[Peter Pallotta]

Is it fair to say that a good player and good putter who plays a course regularly (e.g. as a club member) will fairly quickly 'figure out' a green and a set of greens no matter how contoured they are, if those greens sit on an otherwise flattish site (and no matter how much artifical mounding surrounds them)?

Is so, is it also fair to say that -- once 'figured out' -- the contours of the greens will no longer work as effectively in terms of suggesting/demanding approach shot and/or tee shot strategies and decisions that are dependent on pin positions and/or weather conditions?

If so, is it fair to conclude that only on a naturally undulating/rolling/severe site will the architect being able to maximize the effectiveness (and the long-term effectiveness) of green countours by having them sometimes 'work with' and sometimes 'work against' the natural flows/cants/elevation changes of the land, thereby complicating and compounding the subtlety/deception?

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm neither a good player nor a good putter and I don't play any one course regularly, so your feedback would be most welcomed.

Peter    

[Jason Topp]

I think significantly contoured greens work the best when one "figures them out." 

If you know a green slopes hard right to left and back to front, that tells you there is an advantage to being on the right side of the fairway and to the right of the pin.  It also tells you that there is an advantage to a long tee ball because it will be easier to accurately control your distance.  You then need to weight these advantages against the risks caused by hazards, the weather and the frailities of your game that day.

If you have not figured out the contours it is all a guess.

[JESII]

Jason,

Do you mean the left side of the fairway?




Peter,

I don't think a flat site would lend to the greens being easier to "figure out"...and I don't think that once figured out a set of greens lose their effectiveness.

Knowing and doing are two very different things. On good greens you can aim for a spot that would leave the ideal putt for birdie only to miss it by 10 or 15 feet (not bad from 150 yards) and be left with a very challenging prospect of two putting with birdie being relegated to a pipe dream.

What I can say is that I am very comfortable playing for bogey on just about any hole but to make a par I am going to have to do something good.

[Philip Gawith]

Peter - Huntercombe is my home course and it is a flat site with very interesting and varied greens. Two of them have dramatic slopes in them, one has very severe slopes on account of the lie of the land - the others have micro-undulations within the greens (which are pretty old), but maybe not the contour you are referring to.

Either way, I don't think the combination of familiarity and good putting neuters the challenge they provide in any serious way. As Jim points out, there may be holes where you know where you want to get to on the green, but that requires executing a good tee shot AND a good approach, which is a rarity. So more often than not you are not in precisely the right place and all you have is reasonable knowledge of how the putt will behave. I suspect you have in mind dramatic contours which make a huge difference. I am not sure your reasoning is as applicable when the borrows - such as at Huntercombe - are more subtle. Put differently, it is not always so clear which putts you absolutely want to avoid - though there are a few. And, overall, the challenge to my mind of the greens has been entirely undiminished by familiarity!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peter,
I think it's easier to figure out the chipping to contoured greens on flattish pads, but the putting remains a challenge.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Knowing and doing are two very different things. On good greens you can aim for a spot that would leave the ideal putt for birdie only to miss it by 10 or 15 feet (not bad from 150 yards) and be left with a very challenging prospect of two putting with birdie being relegated to a pipe dream.

Jim,

Your statement generally explains the feeling I get on the 12th tee at Common Ground which is a wonderful example of a flat course with contoured greens. This pic is not from the tee but from the right of the hole. It is a good pic for explaining the challenging prospect of which you speak.

Wyatt

[Carl Rogers]

Riverfront has to fit into this category ... both the greens and through the green starting on the tee on every hole except no. 17.

[Bradley Anderson]

Peter,

I think that the size of the green is as important as contour on flat sites.

I played Dearborn Country Club today, for the first time. It is a very flat course, with greens that have some contour to them, but not excessive contour. But they were fairly big, particularly from front to back. There are at least six greens on that golf course that I swear had at least 50 yards length to them from front to back. So you really have a lot of different shots to make on those greens, depending on where the pin is set each day.

That green on 18 totally tricked me. I thought I hit my second shot with plenty of roll to get to the hole, and I still had a really long putt to the hole, over an enormous spine running through the center of the green. And then the longest par three on the course, number 13, has a shallow green that's maybe only 12 yards deep, but very wide, and with a lot of elevation change from the left to the right side.

Anyone out there able to post a pic of that 18th green at Dearborn?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for the feedback, gents.

(Btw, my second "if so" was meant to suggest only that, if a player has become very comfortable on the greens, it might take some pressure off/changes his decisions when it comes to playing his approach shots, no matter where the pin is).

I was thinking of how important 'experience' is deemed to be at Augusta (a naturally hilly site with contoured greens), and was wondering if in the years to come the pros will have an easier time putting/scoring at Liberty National (a naturally flat site with contoured greens).

Peter

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

Do you mean the left side of the fairway?
.

That is my problem!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it fair to say that a good player and good putter who plays a course regularly (e.g. as a club member) will fairly quickly 'figure out' a green and a set of greens no matter how contoured they are, if those greens sit on an otherwise flattish site (and no matter how much artifical mounding surrounds them)?

NO

Is so, is it also fair to say that -- once 'figured out' -- the contours of the greens will no longer work as effectively in terms of suggesting/demanding approach shot and/or tee shot strategies and decisions that are dependent on pin positions and/or weather conditions?

NO

If so, is it fair to conclude that only on a naturally undulating/rolling/severe site will the architect being able to maximize the effectiveness (and the long-term effectiveness) of green countours by having them sometimes 'work with' and sometimes 'work against' the natural flows/cants/elevation changes of the land, thereby complicating and compounding the subtlety/deception?

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm neither a good player nor a good putter and I don't play any one course regularly, so your feedback would be most welcomed.

Peter,

The reason I think your premise is flawed is that the hole is rarely in the same location and your ball is rarely in the same location and both the hole and ball are almost never, never, never in the same locations, and, mow heights, moisture and wind vary daily, hence every putt is a new experience.

While a general trend may manifest itself with repeat play, I don't believe golfers have sufficient data nor do they have sufficient recall to be able to formulate an absolute read.

Hidden Creek's greens remain a challenge, despite repeat play.
    

[JESII]

While a general trend may manifest itself with repeat play, I don't believe golfers have sufficient data nor do they have sufficient recall to be able to formulate an absolute read.

And even one did, they still have to figure out how in the world to hit it there...

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick, Jim, all - thanks; understood, and I defer.

But a simpler question now - all else being equal (including green speeds), would you be more worried about 3 putting at Augusta or at Hidden Creek?

Or, better - what course that you play regulary has you most worried about 3 putting?

Peter

[Richard Hetzel]

Peter,

A good player, or an good putter will figure out the greens in short time. However, those types of greens will always present problems, and occasional three putts for even the best putters.

I played an extremely FLAT course this summer in Brunswick CC (Ross, 1920) and the greens and surrounds offered plenty of contour, shape and challenge. I think that the rest of the flat curse is where the good golfer will pick up their strokes.

I believe that they will still work as intended because of the myriad options they present. Accordingly, a good shot into these greens can quickly turn into a big number rather than a par.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, Jim, all - thanks; understood, and I defer.

But a simpler question now - all else being equal (including green speeds), would you be more worried about 3 putting at Augusta or at Hidden Creek?

Peter, as John Patrick McEnroe, Jr said, "You can't be serious"
How can you call Augusta a FLAT site, it's anything but.
The title of your thread was contoured greens on flat sites.
That disqualifies Augusta.

Or, better - what course that you play regulary has you most worried about 3 putting?


I think the answer lies more with the speed of the greens.

ANGC probably has more severe greens (# 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16) although Hidden Creek has its share ( # 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18)

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I more or less agree with your opening premise,

"Is it fair to say that a good player and good putter who plays a course regularly (e.g. as a club member) will fairly quickly 'figure out' a green and a set of greens no matter how contoured they are, if those greens sit on an otherwise flattish site (and no matter how much artifical mounding surrounds them)?"

but disagree with

"Is so, is it also fair to say that -- once 'figured out' -- the contours of the greens will no longer work as effectively in terms of suggesting/demanding approach shot and/or tee shot strategies and decisions that are dependent on pin positions and/or weather conditions?"

I think you are hinting at rolling/hilly properties having a better chance to confound even experienced golfers compared to flatter sites with contoured greens.  If this is so, I agree.  The hilly terrain adds an extra element.  Now all we have to do is figure out what constitutes a hilly or flat site!

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, Rich - thanks. (Sean - I should never have included that 2nd "if so" - it just confused the issue).

Patrick - I must not have been clear. I mentioned Augusta precisely because it is a hilly site, and so was asking you to contrast how the green contours work there in comparison to the green contours on the less hilly site at Hidden Creek.  But then, I realized that you probabably haven't played Augusta nearly as often as hidden creek, so suggested you use examples of your own.

Peter   

[JESII]

Peter,

I think the heart of your question is a good one...and one worth exploring because I have different feelings about it than some of the participants on this thread (at least based on past conversations that only touched on this as a tangent).

The ability of an architect to maintain relevance/interest/challenge with a single course seems to be at the heart of your query...if not let's move that way anyway.

I play for the challenge of getting the ball in the hole as quick as possible and think about the architects work as a means to that end (ie; feeder slopes, preferred angles of approach etc...), or an obstacle to be overcome (forced carries, hazards that need to be avoided, and even leaving an approach shot on the wrong side of the hole).

With respect to green contours and complexes it seems few and far between that a green can actually dictate play/strategy back to the tee. Maintenance is a primary explanation for that (if it's soft, how much difference does the angle of approach make?), but the neccessity is a big question in my mind. I love a green on a par four that offers a real advantage to driving onto a particular side of the fairway, but if the green itself is bland and it's really just the green surrounds/complex that force the angle of approach it loses something. Whereas, if a green demands no real preference from side to side but has enough going on internally (not to exclude the surrounds, they are important) to drive interest on the approach, chipping and putting it's a winner in my book.

My disagreement with others, notably Mr. Mucci, started in regards to Pine Valley. I think this has to be the best set of greens in the world. Now I'll admit to not having seen the other four contenders always thrown out (ANGC, NGLA, TOC and Oakmont), but regardless, Pine valley's are phenomenal. that being said, I cannot think of a single hole location that offers a significant advantage to being on one extreme side of the fairway as opposed to being in the middle of the fairway. Comparing fairway edge to opposite fairway edge at PV is no good because the fairways are about 60 yards wide. At some point there is so much activity on the green that it is impossible to expect to hit the one sliver that would appear to be ideal for a putt.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - thanks. Yes, that's the heart of it -- and specifically how do greens stay relevant and challenging.  The question: Do contoured greens remain relevant (and/or relevant longer) when they are situated on a naturally rolling/severe/undulating site than they do when they are on a flat site? 

I'd probably agree (or at least take your word for it) that there are few green contours and complexes that actually dicatate play/strategy back to the tee, for a whole host of reasons. 

But the greens themselves - when they are situated on rolling terrain, when one green is up on higher ground and another is down on lower ground, when one green is contoured so as to compound the effects of the site's overall slopes/cants (without you realizing it) and the other is designed to work deceptively against that overall slope etc etc...

Will those greens -- AS greens -- remain more relevant (and require fewer changes to the rest of the course or to set up/maintenance to help them stay that way) than contoured greens built on otherwise flat sites?

Peter

[Jason Topp]

To my mind, the most interesting greens are those where one needs to gauge the impact of the slope on which the slope sits generally with counter slopes internal to that green. Augusta National is a terrific example of such a course.  The greens often look like they just cut the fairway grass down to putting height.  Rolling land is ideal for that because the general break associated with the land in general changes throughout the course.  A mountanside course by contrast has a huge slope that is always obvious. 


Nonetheless, the The Old Course is on a very flat site.  If those greens are among the best in the world, that would suggest that a flat site does not prevent one from constructing interesting contoured greens.

[JESII]

Peter,

I'm really not quite sure what you're asking.

When you ask about "requiring fewer changes to remain relevant", are the changes you envision happening due to people "figuring out" the greens thereby making them too easy? If that is the case, I would bet it never happened to a green that was interesting, even if easy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()