Wiggett]

This is exactly what I have been saying for a few years now. The higher the stimp reading, the flatter the green needs to be, the easier it is for low scorers. 'Weight of putt' is not a difficulty for good putters but slope/borrow is. If the USGA wanted to protect par better in the US Open then better to play a course with well contoured greens, have stimp reading about 9 to 10 and pin appropriately.


I am afraid that golfers including most on here are too caught up in the hype of SPEED IS KING and slow greens are unacceptable to most golfers to be able to see the truth. Big business is ruining the game by making courses uninteresting and expensive.


Jon

[jeffwarne]

This is exactly what I have been saying for a few years now. The higher the stimp reading, the flatter the green needs to be, the easier it is for low scorers. 'Weight of putt' is not a difficulty for good putters but slope/borrow is. If the USGA wanted to protect par better in the US Open then better to play a course with well contoured greens, have stimp reading about 9 to 10 and pin appropriately.


I am afraid that golfers including most on here are too caught up in the hype of SPEED IS KING and slow greens are unacceptable to most golfers to be able to see the truth. Big business is ruining the game by making courses uninteresting and expensive.


Jon

There's more money in pandering to the clueless...

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,


In a very short sighted way yes.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


In a very short sighted way yes.

yes-the opposite of the way Golf's governing bodies should be operating

[Nick Ribeiro]

I am afraid that golfers including most on here are too caught up in the hype of SPEED IS KING and slow greens are unacceptable to most golfers to be able to see the truth. Big business is ruining the game by making courses uninteresting and expensive.


Jon

Isn't this the truth. There is a place for fast greens, its called modern golf courses. Not sure when variety became a bad thing and all these classics had to sell out with fast greens. I like fast greens like anyone else but they belong on modern courses. I also like classics with big undulating greens that are fun and roll 7 or 8 which is most likely a little faster than intended. I am fortunate to have an old Donald Ross about 45 minutes from me that is really in the middle of no where and has gone untouched not having the funds to modernize their greens. You really can't appreciate how far removed some of these "classics" are till you find one that's gone untouched.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()