Is Defending Par at the Green a bad idea ?

« **on:** September 05, 2005, 04:42:24 PM »

When I hear individuals respond to the concerns about Hi-tech, distance and accuracy, and the obsolecense of the architecture on great courses, they sometimes place an emphasis on defending par at the greens.

Isn't this akin to surrendering to hi-tech ?

Isn't this conceding that nothing can be done to offset distance and accuracy obtained through hi-tech ?

And, if you marshall your forces to make one last stand at the green end, aren't you penalizing the mediocre and poorer player ?

For a green and its surrounds, to be left to defend par,
it must present a strong challenge to the best players in the world.

How does that affect all of the other golfers, with less skill, who must face that same challenge,?

They too must confront the identical fortified green and its surrounds.

But, their games are probably not talented enough to rise to that challenge.

Doesn't defending par at the green disproportionately weight the advantage to the better player while penalizing the lesser player ?

« **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2005, 05:12:59 PM »

To really "defend" par from the top professionals in the world without going over the top seems almost impossible. Even in the US Open when they HAVE gone over the top somebody manages to shoot at, around, or under par. Those guys have become so good, that I don't really think there is any way to make a course hard enough for them (no matter how you do it), that would be very playable to the weaker player.

Case in point for me...I'm a 3 handicap and played both Whistling Straits courses from the black tees. I played fairly well I thought and shot 84 and 87 on what probably were fairly normal days windwise. Another fellow I played with that is comparable to me shot 90 and 84. Some would claim those tees are already ridiculously hard and there were guys double digits under par out there for awhile.

At least on a course like that though there are up tees where other players can play and enjoy the course. They might not play well since the greens there arent' exactly a piece of cake, but I would think they could get around the place and enjoy it. If you make the course too hard at the greens then you end up with 5-6 hour rounds and the weaker players would have even more problems than the better players that the course was designed for.

« **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2005, 05:32:42 PM »

First of all, I think it is a misnomer to talk about "defending par". We all say it, but I don't think we all really mean it ... I think that designing a course where the Tour players can't break par in numbers, with modern equipment, would be a silly exercise.

But it is the green end where the golf course should present the most scoring difficulty. This just requires that the green have enough tilt and be fast enough that anyone is in trouble if they're above the hole ... which prevents even the pros from taking dead aim at the hole.

The advantage of defending the course at the green end is that you can ADJUST the difficulty by tuning the speed of the greens up a notch for an event and down a notch immediately afterward. This is a lot more practical approach than narrowing the fairways and fertilizing the roughs, which takes months to prepare and weeks to un-do.

This is also why I wish Tom Paul would stop talking about his "optimum speed" for putting greens ... because the top of the line should be reserved for tournament play, not for members who can't handle it.

« **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2005, 07:11:32 PM »

"This is also why I wish Tom Paul would stop talking about his "optimum speed" for putting greens ... because the top of the line should be reserved for tournament play, not for members who can't handle it."

TomD:

You know I really am pretty disappointed in you for saying something like that. You say optimum speed as if I've advocated higher and higher speeds to the point of ridiculousness. I've said nothing of the kind. I've had a bunch of emails with you about what I do advocate in conjunction with the Michigan study known as cgisinc.com. This study and this process is intended to help golf clubs maintain reasonable greenspeeds depending on the types of greens they have. You can't seem to get past the fact that Crystal Downs may've had greenspeeds in the past that were too fast for that course. If you have a more effective way of controlling excessive green speed at golf courses than Michigan U's Tom Nicholai then for God's sake let's hear it! At least look into it before gratuitously criticizing it or me for supporting it. It's an attempt to educate golf clubs in how to find reasonable green speeds for them---not excessive green speeds where their next thought is to recontour putting greens. It's hard enough trying to get through to people who don't understand this problem. It's going to be damn near impossible if one can't even get through to someone who does understand it.

« **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2005, 07:48:58 PM »

I must say that after my visit to Einged Foot in May & taking a good look at their greens through the eyes of Neil regan, I must say that I am in agreement with Tom on this; Doak that is.

Here on the West Course that will host next year's Open, everyone is already expecting speeds in the 13 range. Isn't this always the way it's been done in the past? I believe that this would be a mistake. The greens are probably at their best at 10-10.5 and no higher and for a very simple reason. At these speeds MORE of the green surfaces can be used for cups.

Who doesn't love the 10th hole. It's one of the world's greatest par threes, and yet if the speed is above 10.5 the USGA will be restricted to putting cups no further than 2/3'rds of the way (if that) up the green. Not one of these players can ply a ball that lands that far up and not see it roll back down the green to the front. With slower speeds, the backs of almost every green can come into play.

When Tilly designed them he wanted these areas used for holes and many of the greatest risk/reward shots can only come into play with pins in the back. Think of how most of these greens rise up and have the severe drop-offs behind. Who wouldn't be terrified having any sort of chip from behind these greens facing a downhill surface stimping at 10.5? Unless there are back hole locations this important feature of Winged Foot's design will not come into play.

I think they should.

Most greens will challenge every level of player at slower speeds. The rare exceptions should be just that.

« **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2005, 07:49:44 PM »

I sometimes think this discussion of greens speed and recontouring greens, is alot like saying "my nose is running so I'll cut it off"....

It makes no sense. When greens are too fast for the daily membership it becomes very apparent and the super can tune them down until the complaints stop...

I don't think you need to survey the membership with a "ten point" questionare to know when you have reached a balance between complaints that they are too fast and complaints that they are too slow...besides...green speed varies from hour to hour and day to day no matter how consistant your maintinence practices are.

« **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2005, 09:02:17 PM »

"I sometimes think this discussion of greens speed and recontouring greens, is alot like saying "my nose is running so I'll cut it off"....

It makes no sense. When greens are too fast for the daily membership it becomes very apparent and the super can tune them down until the complaints stop..."

Craig:

That is precisely what I propose and have for a few years now. That's precisely what Tom Nicholai of Michigan's agronomy school proposes with his new cgisinc.com greenspeed analysis that collects membership feedback data.

« **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2005, 09:24:18 PM »

Tom, it seems to me you have been advocating for a process of surveying the membership to determine what they percieve as optimum green speed, and then setting that speed...in writing...stating that the green speed will not exceed that optimium speed..

I'm saying you should not need a formal process to determine what speed works best...in fact, I will go a step further and state right here and now that any green speed over 10 is excessive on 99% of all courses and in 99% of all situations...the exceptions for a higher speed might be a tournament with exceptional players.

« **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2005, 05:05:22 AM »

Craig:

That's true, I have advocated such a thing. The ultimate purpose of proposing such a thing is to attempt to insure that in the future there is less inclination (within my club or any club) to think to recontour putting greens in the name of increased green speed.

I believe that if a membership is polled as to what "reasonable maximum" greenspeed suits them best from a playability perspective (and not from a stimpmeter number) given their present putting greens and the existing slopes and contours on them and if that "reasonable maximum" speed is recorded as something not to be exceeded (except for perhaps special occasions) then the inclination to think to recontour greens in the name of increased speed will be vastly minimized.

I also believe in democracy within golf clubs and if any member who pays dues and has an opinion about what "reasonable maximum" speed (in playability not a stimpmeter number) suits him or her that opinion should be known. (I've also found, unfortunately, that there are members within clubs, generally those on green and golf committees who don't wish to hear the opinions of other members regarding green speed).

For you or anyone else to simply state in a general sense that no putting greens on 99% of the golf courses in America should exceed 10 on the stimpmeter is most definitely not democratic and not particularly productive either, in my opinion. The democratic opinions of the memberships of some clubs may want more speed than that or less speed than that. It is for them to decide, and not you or I or Tom Doak.

That's what this process can determine, and again, from a feedback perspective of playability, not a stimpmeter number. But the ultimate goal, again, is that clubs enter this process understanding that they can find an optimal or "reasonable maximum" green speed that does perhaps not need to be exceeded in the future because the ultimate goal in this process is that they resolve to never alter the slopes and contours of their existing putting greens.

« **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2005, 06:52:40 AM »

Tom Paul,
What do you propose be done when a course has two or three greens that are borderline playable when green speeds reach that "optimum speed" you always talk about? Do you recommend keeping 15 or 16 greens at a speed of say 10 and the other 2 or 3 greens rolling at 7 or 8?

Also, what about weather and changing agronomic conditions? Your "optimum speed" is impacted by what the superintendent feels he can safely maintain. If Lehigh kept their greens at their "optimum speed" this year, we'd be playing on dirt right now because they would all be dead!

Optimum speed is extremely subjective and you will never get a consensus from the membership (at least not the right consensus) because it will vary throughout the playing season.

Mark

« **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2005, 07:03:23 AM »

Tom, I'm suggesting a green speed of 10 is sufficent for 99% of play on 99% of our courses (playability)...its plenty fast and studies have shown that most golfers would have trouble telling it from a speed of 10.5 or 11...

Lets assume you are surveying your membership and they determine that playability is "just right" at 11...and then you survey them in 18 months and they determine that just right is 12...

Suddenly, you have the same problem we see with technology...the numbers creep up...and then you have TPaul arguing for a "standard" ball and driver

« **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2005, 08:40:07 AM »

"Lets assume you are surveying your membership and they determine that playability is "just right" at 11...and then you survey them in 18 months and they determine that just right is 12...

Suddenly, you have the same problem we see with technology...the numbers creep up...and then you have TPaul arguing for a "standard" ball and driver"

Craig:

Anyone can assume anything and sometimes that's the problem on this website---too many assume things that just aren't particularly rationale or realistic. If the "maximum reasonable" greenspeed at my course is say 11 (actually it's probably more like 10.5) and the membership in 18 months decides they'd rather have a "maximum reasonable" speed of 12 that would only mean they'd decided they'd prefer to 3 and 4 or even 5 putt more often and I don't care what anyone assumes I know that's not going to happen at my club or any other club. That would mean the only rationale alternative in their opinion would be to control the playability better which would mean slowing down the "maximum reasonable" greenspeed because they'd understand there is no option of recontouring greens. And that's the ultimate point of this excercise and process.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2005, 08:53:09 AM »

When I played in the Tillinghast Trophie last year, an expert on Tillinghast gave a talk at dinner about Tillie and said that Tillie believed the first line of defense for a golf course was the greens.

« **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:16:48 AM »

Only if it involves growing long rough (especially around gathering bunkers) or, adding features which are un-recoverable from.

The Rawls course in Lubbock appears to be designed with the concept of defending at the green. Same with Pebble, Sfgc, Desert Forest, Cal club, Cpc, etc. etc.

« **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:41:50 AM »

Patrick,

To your original question; no, I think it must be the best way to do so.

You frequently imply that we as individuals (or even as a group) need to be more active in regards to the future of golf equipment technology advancements. I don't see how.

I think Tom Doak makes good points about this issue; defending par does not actually mean creating an environment where the top pros cannot break par, and the green end provides more opprtunities to defend par through architecture and maintenance.

In my opinion, if built and maintained properly, golf courses can provide increased enjoyment for the average player while increasing the challenge the top player faces in attempting to shoot par or better almost completely at the green.

I know you'll ask for examples to be cited, so I'll say
Shinnecock - #7
Merion - #5

and thinking of others at well known sites.

« **Reply #15 on:** September 06, 2005, 09:49:49 PM »

JES II,

My thread was in the context of offsetting the problem of distance and accuracy, vis a vis, formerly long holes playing to driver-wedge, and the difficulty a designer has today because of the huge disparity in play between the best, the average and the worst players.

IF par is defended primarily at the green, doesn't that unfairly affect golfers who don't possess the ability to contend with fortified greens and surrounds ?

TEPaul,

I think taking a survey of a membership is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

It shows lack of leadership and a lack of understanding with respect to the membership's abilities.

Furthermore, it subjects you to fads and trends that may disapate or disappear in the next two years.

And, worse yet, if the survey comes back and the results are highly detrimental to the game or the golf course, how can you ignore the "voice of the membership" as evidenced through the survey you solicited ?

Again, it's a terrible idea.

The better idea is to follow through on another concept of yours. Test the most severe greens and determine their navigatable speed, allowing for weather and agronomic conditions, and then set all of the greens to that speed, with allowance for special situations.

This is clearly an area where the less the membership knows, the better off the superintendent will be.

If one concedes that the only, or the primary way to defend par is at the green end it will deemphasize the architectural aspects of the non-green end.

It could stifle or eliminate the creativity of unique architectural features at the non-green end and that wouldn't be good for golf.

The 7th hole at Pine Valley presents an excellent method for defending par, and it's not at the green end.

Will an attempt to focus on defending par, primarily at the green end, lead to boring architecture tee to green ?

« **Reply #16 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:00:52 PM »

Pat:

On that last post of yours, let's just say there's basically nothing about it I agree with.

« **Reply #17 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:06:44 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 06, 2005, 09:49:49 PM

JES II,

IF par is defended primarily at the green, doesn't that unfairly affect golfers who don't possess the ability to contend with fortified greens and surrounds ?
How then would you propose setting up a golf course (or at least its tee complexes) that might challenge the scratch and be forgiving to the bogeyman?

If one concedes that the only, or the primary way to defend par is at the green end it will deemphasize the architectural aspects of the non-green end.
Only for the inferior architect. Why should one utilize their creativity and skills on part of a hole/course and not the complete?

It could stifle or eliminate the creativity of unique architectural features at the non-green end and that wouldn't be good for golf.
See above

The 7th hole at Pine Valley presents an excellent method for defending par very true, and it's not at the green end. And how do you think that treats the lesser player? Have you seen any 20 handicappers play that hole without picking up their ball? Defending at the green end offers everyone the chance to play the entire hole every time.

Will an attempt to focus on defending par, primarily at the green end, lead to boring architecture tee to green ?
We all hope not, I see it as the best method towards increasing interest from tee to green. When I say 'Defend Par At The Green', it includes planning for the ideal angle into the green, and that should offer its own challenges (finding that ideal position).

« **Reply #18 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:11:15 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 06, 2005, 10:00:52 PM

Pat:

On that last post of yours, let's just say there's basically nothing about it I agree with.

I knew that BEFORE I posted it.

But, I ask you again, what happens if your survey comes back and it's really bad for golf or your golf course ?

What do you do ?

Ignore the membership's wishes ?
Or capitulate and implement a bad idea ?

Democracy doesn't work well at Country/golf clubs.

Survey and ask memberships if they'd like the size of the hole increased from 4 1/4 inches to 5 inches and see what happens.

Surveys are for the uninformed and/or the unenlightened and are frequently used by those who want to be popular rather than by those who want what's best for everyone.

Noone knows the formula for success, but surely, the formula for failure is to try to please everybody.[/color]

« **Reply #19 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:19:29 PM »

Pat,

One thing of note about that survey (and correct me if I'm wrong Tom's Paul or Doak) but the players have no actual knowledge of the days stimpmeter number. They simply state their opinion of the playability of that days speed in terms like - too fast, just right or too slow.

This takes a little of the democracy away that (as you said) does not work in this setting.

« **Reply #20 on:** September 06, 2005, 10:22:45 PM »

Quote from: JES II on September 06, 2005, 10:06:44 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 06, 2005, 09:49:49 PM
JES II,

IF par is defended primarily at the green, doesn't that unfairly affect golfers who don't possess the ability to contend with fortified greens and surrounds ?
How then would you propose setting up a golf course (or at least its tee complexes) that might challenge the scratch and be forgiving to the bogeyman?
It's done by providing different angles of attack off the tee, wide corridors of play and recovery and through varying tee box lengths.[/color]

If one concedes that the only, or the primary way to defend par is at the green end it will deemphasize the architectural aspects of the non-green end.
Only for the inferior architect. Why should one utilize their creativity and skills on part of a hole/course and not the complete?

NO, this has become a problem for ALL architects.
That's why you rarely see a new course designed for mulitiple use. They can't figure it out, so 8,000 yard courses are now being built[/color]

It could stifle or eliminate the creativity of unique architectural features at the non-green end and that wouldn't be good for golf.
See above
Ditto[/color]

The 7th hole at Pine Valley presents an excellent method for defending par very true, and it's not at the green end. And how do you think that treats the lesser player? Have you seen any 20 handicappers play that hole without picking up their ball? Defending at the green end offers everyone the chance to play the entire hole every time.

20 handicappers are not encouraged at Pine Valley, as members or guests.

One only has to look at the 5th, 14th and 15th holes to come to that conclusion.

The 2nd and 5th green at a stimp of 12 are unmanageable for a 20 handicap. I could probably reduce the stimp to 8 and they'd be unmanageable for a 20 handicap. And, that's my point, at a stimp of 12 a 20 handicap could not compete favorably, from any tee, with a 0 or 4 handicap.

And, equally as important, rounds would turn into 6+ hours of torture, and that's not what golf should be. It should be challenging, but not unmanageable.[/color]

Will an attempt to focus on defending par, primarily at the green end, lead to boring architecture tee to green ?
We all hope not, I see it as the best method towards increasing interest from tee to green. When I say 'Defend Par At The Green', it includes planning for the ideal angle into the green, and that should offer its own challenges (finding that ideal position).

Show me 5 new golf courses where you can find this compatability you speak of.[/color]

« **Reply #21 on:** September 07, 2005, 06:36:20 AM »

"But, I ask you again, what happens if your survey comes back and it's really bad for golf or your golf course?"

Ok, Pat, since you're asking a hypothetical question, why don't you give me a couple of hypothetical examples of what you obviously hypothetically have in mind?

"What do you do?"

Give me a couple of hypothetical examples and I'll answer you.

« **Reply #22 on:** September 07, 2005, 06:53:38 AM »

This isn't hypothetical, but I would think in a season like this one with high temps/humidity, and no rainfall, to save the greens any pre-determined greens speed is out the window.

Survival trumps democracy everytime.

« **Reply #23 on:** September 07, 2005, 06:56:45 AM »

"Noone knows the formula for success, but surely, the formula for failure is to try to please everybody."

Patrick:

That remark of yours is just another of your completely bullshit general remarks on here that you must think simply sounds good.

What does a remark like that really say? Does it say that you know better than a membership what they like? Or does it mean you don't really care what they like or just don't care to hear what they like? Or does it mean you just assume most all of them are idiots and that what they like might be somewhat different from what you want?

It sure sounds to me like it's one of those things.

What's the formula for success? That isn't easy to say going into something but it's probably not that hard to say if you take the time to listen to a membership, if you take the time to really try to educate a membership into various architectural and maintenance principles and when a project is done most all of them tell you they're delighted with it and that it's made the course much more fun, challenging and interesting for them to play.

Of course you should never expect to please EVERYONE----that's not the point, and that basically never will happen but you sure can find logical and valid ways through valid architectural and maintenance principles to please a very large slice of them.

I'd call that a formula for success, wouldn't you?

If one treats their membership like an enemy, as you seem to constantly do, they'll very likely act like an enemy. Perhaps you've spent forty years on green committees and such, as you've said on here, and you've never understood that rather obvious and commonsensical fact of life!

« **Reply #24 on:** September 07, 2005, 07:05:34 AM »

"Survival trumps democracy everytime."

Craig:

Of course it does. Did anyone on here, such as me, say anything that would lead you to believe otherwise?

We have a policy at my club, that was actually just reiterated, redefined and clarified at our last green committee meeting with our regional USGA agronomist in attendence that when crunch time comes agronomically as it has in the latter half of this summer in my region, that maintenance has the green light to just go immediately into whatever mode it takes to protect the golf course. That may mean a single phone call to the green chairman and if she's not available the policy is it's just done. The course comes first no matter what---even if that means shutting down a major tournament right in the middle of it to protect the golf course.

I'm sure there're probably a few courses and clubs around here right now that wish they'd had that policy in effect this summer!

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Andy Troeger

Tom_Doak

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

Mark_Fine

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

Jim Franklin

A_Clay_Man

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Craig Sweet

TEPaul

TEPaul