[Jerry Kluger]

I played in a non-official senior tour event a number of years ago at TPC Avenel and the pro I was playing with told me that a good green would not reject a good shot.  At the time we were playing the par 3 9th hole which was later redone because Greg Norman, as well as a number of other pros, hated the hole.  The problem was the hump that ran across the middle of the green which caused any shot that landed beyond the first third of the green to bounce over the green, left into the bunker or right into the water.

So was he right and are we seeing a trend today that greens are becoming too severe and they are requiring a perfect shot in order to have a reasonable putt?  Or are players not recognizing that they need to play from the proper tees in order to have a shot which they can play into the particular green?  

[TEPaul]

Jerry:

It seems like it sort of depends what is meant by a good shot into any particular green.

For instance, a good shot to a front pin on PVGC's #3 takes a particular type of shot. A good shot to the back pins on that hole takes another particular type of shot or two depending on where the pin is back there (on the front there really is only one basic pinnable position). And a good shot to a front pin is very different than the couple of good shots to the back pins which are distinct types of shots.

However, if it seems virtually impossible on that hole you mentioned for even pros to get a ball to pin positions in the back 2/3 of the green I'd say there is something wrong with that green or perhaps its tee arrangement.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jerry,

I'll only do a reverse slope on a green if there is enough room out front to bounce a ball in. I may reverse slope the Sunday pin location as long as some of the green is receptive, but I still think (and most good players do) that the majority of the green ought to recieve the shot.

I do see a trend of more reverse slope greens, and greens contoured so that only a shot to a 20' circle will hold without rolling off a false front, or whatever.  I was always taught that a crowned green is terrible design, and yet I see more and more of them.

While I encourage all architects to experiment some of the time, and some architects to experiement all of the time, I think the basic premise of building fairly receptive greens still is valid, despite technology, etc.  Think how hard that shot is for the rest of us if Greg Norman doesn't think its doable.

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP:  The question is at what point is that shot that is required too much to ask of the golfer - at what point is it that the green contour becomes too severe when consideration is given to the club the golfer will have in his or her hand.  When I played Dismal River I really liked the course although sometimes I thought the green contours might be too severe when consideration is given to the shot being played.

[Philippe Binette]

A lot of good green do reject shots...

the green they demolished might have been a good one, but if there's no room to run the ball in, water at the back on one side and bunker on the other, than there's a problem...

that's something that seem to happen a lot in modern design: the configuration of the green is totally disconnected with the strategy of the hole...

It seems like some architects design good greens, design a good sequence of shots tee to green but the 2 aspects are not fitting together.

I mean there's definitely dozens of greens in Scotland (or even only at Elie) more severe than anything they've ever built at TPC of Avenel but there's space around the green that allows for ball to run off them.  

 

[Doug Braunsdorf]

While I agree with Bill's comment that "in a fair world...is too much" 100%, in that simply, golf isn't always fair--get over it.  

Cool.  

Still, I can't get myself to like that 6th green complex at Lederach.  I've hit draws and cuts into it, and while I don't mind being in the back bunker, more often than not, the ball kicks left or right into hazards.  

This just isn't fun, especially when you're 2 under for the nine at that point, and then looking at double at best case on the hole.  

[Jamey Bryan]

I believe Greg Norman's comment regarding the 9th at Avenel was "That (expletive deleted) hole should be blown up."

I was an early corporate member at Avenel (and dislike the course) and must agree with Norman.  The hole is a short iron (135 to 166 yards) with water front to back left, bunkers back right, and a very severe slope long.  Before the hole was rebuilt, a shot to the front of the green would often spin back in the water, back left would bounce in the water, and back right into the traps (leaving a shot back toward the water.  It was a Mickey Mouse hole that required luck more than a good shot (one dry summer I hit into the slope long-- the ball ran back down the slope and was headed to the water front when it hit the pin and bounced to 2".  Couldn't call that a good birdie....)

I think it's important to look at the penalty of missing the green with a good shot to evaluate whether these exacting greens are over the top.  If the player is left with a chip, I enjoy the risk/reward aspects.  A stroke penalty and/or a virtually impossible shot is excessive. IMHO

[Jerry Kluger]

Doug: As a wise man once said - golf is not a game of perfect. So when only the perfect shot will be successful, I think that perhaps a green needs to be rethought.  I haven't played Lederach and I don't claim to be an expert so I won't comment on that specific hole.

[cary lichtenstein]

The Ritz in Jupiter has areas in greens, sometimes in multiple spots that balls hit on the green will be rejected.

I have gone both ways on this. Initally, I thought it was a little overdone, then I came to realize how resistant to scoring this factor was and I worked on my run up shots with the 6 iron, etc thru the lob wedge and have become pretty proficient at it.

Then I watch other players and how frustrated they are with it and now, I don't know, it think it is a bit overdone and I'm not sure if it is good design or not, I guess I tend to think not.

I would be interested to hear what others think of this type of design.

[JESII]

My opinion on this is that one shot does not make a hole.

In Doug's example, if a ball is essentially not able to stay on a green under any circumstances...no good.

I have played the 9th at Avanel but do not remember the feature you describe (I played in May or June of 2002, was this before the redo?), what I do remember is that you are hitting dramatically downhill. For a Tour player to claim they cannot stop a 160 shot going that far downhill I have to wonder if they are serious. The hole was awkward and difficult for its length because of the size of the green and the difficulties around it but holding the green would seem low on the critique list.

Taking the idea that a good iron shot should always end up on the green can only do one thing, and I think Redanman laid it out quite well...boring golf.

[tonyt]

As a general principle? Fantastic.

As some kind of rule? Horrid, because that is just trying to micro-control fairness.

Why utilise 200 acre plots of land to build golf courses with rub of the green, when we can just sit and play it on a computer screen. The reason we play it out in the field is because the field will give us uncertainty, variety and thus stimulation.

So celebrate a green that rewards a good shot. And celebrate those that are the exception. To hunt each one down and change it would destroy golf course architecture.

[BCrosby]

Doesn't the question miss the point?

There is nothing wrong (in fact there is everything right) with a green that rejects a good shot if hit from the wrong angle.

Isn't that what strategically designed holes are supposed to be about?

You get out of position - advertently or inadvertently - even a perfectly struck ball may not save you.

If your theory of a good green is simply whether or not it holds a well struck ball, your theory needs some work. Greens can only be good or bad in the context of the hole of which they are a part.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"TEP:  The question is at what point is that shot that is required too much to ask of the golfer - at what point is it that the green contour becomes too severe when consideration is given to the club the golfer will have in his or her hand.  When I played Dismal River I really liked the course although sometimes I thought the green contours might be too severe when consideration is given to the shot being played."

Jerry:

I think it should be recognized that in most cases this kind of thing is not necessarily about architectural problems with contours and such but it's about maintenance practices that make these contours too severe. This kind of problem can also be resolved in most all cases through maintenance practices. Obviously I'm talking primarily about the firm and fast equation here.

[Rick Shefchik]

My thoughts turn back to Shinnecock #7 at the 2004 U.S. Open. We debated here at exhaustive length whether the Redan was fair under those conditions. A "good" shot was rejected almost every time. One player (Stadler the Younger?) managed to play the perfect shot and bounce his ball onto a the green. Everyone else played "good" shots -- shots that under normal conditions would have at least left a putt -- but saw their balls roll off the green.

Is it a "good" green? No question. Were those "good" shots? Again, I think yes. It was the conditions that demanded a perfect shot -- and, as has been stated, golf is not a game of perfect.

[BCrosby]

No. 7 at Shinnie is a great green under normal conditions. It will accept most well struck shots from the right angle and reject many well struck shots hit on the wrong angle.

At the US Open it rejected all shots. But that was solely because of a weird one day maintenance glitch. One nutso USGA day is not an indictment of the quality of the green.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

How would Donald Ross's crowned or umbrella like greens address your question and the pro's comments ?

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: The question is if the hole allows for more than one type of approach shot and it requires the player to understand the strategy necessary to successfully meet the challenge.  So if the green is crowned but will allow a shot to run up to the pin then okay otherwise if there is no way to get to the pin then are we approaching an anti-strategy - perhaps so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat: The question is if the hole allows for more than one type of approach shot and it requires the player to understand the strategy necessary to successfully meet the challenge.  So if the green is crowned but will allow a shot to run up to the pin then okay otherwise if there is no way to get to the pin then are we approaching an anti-strategy - perhaps so.

Jerry,

Depending on hole location, run-up shots are not an option on some holes/greens.

Some greens demand a targeted aerial approach to get near the hole.  Others allow for a general aerial approach and others allow for a run-up approach, though, to be honest, I haven't seen many run-up approach shots on the PGA Tour.

Air is consistent, the ground isn't, hence the preference for an aerial approach, and, with higher trajectories today, the aerial approach seems to become the shot of choice.

[Jamey Bryan]

I'm seeing a couple of different thoughts here....

Going back to the original question and example:

1:  This particular green rejected most reasonable shots into excessively penal situations (1+ shots).
2:  IMHO, after playing the hole a couple of dozen times, it rewarded luck more than good shot values-- not a good hole.

(JES, 2002 was well after the hole was redesigned)

I strongly agree that a green that will accept a shot ONLY from the preferred angle constitutes a good to great green.  (Note.... the original question referred to a one shot hole which eliminates the strategy of position.....   assuming one can find the correct teebox),

I would never waver, though, from the idea that a one shot hole should not propel a decent shot into three angles of hazard.

[Jamey Bryan]

BTW, as perspective, my home course is an old Walter Travis routing with Donald Ross greens.  The greens generally will not hold "properly struck" shots which hit the green in an improper area.  In fact, with many pin positions, the preferred position is not on the green itself.  I fully appreciate the strategic nature of this type of golf (indeed, I celebrate it).

I don't like, however, Mickey Mouse golf where there's not a good strategic (without luck) approach to a hole.

[Jason Blasberg]

It happens all the time with this front right pin (the 13th at Engineers):

[Jamey Bryan]

I love Jason's visual and example.  It also is what one encounters often on the best Ross courses.  If you don't execute VERY well on the approach (even with a well struck iron), you won't hold the green.  You probably will, though, have an opportunity to get up and in with a good chip and putt.

This is very different from the originally cited example of a one shotter with water front and left........

[Jason Blasberg]

I love Jason's visual and example.  It also is what one encounters often on the best Ross courses.  If you don't execute VERY well on the approach (even with a well struck iron), you won't hold the green.  You probably will, though, have an opportunity to get up and in with a good chip and putt.

This is very different from the originally cited example of a one shotter with water front and left........

The best part about this pin on 13 is you can pick your poison as the green tilts severly from front right to back left,  thus to challenge the front right pin, you must be prepared to play from the bottom of the false front shown above.  If you carry the ball past the pin you'll hold the green, most likely, but will release about 50-60 feet back and to the left, with about a 50 footer with 5-10 feet of break back up the hill toward the front of the green.

Here's what you're left with taking the conservative approach:

[Bob Jenkins]

It is very easy for 14 at Bandon Trails, with a front pin position, to put a very good shot into jail. "Good" must mean in relation to the pin position. On that hole you can be a few feet right or left of the hole and it could fall off to the bunker on the right or the collection area down on the left. The front of that green is just too narrow.
Keeping this in mind, I say a "good green" must be kind to a good shot and not have it end up in trouble.

[Jerry Kluger]

So can we say that a green should not be considered good if rejects anything other than a perfect shot?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()