The double plateau thread has led me to believe that the general market has closed its collective mind to the concept of recovery putting.  Somewhere along the timeline of the past it has been generally concluded that, from any point on a putting surface, the player ought to have opportunity to putt his ball such that he can make or with average skill leave a relatively easy remaining putt.  Why is this so and how did it happen?  We all know the dispersion or distribution values for various handicaps.  If we supply an area of relatively proportionate area to skill have we not done enough?  I am amazed at how many average player would better accept being in a green side bunker or rough after a slightly missed shot than on the other side of a significant green feature/contour.  The average player would be happy to get that recovery shot from the rough or bunker within ten feet, but dub the putting service over the top if they can not do the same with any putt.  

Aside rant - The same can be said for the rejection of par 5 greens that, by their design, are receptive nothing but the perfect long iron or three wood.  When did eagle become an entitlement?  Especially in the face of most par fives now being no more than par four and a halfs.  How many times have you heard a player complain about a green on a par five not fairly receiving an average mid iron second shot?

Is recovery putting unfair or to much to ask of players today?  Should there be a maximum size for putting surfaces or green contours?  Is this the same conversation that was being had when bogey went from being regarded as a good score to being less than par?  What should the challenge that remains after a poor shot be if that shot should be fortunate to find itself on the putting surface albeit a great distance from the pin???


Cheers!

JT

What should the challenge that remains after a poor shot be if that shot should be fortunate to find itself on the putting surface albeit a great distance from the pin???


Cheers!

JT

The concept of "nearly impossible to putt it within 6 or 8 feet" is fine with me...what I dislike about the design (and I am pretty inexperienced in playing them) is the incredibly high demand it places on the shot to get on the proper plateau...

In Kelly's picture of Hawke Pointe it looks like it would be tough to chip it onto the correct level let alone hit a 7 iron there...

If a player attempts successfully a high risk reward tee shot on a short par 4 or the same on a second shot on a par 5, and pulls off a great shot.....do you think that player should be rewarded with an easier next shot than someone that layed up and played a short approach?  If a player takes the high risk and performs, do you think it is right that his next putt can't be negotiated inside 6' (your number I think).  That would be about the same distance for a player that played safe and hit a good approach shot.

JWL, maybe I am not getting the above...  If a player on a short par 4 hits an heroic tee ball -gets on the green and has a tough putt has an equal chance for the guy that laid up and has an equally tough next putt; doesn't the heroic guy still make the tough putt with one less stroke advantage form the lay up?  Same on heroic par 5 second...  If he weighed the risk reward and laid up, and thinks he can pitch or wedge to get to 6' easier than putt one to 6' from 60-100ft, then he has his answer.  If he is a clever putter, maybe knows the green and its breaks well, and has the chance to make the heroic shot, isn't he going to take that risk for the tough putt and CHANCE to make the long putt or get it tap in close?  Where is the greater percentage guananteed that the pitch or wedge guy always gets it as close as the putting player?  Isn't designing those factors in, the essance when practicing GCA?  

Jim, as you know, I think Angels Crossing has some of the most exciting greens around.  I love them, and I would guess that some of the wild green contours and designs reflect your thoughts on recovery putting.  Can you tell us if there were any long discussions with the archie (Matthews) on these premises of recovery putting?  I'm sure you know where I stand on the matter.  And, they are the same greens for everyone, good and poor players alike.   Clever putters may have more fun overall,  however...  

RJ
I must not have explained myself very well.   I was addressing the situation where on a high risk reward hole that if a player successfully pulled off the shot from the tee on a par 4 or 2nd shot on a par 5, I was asking shouldn't he be rewarded with more than just a putt that is impossible to get inside 6' because of the green contours.   I was suggesting that in tournament play, where a score is to be posted, the good player would rarely ever attempt that risk reward shot because the reward isn't rewarding enough....if a layup and pitch can still get you the same 6 footer without all the angst by eliminating the risk.   The putt doesn't have to be easy, but I was suggesting that it should be negotiable.
On your other question about Angel Crossing, I have no knowledge of that course, so I am assuming you have me mixed up with someone else.

Jordan
We are in agreement that putting surfaces are often an excellent way to defend par...and on a short hole it may be the only way unless there are other features within the hole that actually created a high risk/reward situation.   I am not familiar with the hole you have reached and have a long wild putt.   I enjoy those sometimes myself, but not if I have just been forced to carry a lake or deep bunker complex with a heroic shot and that was my reward.   The situation I was discussing earlier is completely different imho.   If there are no other features on the hole to determine the tee shot, and if it is just bang away, then I love having a green that is very demanding.  Otherwise, the hole is nothing more than a filler to get to the next hole....which hopefully is more exhilarating.
cheers

Ok, my misunderstanding.   I got the Jim's mixed up.

I recently played such a par 4 at the new renovated Bear Lakes course in Palm Beach Fla.   I drove the green but had about a 60-70 foot putt that was very difficult, but doable.   It had a break left about 10 feet and if the speed was proper the ball would catch another slope and break back to the hole about 8 feet...so a two foot tap in was the best that could be expected.   I was able to do just that, so the birdie came from two great shots... a long accurate drive and a great speed finesse putt.   Since there wasn't any water on the hole, the risk was just getting an awkward fairway bunker shot, which I thought was reasonable risk...thus I hit the driver and was rewarded with a tough, but doable putt.   It was the 13th hole or somewhere near that on the course.
I was really just talking hypothetically trying to determine the risk/reward to the difficulty within the putting surface....and wanted to hear other's thoughts.

Ok a few responses...

I wasn't trying to make this an angels thread, although those that have played would recognize that the concept would occur frequently for a player with errant iron play.  As for the discussions with Bruce and greens we had a ton the only exception being the fifth.  That concept made complete sense out of the gate and had little modification.  There were also a number of ideas that were proved, unfitting, and thus rejected.  The number of layers of thought that went into that design would take hours to explain and I don't think the general public will "get it" in less than twenty playings at best.  I wonder if they will have the patience to do so.

When it comes to the concept of "risk reward", I believe the risk can be more than just carrying a feature.  For instance a short par five that has a feature in front of it that is reachable by a fairly struck ball that reaches the green does not, by its own merits, deserve a run at a simple putt, particularly if the green is of significant size.  I believe that, in general terms, there is a reasonable area for green sections that is dependent upon anticipated approach lengths, but I don’t think feature development should be restrained by any sense of obligation to aid the player in getting conveniently from one pinable zone to the next.  Better said, congratulations player, you just hit a three wood over the junk but missed the pin zone by more than 20 yards; you’ll need a perfect putt now to recover from your less than perfect three wood.  Another level to that discussion could be that the player who shows restraint should have a better opportunity for par/birdie than the player who aggressively took the risk and failed to fully execute the shot, Judgment also need to be rewarded by design.  Punish the greedy not the needy. I also believe that good design can vary the required approach shot shape, not just distance, as the pin moves by providing features and slopes that provide some level of forgiveness to players who are willing to use them.

As for extreme greens; to me that means greens that have features can’t be mowed by a triplex unit. That said greens cannot be void of pinable zones of adequate size for player dispersion.  The other thing that make be dub a green extreme is if a player couldn’t putt from one zone to another due to shape or grade etc…  I think that should e avoided at all costs.  There is a corollary to this little postulate as well, any green that is dependent upon a minimum speed to have interest probably isn’t very good either.

I don’t know why a short par five should have to be receptive.  I don’t know why a shot that fall 40 yards short of the pin on a par three shouldn’t result in a significant remaining challenge.  If the player missed a 6,500 square foot green by 30 yards he’d expect a challenge, yet if he finds putting surface under foot the player’s level of expectation is somehow changed.

Cheers!

JT

The double plateau thread has led me to believe that the general market has closed its collective mind to the concept of recovery putting.  Somewhere along the timeline of the past it has been generally concluded that, from any point on a putting surface, the player ought to have opportunity to putt his ball such that he can make or with average skill leave a relatively easy remaining putt.  Why is this so and how did it happen?  We all know the dispersion or distribution values for various handicaps.  If we supply an area of relatively proportionate area to skill have we not done enough?  I am amazed at how many average player would better accept being in a green side bunker or rough after a slightly missed shot than on the other side of a significant green feature/contour.  The average player would be happy to get that recovery shot from the rough or bunker within ten feet, but dub the putting service over the top if they can not do the same with any putt.  

Aside rant - The same can be said for the rejection of par 5 greens that, by their design, are receptive nothing but the perfect long iron or three wood.  When did eagle become an entitlement?  Especially in the face of most par fives now being no more than par four and a halfs.  How many times have you heard a player complain about a green on a par five not fairly receiving an average mid iron second shot?

Is recovery putting unfair or to much to ask of players today?  Should there be a maximum size for putting surfaces or green contours?  Is this the same conversation that was being had when bogey went from being regarded as a good score to being less than par?  What should the challenge that remains after a poor shot be if that shot should be fortunate to find itself on the putting surface albeit a great distance from the pin???


Cheers!

JT

Yes, it is too much to ask. The main reason: Pace of play suffers exponentially -- especially in stroke play tournaments.

You simply would have people walking off the course if the proportion of four, five, and six putts was out of whack. A round like that, under tournament conditions, would take between six and seven hours to finish, and that's just not something I would want to subject myself to -- nor would most tournament players.

Andy,

How much does design have to provide to encourge risk taking?  In my experience, if a player can hit the ball x distance he'll try regardless.  I think that's a lot of why the pencil and scorecard group doesn't like great match play courses.  Also I find that a lot of the current players don't like having to favor one side or the other of a fairway or being forced to shape a shot into a green if they find the center of the fairway.  I can agree that this could be a bit unfair if the player didn't have a view of the upcoming greensites during the round, but if you get a sneek peek I think its OK.  I'm not a fan of severe greens myself, but big greens with defined sections are perfectly ok by me.  Especially if I get to see their structure before arriving.

Jim,
That may be true but the foolish risk-taker should be punished as you said in a previous post. The best courses offer a variety of risks and rewards that make the player consider them before playing the shot. Just making a decision does not guarantee correct execution of course. #17 at Angels is a good example to me as there's certainly a fair bit of risk going for that green, especially to a left side pin from what I remember. Hitting to the right side of that green then leaving that putt is probably a good example of what you're talking about and its certainly no easy birdie. I'd still give myself a better chance though of two-putting than getting up and down from 90 yards.