Obsession with Wild Greens

[Paul_Turner]

Are the majority of GCAers obsessed with wild greens?  What's the difference between a great wild green and a freak or bad green?

Do we give subtle greens enough respect here?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Paul,

GCA was probably the reason that I started to think about greens. Prior to GCA, I would notice greens, but it was the shots to the green that I would remember. My interest still leans more to the entire hole rather than the green. Playing with GCAers, especially Neil Regan, has given me a whole different outlook on how I approach putting. Not sure if it has helped my score, but it is more fun.

It I had to rank this Board's obsessions as a group, wild greens are a distant 2nd to hairy bunkers, and I admit that I drank the GCA juice on both of these !!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

Great question.  I admit that the discussions here - and some discussions with the Dyes, who believe average golfers like contour, while tour pros prefer flat greens because they play them once a year and don't really want to learn them - prompted me to build more contoured greens in my designs.   Dan Kelly, Rick Sheflick, Lou Duran and a few others can testify to that!  

I think those who like really wild greens are in a majority here, and a minority elsewhere.  

More to the point, I played a few of my own courses again this weekend, and some of my older, relatively flat greens presented enough putting challenge, and without the lack of cup space, moisture stress on steep slopes, etc. present on boldly contoured greens.  Flatter greens are - or can be - just as fun, and are a lot more practical.

While I will always design a mix of contours, my next designs will tone them down a bit, based on experience.

As to your question about the difference between a wild green and a freak green?  If you miss your putt, its wild.  If I miss my putt, it is surely a freak green!

[Neil Regan]

A freak green is one on which
 a. No amount of skill can outweigh luck, and
 b. A good putt is not distinguished from a bad putt.

Freak green speed is speed which will not allow any moving ball to stop very near the hole. Freak green speed will turn any green into a freak green.

[RJ_Daley]

Im my mind, the frequency of the rolls can be as big of a determinant as elevation or %slope of a tier from one part to another in the green.  I guees with better - more flexible triplex mowers, avoiding scalping of the more frequent rolls is becoming easier.  (I don't mow them, so maybe a super can comment on whether equipment has gotten better to avoid scalping).  But, a Maxwell roll or a Raynor soap dish is a neat feature that doesn't necessarily require dramatic elevation change in the contour to be very exciting.  I'm thinking of Crystal Downs #6 green for one that I think of with Maxwell rolls.  Several at Wild Horse and Sand Hills are medium in actual contour elevation change, but because of the fast sandy base and natural wind and sand top dressing, they are exciting.  The Raynor courses I've seen have medium to extreem contour that fit the approach shots.  Mike Strantz's Tobacco Road has the big modern green dramatic elevation changes, as does #4 at Kingsley.  I'd guess that the modern big greens with gradual but long slope are easier to mow than the little sharp rolls like 6 Crystal.

[guesst]

I once saw an odd green just outside of Chico, CA.  There was a sign
posted on a pole nearby which read, "No chipping on the green."  


The green was L-shaped, and anyone landing their ball at one end of
the L would find it impossible to one-putt to the other end without
chipping.  It must've been murder on the green condition (before the
posting of the sign, of course   ) . . .

"Gentlemen, repair your ball mark, then replace your divot, please."

Would that be classified as wild, freak, unnatural, or is there another
word for that sort of lunacy . . . ?  

Also, where do those crazy greens in Hawaii fit in . . . the ones that
appear to be fairly flat, but have that heavy grain of thick leaf
bermuda grass that causes the ball to go sideways, turn circles, flip
cartwheels, and just misbehave in general?  

[Neil Regan]

A wild green can not be defined, but you will know one when you see one.
Common characteristics include:
• Contour is measured in feet, not inches. Total elevation change might dwarf a man.
• A good putt might travel almost twice the distance of a straight line to the hole.
• There might be more than one path for a good putt. They might start in opposite directions.
• A good putt might change both speed and direction several times. It might slow to almost a stop, then accelerate.
• A good putt might enter the hole on the other side from where it started.
• There might be a spot on the green, not very near the hole, from which a ball at rest will roll into the cup, if only nudged.
• You will want to stay on the green, and putt and putt again.

[Neil Regan]

This is a wild green.

[ForkaB]

Paul

To answer your questions in reverse order:

1.  Yes--we give far too little respect to subtle greens.  Why, well, because we often confuse "subtle" with "simple."  Particualrly on a first visit, it is too easy to dismiss flattish looking greens as unintersting.  They don't strike you visually as do highly contoured greens, nor can you do on them the goofy-golf tricks that Neil lists as characteristics of "wild" greens.  However, the more you play well designed subtle greens, the more you see how well they are integrated into their surroudnings, and back to the approach shot and then back to the tee.  Subtle greens have places that you must and must not be, depending on pin positon and external conditions, but you only know this after playing them a number of times.  You also must be able to read subtle greens as well as wild ones with one exception--far less need to judge multiple breaks.  I would argue, strongly, that that latter phenomenon/design choice is a highly overrated one.

2.  Likewise we often confuse "wild" with "complex."  It is easy to build a wild green--just bury some elephants and give the shaper the intoxicant of his preference, and after an afternoon or two in the dozer Bob's you Uncle, you're there!  As a result, I would guess that the percentage of "wild" greens that are really "freak" greens is at least 95%.  However, it is very hard to build a green which is complex, and will stand up as so after multiple plays.  I persoanlly feel that this is because it is extremely difficult for any arhchitect to actually predict how his or her golf course is really going to play, once subject to the scrutiny of actual golfers, in the heat of battle.  In my opinion, many of Neil's characterisitics of "wild" greens really define "freak" greens--e.g. being able to just touch a long putt and have it end up near the hole, being able to approach a hole from 2 opposite angles, putts going in from behind the hole, etc.  Sure these are fun greens to play, IF you only play them once or twice, but are they really good architecture?  I think not.  I think they are a cop cout, no matter how pretty they look.

3.  Which gets me to the first question.  Yes, we (GCA'ers) are overenamored by wild greens.  Why, well for the same reason that we are enomored by dumb blondes, and one night stands and anything that is, well both seemingly beautiful and "strange."  However, when we wake up in the morning, or have to play that hole again and agian, will be continue to be enamored, or will we get bored with having to putt at a 90 degree angle just hard enough to have the fringe at the apex slow the ball down just enough to let it crawl to the hole?  No, probably not bored, but less and less awed and more and more bemused, and maybe a little more and more sad.  After all, dumb blondes are people too......

[T_MacWood]

The obsession is for interesting green complexes not
necessarily wild greens IMO. Greens that present
interesting short game challenges. That might be
relatively wild slopes just outside the green and
subtle slopes within or vice versa. If there is
an obsession within golf it is for speed.

[guesst]

 Rich, you may be right.  I have noticed myself that most courses don't
 place one wildly undulating green after another on every hole
 throughout the course.  While the more extreme greens do stand out,
 the majority are more subtle than those Neil describes.  I suspect 18
 holes of that kind of golf would get tiring fast.
 

Imagine never having the opportunity to read a subtle putt.  It was a
bit like that for me in Hawaii.  Reading those greens was much
different from what I am used to. While watching the ball roll around
in surprising ways was endlessly amusing, I did get frustrated at
consistent 2, 3 and 7 putts . . . watching the players hit it from one
side of the green to the other and back again made me itch to pick up
their balls and drop them in for them.

There's something enormously satisfying about a well played putt.  I
saw Bob Huntley drop a loooong one in tournament play a couple of
years ago, and it still warms my heart to remember the moment.  
"Oooooh.  Ahhhhhh!"  

The only par and under holes I saw in Hawaii were made off the tee
 and from the fairway, not on the greens.  Upon reflection, that seems
to be true of wild greens, as well.  Fun, perhaps, but not always
satisfying.  

My son likes Happy Meals.  He likes to play with the toy while he eats.
  He never plays with it again.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Paul- I wonder if the collective
 isn't so much for wild greens,
 as they are against the anti-thesis,
 and all that it implies.

Nowhere, is the unpredictable,
 more thought provoking,
 than on the green.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Darva

I have a garage full of Happy Meal (and BK and KFC etc. knockoff) toys and wonder if we can pool our resources and start some sort of business venture?  Maybe ship them back to China and sell them to all the former peasants who made them in the first place...........

Somebody! Naybody!

Can you re-set this thread so it doesn't scroll sidieways all the way to North Berwick?  The goofiness of the graphics on this thread only mirror what Neil said about "freak" greens!

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

It's quite easy to make the text
readable on threads like this.
Just do hard returns like I am
doing here, and Adam did above.

And please when the McDonalds/
other fast food
toys consortium starts, count me
in.  I think I'm good for a
contribution of 1000 or so.

 

[ForkaB]

Tom

So how
do I
do a
hard
return to
be able to
read
Darva's post
for example?

Dave

Try
hitting
it
under
the hole....
......
......

[Neil Regan]

I shrank the picture.

[ForkaB]

Thanks,
Neil

OK, I'm a stupid
Where is that
picture from?

Rich
ard

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

You couldn't.  But the fact you made a post
asking about this while still running
over the lines made me think you
didn't know to use hard returns.

In any case re these greens, I kinda like
greens that fit the golf hole.  I don't want
a wild green at the end of a 460 yard
bitch two-shotter, and I don't want a flat
boring green on a 270 yard driveable hole.

Other than that I also don't like to generalize.

[Neil Regan]

Does anybody else think
those hard returns
make a post read
like haiku ?

[THuckaby2]

YES YES YES
that though surely did
occur to me also.

 

[Andy Levett]

Wild places are
Cool to make a visit
But hard  to live

[Paul_Turner]

How much of this is purely driven by the context of the course?  Two examples below, same architect-one ultra wild, one subtle to moderate; both a lot of fun and both tie into their surroundings.  Would the wild Eden green look wrong at parkland Denham?  Does the context of St Andrews encourage/justify the wild green, or is it just the terrain?

[guesst]

Dave, I have to admit, that sounds very exciting.  But I think I'm with
Tom on this one.  

As much fun as, "Holy Cow!  How am I going to do this!" sounds, I
don't think I'd want it on every hole.  Sometimes you don't have the
luxury of a two putt.  Sometimes you need to do it in one.  Well, I'm
sure that's not true of you . . . but not everyone else can get the ball
to the green in 1, 2, or 3 every time . . .

Fitting the green to the hole, both in terms of the difficulty in reaching
it and the contours of the surrounds, makes sense to me.

Rich, I fixed my posts for you, so you can read them over and over
again without having to scroll across.  Don't mention it . . .  

I'll start boxing up those happy meal toys.  I don't know if the peasants
would buy them for toys, but perhaps if we marketed them as fishing
lures . . . ?  

If I told my friends
Golfers are writing Haiku
They'd think I'd gone mad.  

[Doug Siebert]

I like wild greens, but not only because it makes putting more interesting and demanding, but because they can add a lot of dimension to the approach shot.  On a relatively flat green you can leave your approach pretty much anywhere and the difficulty of your putt is mainly based on how long it is, unless the green is at such a lightning speed that even the slightest downhill is dangerous -- that can be fun too, but there are many reasons why most greens aren't kept like that all the time.

A wilder green doesn't need to be quite so fast, but you have to give a lot more thought to where you put your approach, and it is often quite a bit harder to figure out exactly how to get there.  The normal sky high drop n stop irons the modern game and equipment taught me and most of the under 40 golfers doesn't always work, and where I don't have a good shot for it I have to improvise.  There are some "wild green" holes I play regularly where (depending on pin position) I play for the rough either because the fairway doesn't allow me the angle I want or I want to hit a deliberate flyer to have the ball come out lower and hotter to get where I want to be.  Those with the shotmaking skills would be shaping their shots or hitting the low "skipper" into the green.

Either way, it requires some additional thought and skills beyond "aim down the center of the fairway, aim at the flag" that unfortunately suffices for 97% of the holes I see.

[RJ_Daley]

Ms Guessst, you should have been following the GCA.com in the
good ol' days when we regularly had Haiku Tuesdays...

[Tags:]

Tags: