When Do Wild Greens Go from Exciting to Ridiculous?

[Carl Rogers]

Where do folks think the greens at Ballyhack fall into this discussion?   When I played earlier this month they were still being maintained with a bit of early spring longishness (is that a word), but I can't imagine some of them cut short.

Once again, to touch on what others have said, I think it's all about the slope/speed balance, which can be a very fine line.

Tee it up in the George Cup this fall.  They are cut short and it is unbelievable.

[Jim Sherma]

Last year's George cup crossed the line in my opinion. I always liked the greens at Ballyhack even if they are a little severe in a couple spots. They lost a lot of the fun factor for me at those speeds. There were only a couple of spots that were truly borderline, but over the course of a whole round it was very trying. It's not like the course needs to defend itself.

[Paul Jones]

When they get too fast. Two courses come to mind, Oakmont and Sebonack.

[Jim Franklin]

I have a friend that 3-putted five times for par at Streamsong Blue and, therefore, the greens were awful. I laughed at him and told him to rethink his approach and maybe use a wedge every now and then.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have never been convinced that wild greens are inherently more interesting than gently rolling ones.....I think a course with subtle variations in green contour from one hole to the next (like 1.5%, followed by 2%, etc.) and a few greens where the contours are the main line of defense (yes, I know some think every hole ought to defend par at the green mostly.....) strikes the best balance and presents a good putting challenge.

In general, with a few exceptions, when you have to worry about de-greening a putt, or have to hit the hole to stay on the green, the green (or at least that pin position) is ridiculous.  I don't mind that possibility once or twice per round, and some would tolerate it less, but what purpose does that panic/fear serve otherwise?  I agree too many green contours are designed down to the lowest common designer of "I should never putt off the green" mentality.

I suppose a course where most players (read, mid handicap and above) are mostly and routinely 3-4 putting would probably fall in that category by default.  Agree speed makes more greens ridiculous than any other factor, but have always found that sooner or later, your green speed will increase, and thus designing perhaps a blander green for normal speeds to make the max speed reasonable, is usually called for.

While some would argue that may preclude "great" design.....again, if form follows function, I am not sure I agree that overly wild greens, generally only for the sake of being wild, are really that great.

[Andrew Buck]

Often a guy who doesn't know how to set pins can make a green ridiculous also...

or, harkening back to my youth, if the time between the final drink of the previous night and setting the pins is less than the time between setting pins and my tee time, bad things could happen. 

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

Would you agree that a wild green has a better chance of being great rather than a green that an architect designed to mostly accommodate golfers who routinely 3-4 putt?

I'm not sure that a golf course that caters to those golfers needs a trained and accomplished golf course architect.

[Sean_A]

I raised these questions elsewhere.  Given the speeds of greens and seeming ever increasing desire to keep speeds high by developing newer grasses, I wonder if 25 years from now people will look back at some of the wild greens created in the past 15 years and ask wtf were archies up to?  Will they ask if arches didn't realize that the trend for 11+ green speeds was not going away?  I ask because despite my lack of experience with superfast greens, it is evident they exist. It would seem the technology of greenkeeping has exceeded the need of the game and may even be at the point where use of this technology is unhelpful in terms of creativity.  Still, is it not part of an archie's remit to understand the technology and design courses which are commensurate with modern set-ups?  I would be very interested in reading archie responses to these questions. 


Somebody raised this issue some months ago, but is it possible that perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on the green end of design?  Has the renaissance taken things too far?  Is there no place for a large diversity of greens within a single design?  I know when I think of the courses with the best greens it is that very diversity I look for....well that and firmness rather than speed. 
[size=78%]   [/size]


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Well having three putted 5 times today at Engineers (including the last to lose one down), I certainly had my limits tested today.
The funny thing is it just makes me want to back and replay those putts.


The fastest combination of speed and slope I've played-with a few VERY difficult pins.(degreening in play on many)
Very smpth and firm as well.


Fantastic set of greens but I'd rather see a bit less speed with such diabolical slopes and humps-so that the most interesting pins can be used.
I will say greens that diabolical and fast slow play dramatically, especially for good players who have a chance to make a putt after absorbing all the information-which takes a bit more time, especially when every three footer is a possible three putt



One of my favorite courses in the MET area though and really requires course knowledge-something less needed on your average fast green with less contour

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Would you agree that a wild green has a better chance of being great rather than a green that an architect designed to mostly accommodate golfers who routinely 3-4 putt?

I'm not sure that a golf course that caters to those golfers needs a trained and accomplished golf course architect.

A moderately wild green probably has a better chance of being great than one designed to accommodate the masses....but a really wild one?  The Mac Sitwell Park green was wild, but it was bulldozed to something a bit less contoured in pretty short order.  Is a wild green appreciated by a select few architects and buffs great?  Or is one that lasts 100 years basically untouched great?

I disagree with your second proposition......It has been said many times that a tough course can be designed by any fool, but a good (and reasonable) one can't.  I don't see the difference between courses, holes and greens in that regard!  Not to mention all greens need to function well and fit their site, etc., which any untrained architect is likely to blow.

[archie_struthers]

 




I'm all for exciting greens . Most of the great courses in the world are known for them . Whether it be Oakmont , Pine Valley or Royal County Down , or NGLA the greens are memorable in themselves.


What I'm not so fond of is lots of little micro contours , often a calling card of some of the favored architects here on site. When a green breaks four different ways from five feet it's quite strange .


 

[Joe Hancock]

I raised these questions elsewhere.  Given the speeds of greens and seeming ever increasing desire to keep speeds high by developing newer grasses, I wonder if 25 years from now people will look back at some of the wild greens created in the past 15 years and ask wtf were archies up to?  Will they ask if arches didn't realize that the trend for 11+ green speeds was not going away?  I ask because despite my lack of experience with superfast greens, it is evident they exist. It would seem the technology of greenkeeping has exceeded the need of the game and may even be at the point where use of this technology is unhelpful in terms of creativity.  Still, is it not part of an archie's remit to understand the technology and design courses which are commensurate with modern set-ups?  I would be very interested in reading archie responses to these questions. 


Somebody raised this issue some months ago, but is it possible that perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on the green end of design?  Has the renaissance taken things too far?  Is there no place for a large diversity of greens within a single design?  I know when I think of the courses with the best greens it is that very diversity I look for....well that and firmness rather than speed. 
[size=78%]   [/size]


Ciao

Sean,

They may well wonder what was going on in this era if green speeds keep increasing AND water gets used less. If the greens stay soft and every approach shot stays on the green, then the designs of the greens won't change much. Subtle and firm works well....

[Tom_Doak]

The Mac Sitwell Park green was wild, but it was bulldozed to something a bit less contoured in pretty short order.  Is a wild green appreciated by a select few architects and buffs great?  Or is one that lasts 100 years basically untouched great?

That may or may not have been a great green.  [Unfortunately, it's hard to tell based on what's left of it.]  MacKenzie just built it for the wrong client -- a guy who had rabbit ears for what the good players said about it.  Look at it this way:  who's talking about Sitwell Park after the owner "fixed" it?


The version of that green we built at Barnbougle will still be there 100 years from now.  Some golfers will still be calling it crazy, but the majority will be giggling about how they played it five holes and a couple of beers later.

[Thomas Dai]

I recently played the newly re-laid and only just re-opened greens on the Old Course at Ballybunion.


Because they were newly re-laid the cut was high and the speed was very slow, maybe 6-ish, probably even slower on the Stimp. But they were true and rolled beautifully and once you'd adjusted to the pace they were fine to putt on. And less speed brings back usable contour.


Is there too much talk about pure speed and not enough talk/action about trueness of roll?


atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,


you are spot on. Trueness of roll should be the only thing the quality of a green is based on not the speed or even worse aesthetics of the sward. The really stupid thing about making greens faster is that the faster a green is the easier it is for good putters to hole the ball as pins have to be located in flatter areas of a green and the ball will be rolling slower so more likely to drop. Slower greens with more slope are harder for good putters IMO.


Jon

[jeffwarne]

Slower greens with more slope are harder for good putters IMO.


Jon

Heeding this could save billions in renovations and maintenance.
and add to the fun of the game by using more challenging pins.


but where's the glory(my johnson is longer) and profit in this?

[Mark Pearce]

Various posters have been right to identify green speed as the issue here.  My only game at Yale was the day after the NCAA Eastern Conference Finals (or something like that) and the greens were very, very fast.  Those greens were ridiculous for an average golfer like me.  I think it was the 10th before I worked out that my best strategy was to aim, on my first putt, to put the ball somewhere where I had a chance of 2-putting from (that is, aiming to 3 putt, unless my approach was ideally placed).  It was fun but I'm glad I wasn't playing in a competition.

[Richard Hetzel]

Sweeten's Cove pushes this envelope.

And then some, but I really enjoyed the craziness of the greens 2 weeks ago when I played Sweeten's Cove.