[Matt_Ward]

I'd like to get some comments from people on the subject of when greens are deemed to be too severe ?

I understand a number of the old time / classic courses are afflicted with this because the greens have unique slopes but they were not meant to be cut at such low levels with the speeds they can attain today.

By what benchmarks do you believe greens can be too severe? Is it based on the length of the approach / angle, the ability to get to any hole location in two putts, or other such considerations?

Thanks ...

P.S. As a side issue -- is there an appropriate level of inter-connectness between the demands off the tee, approach and greens or does that even matter ?

[Joe Hancock]

I'm learning from DeVries, so it's hard to do anything TOO severe! However, I have an idea (of my own!) that might help define "too severe":

If, from behind a green (as determined by the intended approach angle) one cannot have an opportunity to get the ball on the putting surface anywhere, it MIGHT be too severe.

The 3rd green at the Mines is a green on top of a landform jutting out to eternity. The left side of the approach falls away hard, but I had to ask Mike how cool it would be to have a dramatically two tiered green, with the left side being 6 or 8 feet lower. He said it was too much....and I think my definition above was a big reason why it would have been too much. As it is now, it's not severe in it's contouring, but a damn tough green because everything around it falls off abruptly.

Just one idea...

Joe

[Jonathan McCord]

Matt, below are the greens of 5 and 13 at Forest Dunes which I played yesterday.  They are certainly greens I would call severe, especially depending upon hole locations.  I think these greens deserve their severity though, based on the length of the hole, and width of the hole corridors.  If you are faced with a fairly straight forward drive, why not throw in a severe green.  It adds variety and gives the creative player a chance to have some fun around the greens.

The two severe greens below, provide tough challenges, yet it is strictly up to the player to perform, rather than an architect making a flattish green with water on one side that punishes the player and restricts shotmaking.  I love recovery shots, and they are the essence of golf.  If architects allow golfers these recovery shots, instead of punishing them with water and such, golfers everywhere would have a much more enjoyable time on the links.

Pinehurst anyone!!! This is the back right portion of the 13th green. This green also has a false front.

The fifth green. Photo taken from left hand side of green.

5th green.  I took 5 strokes once I got on the green.  Tough Pin.

[cary lichtenstein]

Greens are too severe when you are afraid to stroke a putt and you are a good putter

[Andy Troeger]

To me it seems like most of the problems with greens being too severe comes from the pin locations more so than the greens themselves. I love the ones where you putt the ball up the hill, it goes up to the hole, looks in, and rolls back to you to try again  At least when you're downhill and it rolls past and smiles at the hole as it keeps going you know it was your own fault for being above the pin

[Tom_Doak]

A green only becomes too severe when there is a combination of slope and green speed, and even then, it's only in the eye of the beholder.  50% of amateurs would find every green on the PGA Tour to be too severe -- even the flat ones -- because they are not accustomed to such speeds.

I do remember Ben Crenshaw once telling me (on the drive over to Crystal Downs) that on all the great greens in the world, there was a bit of fear about putting off the green.

[Mark_F]

I'd like to get some comments from people on the subject of when greens are deemed to be too severe ?

In Australia, when they aren't designed by Mike Clayton.

[Gene Greco]

A green only becomes too severe when there is a combination of slope and green speed,...

and/or wind in a consistently windy environ.

[Matt_Ward]

I sometimes wonder if classic courses can receive a pass in overall criticism when greens at those respective courses can be maintained at speed levels far beyond what was originally intended.

Does the reputation of those respective courses gain mileage because the greens are in fact too severe / too fast and if they were brought back to the speed levels originally envisioned would the overall impressions of such layouts be the same, more so or less so?

[Jim Sweeney]

The only greens that are too severe are the greens that have no accessible hole locations at any speed.

If #16 at Pasatiempo is not too severe, how can any green be too severe at the correct green speed?

If a green begins losing useable hole locations due to increased speeds, it's time to slow 'em down (not rebuild them).

[Matt_Ward]

Jim S:

That was my point -- what is the "correct speed?"

[ed_getka]

There is no one correct speed, due to the combination of speed and slope, and even wind sometimes. I feel like greens are too severe when I feel like I'm putting defensively all day to try to avoid 3 putting. I would agree with what Ben Crenshaw said to Tom. It's when you feel like every putt is a potential disaster that something needs to be done.
    What is interesting is when a green is on the threshold of exceeding the limit and how much that weighs on your mind when you are hitting an approach shot and knowing how important it is to get to the right part of the green. Just getting on the green isn't good enough.

[Tim Pitner]

Greens are too severe if: (1) when putting above the hole, the ball won't stop until it goes off the green; (2) when putting below the hole, the ball will come back to your feet unless you blow it past the hole; and (3) see (1), above.

Sorry, that description doesn't always apply to severe greens, but it was the experience I had on some holes at Broadmoor West, the one course where I've felt that the greens were totally ridiculous.  

[Bruce Katona]

Matt: Wait until you get to Bayonne.  First hand experience on pushing the envelope. .....this is from second hand knowledge only.

[TEPaul]

"Jim S:
That was my point -- what is the "correct speed?"

Matt Ward:

I've seen an awful lot of the older highly sloped and contoured greens and I've yet to see one that can't work at 11 or below. I get to see and putt on greens like this due to my officiating ( I always go out real early in the morning and I have a couple of hours to putt to and check the pin locations).

I do admit I'm seeing these courses in tournament set-ups and I'm only analyzing one pin location. If these courses were set-up like this every day they could run low on available pin positions.

[Matt_Ward]

My point Tom was that a number of classic courses can't resist staying at 11+ stimp speeds which effectively limits the number of pin placements and takes away from their overall character.

Dropping the stimp speed for some of these clubs is usually looked upon as being offensive to their sense of manhood.

[TEPaul]

"My point Tom was that a number of classic courses can't resist staying at 11+ stimp speeds which effectively limits the number of pin placements and takes away from their overall character."

Matt:

The reality is---and I can pretty much guarantee it---there isn't a classic course on earth whose greens "stay" at 11 or 11+ on the stimp.

I don't deny there're probably thousands of golfers who think that but they are all mistaken, including you if you really think that. I don't deny there may be a considerable number of supers who tell members and others that but they know damn well they are just bullshitting those people and telling them what they think they want to hear.

Agronomically it would be pretty hard and a bit more than a little dangerous to the turf to try to have putting greens on a classic course "stay" at 11 or 11+.

Furthermore there are probably less than 1/10 of 1 percent of golfers who've even had a stimpmeter in their hands and even if they had the percentage of those who would actually know how to use one is probably a whole lot less than that.  

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

   From my perspective it's when you get equal amounts of compliment for fast greens as you do complaints about tricky hole locations.

   It's really a matter of having enough hole locations. Make the green as sever and contoured as you like but you need to leave plenty of area for hole locations.

   Can't a sever green be slower and softer green be faster? Does contour replace the challenge of speed?

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

You missed my point. My IDing of clubs who do what I suggested is more towards the elite few which set the example that others follow.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()