[David_Elvins]

TEPaul,

I think I have found the origin of the problem.  It isn't that players have an expectation that they will two putt, what they have is an expectation that they will be able to get the first putt within three feet of the hole.  WHy?  Because every instruction book since Nicklaus has said "On long putts, don't aim for the hole, aim to get the putt within 3 feet of the hole."  So a lot of players have grown up defining the success of a long putt by whether it gets within 3 feet of the hole or not.  Not by whether it leaves the ball in the best possible position for the second putt.  So of course, if a player is confronted with a putt that he is physically unable to get within 3 feet of the hole (or ony has a 1% chance of getting it within 3 feet of the hole) his whole paradigm for success and failure is thown out the window.  So, of course, the course is deficient in testing what he wants tested.  Bad architecture!

SO of course the only solution is to burn any golf instruction book that teaches players to aim to get long putts within three feet of the hole.  Then we might see some progress.

[TEPaul]

"I played a largely unrestored McKenzie yesterday (Pitreavie) in a competition and the greens stimped at about 7.  If you cut those suckers to 10-11 you'd have to adopt the "after 4 putts pick up and go to the next hole rule" if you wanted anybody to finish their round."

Interesting remark Rich, and another good example of how you sort of think things through less than about half way.

As you may not quite realize there really aren't any greens in the world that couldn't be playable in the 9-10 area. The only question becomes where you pin those greens. I don't know Petreavie but if those greens need to be at no more than 7 on the stimp every single contour and slope on those greens must be somewhere around 4+ degrees and we all know there aren't any greens anywhere that are that much everywhere!

[ForkaB]

TEP

You obviously do not have much experience with McKenzie greens.  Try Pasatiempo when the greenkeeper has a bad hair day, for a start.........

Vis a vis your theory that to be unputtable ALL of a green must have a 4+ degree slope, you have either not seen some of the greens at Pitreavie (which do have some areas of 4- degree slope, but such areas are so small as to be virtually unattainable at speed of 10-11 (think of trying to lag a 20 foot putt down a ski slope to a ledge of 8-10 feet, with another ski slope below it.  Then think about the comeback putt.  Up a 4+ degree slope to the same shelf, but from about 50 feet.  If you hit it short, you are back at the bottom again.  If you are long you go up the 2nd slope and then boomerang back down to the shelf but most likely keep going back to the bottom of the hill again.)).

Cheers

PS--I was playing with a greenkeeper member who told me this, but he probably doesn't know much in your humble opinion..............

[TEPaul]

"TEP
You obviously do not have much experience with McKenzie greens."

Rich:

You're right, I don't. I think Cypress, Crystal Downs and Alwoodley may be the only Mackenzie courses I've ever played. Do you think perhaps Alister needed the likes of Hunter, Maxwell or Colt to restrain him from getting too exuberant on putting greens? Certainly if one looks at the photograph of Mackenzie's #14 at Sitwell Park it seems pretty obvious that green would reach its "reasonable maximum" greenspeed at about 2!

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

Touring Newport CC last week, with its wide fairways, I was thinking about the approach options from various positions and angles.

This should be a consideration when you explore the two putt expectation.  The narrow fairway setup definitely eliminates the approach angle option, and should be done away with in my opinion.

Willie

[TEPaul]

Willie:

I sure do agree with you about narrowed down fairways from what was originally intelligently designed. I happened to ask Mark Michaud about that at Shinnecock. I asked if he thought it would've made a difference in scoring if the players could've approached those greens using the full amount of the originally designed fairway widths. He said he didn't think it would've made a difference as they probably would've been tempted in to being too bold in enough circumstances!

[Willie_Dow]

Speaking of Shinnecock, and our discussion of the seventh hole.  The approach angle from the open tee vs the angle from the Flynn tee would further exaggerate the two putt question.

What fun it is to plan out one's attack of a golf hole!  To remove that option is one of the greatest mistakes in golf course design, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Willie:

It's hard to say how much of a difference it'd make if the Flynn tee was restored a mere 7-10 yards to the left but my sense looking at that green from the Flynn tee is it would certainly help in holding that green and maybe it would help a lot.

[blasbe1]

Great post.  

While I think that every course should have one very difficult green per side, too many severly sloped greens becomes both tiresome and circus like.  It's one thing to create strategy with greens within a green but it can get out of hand.  

Conceptually, I can't let go of the two-putt standard and many rounds would have been better if I could.  Three putting even from off the green irks me.  Engineers remains the only course where I've putted it into a bunker, and everytime I play there I marvel at the layout and curse the greens.  Last time there I hit sandwedge into 18 purposefully playing to the center of the green, hit it there, and my ball rolled a good 25 feet left to right and ended up 6 feet above the hole (of course I missed the birdie to win the match).  

For what it's worth I'm incapable of seeing any green where, unless you hit it stoney, a three putt is a good result as good architecture . . . I simply see that as circus golf.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that a three putt should ever be likely unless a golfer hits his approach stoney to the pin.

What the idea architecturally of "greens within a green" means to me is broadly speaking certain sections of greens are what the golfer needs to get into if he clearly intends to not risk three putting. Sometimes these sections can be large and generous and certainly not requirng of a golfer to get his ball stoney to the pin within that particular section (the pin is in).

If one looks at golf and architecture this way it's not hard to see how increasingly thoughtful the game becomes because playing your ball into the correct section of a green becomes highly strategic!

And then of course the next day the pin may be in another section and the entire strategy might necessarily change!

What could be better than that? Doesn't that sound a bit more interesting than day in and day out just hitting your ball somewhere on the green surface and two putting despite where the pin may be?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul- You have just described the greens at Pinon Hills. But in reality they are not that difficult from the wrong section. Demanding of creativity and touch, but not impossible. One big reason they are "not that hard" is the counter influence, on the reverse side of the humps that differentiate between the sections. It's a little trick I picked-up on early, with Ken Dye's work, Straighter than you think.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

One of the very best things anyone can do on a golf course with interesting greens is not just play the course once or twice but go out on the course (I do it on courses super early in the morning) and just spend 15 minutes or so on each green just knocking the ball all over the green with a putter, wedge whatever. You just can't imagine what you can learn about what is both good and bad architecture that way!

I do a lot of tournament officiating and the first group never goes off before 7:30. That gives me a ton of time to go out, check the pins and just putt the ball all over the greens no matter where the pin is. Again, it's simply amazing what you can learn about architecture, the playable effects of the degrees of greenspeed and how that relates to various pin positions and all the interesting things you can do to play them etc!

[A_Clay_Man]

I suppose other than a few of us geeks on gca, there are few who'd do something like that, and, if found-out, someone would likely call Tom Ridge and have you watched very closely, if you did.

The greens at Spanish Bay come to mind when the subject of great sectioning from Contours, comes to mind.  

I don't know who remembers it, but back in about 2000, the moon was going to be 17% brighter than the brightest moon, and that wouldn't happen again for something like 167 years(?) well anyhoo, (I always wanted to type anyhoo) Sheryl and I went out to the 14th green at about midnight and we did our share of night putting on what is likely the best most difficult green on the course. There's a hump that runs paralell to play sectioning the very front right side. If pinned, this front right requires a bunker carry, and is extremely close to the lateral hazrad, on the right. What else is special about this greens is that it falls away, similarly the way the fairway tumbles to the sea, only with more subtlety.

[blasbe1]

The perception that's so prevalent and locked-in today that two putts should be every golfer’s expectation on putting greens (in an architectural sense) may need to be done away with. This could truly bring in the idea of “greens within a green” and the understanding that playing to various parts of putting greens can not only be highly strategic but necessary to save a stroke by avoiding the complete likelihood or almost certainty of a three putt or worse!

Tom:

Give me as many "greens within a green" as you want.  If I must I will chip but if hitting the "wrong" side of a green yields a four putt (the necessary implication of your "or worse" line) that is not necessarily the result of poor putting . . . that's circus golf and you can keep it.  I can three wack from three feet on any green but my point is that two putting should always be possible given a well thought out and well struck first putt . . . at Augusta in April that may mean a first putt that leaves you 15-20 feet below the hole but two putting is still the expectation (aim for the moon and you'll land on the roof, aim for the roof and you'll likely land on the couch).    

Perhaps this is fodder for another thread but adjusting one's concept of "par" putting (from two strokes to three or more) for difficult greens is silly.  Just putt better.  If greens are truly that difficult then somethings off.

[TEPaul]

"I can three wack from three feet on any green but my point is that two putting should always be possible given a well thought out and well struck first putt . . . at Augusta in April that may mean a first putt that leaves you 15-20 feet below the hole but two putting is still the expectation"

Jason:

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Certainly, I don't mean the likelihood of 3 putting from three feet---I'm sure you must know that. But the ANGC example is a good one. If 15-20 feet is as close as a good first putt is likely to get from the wrong section of a green to a particular pin that's basically what I mean by "greens within a green". Of course I'm not saying any golfer should just accept the 3 putt but even tour pros probably expect to make a 15-20 foot putt around 35% of the time!

[tonyt]

This is one of my favourite soap box subjects, as I've stated in prior threads. The green on a par 4 is not hit in two frequently by a weekly mid to high handicap player. But a once a year corporate outing dude who couldn't break 110 to save his life two putts about two thirds of the greens he lies more than 30 feet away from the flag on.

In other words, we have maintained the old traditional difficulty of reaching a green in the regulation number of strokes, but have made putting close to the hole from afar a lot less hazardous than it possibly once was.

Agreed, we can't (and wouldn't want to) change the culture back to the extent where putting would become the proverbial circus. I don't know the exact balance. 2-3 holes where the green's severity is built in to the strategy and difficulty of attaining par, or a general theme throughout the whole course of greens that are not quite severe but a little more demanding than most modern internally contoured putting surfaces. Or both.

But either way, I would love to demand an end to the days of the part time 110 shooter rolling every second 40 footer up to within 2-3 feet of the hole. Besides, it might make the average golfer spend more time on putting greens focusing on his skills like never before. And change the fact that some ranges have 60-80 people hitting balls and less than 5 people on the practice green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()