Tom Doak's conversation with H.W. Wind and green contours

[Matthew Sander]

In Pat Mucci's thread regarding difficult pin positions, Tom Doak mentioned his conversation with Mr. Wind:

"However, I don't think this is the be-all, end-all of architecture.  The one thing I remember most about my lunch with Mr. Wind long ago was him saying that this aspect of design was overrated, and that for him, a hole only deserved to be called great if it was great with the hole cut right in the middle of the green."

A question to Mr. Doak (and anyone else who has thoughts); Are these sentiments at least in part a reason for or an explanation of your use of bold internal green contours? I understand that the above statement has more wide ranging application, but it seems it could make a case for interest within a green. Thanks...

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew:

I don't understand your take on this.  Mr. Wind said he thought modern architects [especially Robert Trent Jones] talked and thought too much about dividing the green into several hole locations, and that they always talked about their holes with the hardest hole location, or what some call the "Sunday pin."  He seemed to be expressing a preference for relatively flat greens, though he did not say so directly.  The example he used was the Road Hole ... that you didn't have to see the flag tucked in the back of the green behind the Road bunker, it was plenty challenging even with the flag out to the right [as we are seeing this morning in the Open]. 

My love of greens with internal contour is just based on observation of many of the best courses in the world.

[Matthew Sander]

Tom,

It was worth a shot . Frankly it popped in my head as soon as I read your original comment. Instead of the interest (or danger) of a green being solely at the perimeter, near a hazard, or tucked behind a bunker; internal contouring allows interest and variety throughout including right in the middle. His comment apparently had more to do w/ the merit of the hole in total.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that Mr. Wind's comment shaped your view of greens, rather I thought it might be a comment that helped to explain your already held views that were likely attributed to your experiences. Thanks for the clarification...

[Ronald Montesano]

What if the hole isn't great in the middle of the green, but it is when cut on a finger, or an eyelash, or an elbow?  This seems to me to be a most irrelevant point in the ultimate judgment of a golfing hole (from tee to green.)

Let's see if I can explain myself.  A great putting surface might provide multiple opportunities to hit different types of shots (runner, bounce and release, high spinner) to different pin locations, yet the shot to the middle of the surface might not be as challenging/worthwhile as the others.

Certainly, access FROM the center of the green to all hole locations (with the exception, of course, being #6 at Riviera, where a sandbox obscures this play) should be a principle of great golf holes.  Use the tucked/hidden positions to trick the brash/bold/stupid golfer, yet allow those tucked and hidden positions to be accessible (30 feet at most) from the geographic center of the putting surface.

I'm all for sectioning of greens, as long as access to them is provided (and not just for the high, faded 2 iron with blistered feet.)

[Tom MacWood]

Fascinating.

[Tags:]

Tags: