Would you rather have a green hit you over the head or sneak up on you?

[mike_malone]

 I played two courses in the last few days-- one had significant slopes in the greens and many plateau areas as well;the other had subtle breaks.
 
    I found that the greens with more slope DEMANDED that I read them properly or my putting could have serious mishaps.As a result I had few mishaps.
   The subtle greens I felt confident with one quick look that I had the line.I had many more putting mishaps.


    Which do you prefer--the subtle or the obnoxious?

[Brent Hutto]

As you say, greens with a big old tilt or with very distinct levels sort of tell you what you need to do and it's about execution and touch. I find that less challenging than the real subtle sort where most putts look flat but in fact have just enough break one way or another to confound my reading ability.

There's a course near North Augusta, SC called Mount Vintage Plantation that I've played once. I had more of those subtle foolers that day (over 27 holes) than in any ten other rounds. I had several putts where the overall lay of the land indicated that everything would break in a certain direction so I played it outside the edge on that side but then the putt actually broke an inch or so the opposite way.

[ed_getka]

Sneaky greens are my preference. Particularly ones like Brent described, where the break is opposite of what you see. Pasatiempo #17 is a good example of a seemingly gravity defying green. I also like greens with lots of movement (not tiers), but I wouldn't call the greens at Kingsley Club or Barona Creek, Rustic Canyon to be hit you over the head greens. The breaks can be subtle to obvious, but I don't think you would find any of them easier to putt. Have I made this murky enough.

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

In my golf career I've never known a green to sneak up on me---generally I sneak up on them before they see me coming!

[ian]

I like more contour because it generally eliminates how much I have to look at the surroundings (and drainage patterns in particular) to read a green. Strong greens make clearer decisions (for me)

If I've miss understood, the other way of answering this is that I have little interest (as an architect) in a very subtle (ie flat and breaking in all directions) green.

[mike_malone]

 I am wondering if architect's have a concern that  the buyer may have a perception that they aren't doing anything if they don't put dramatic contours in greens.
   
  "We paid you for that?  Where's the action?"

[ian]

When we do dramatic contours in a green, we open ourselves up to crticism. I still think we must do them, but many don't like the criticism. Therefore we get too many dull flatish greens.

As for the owners, in general, they trust you to make good choices for them.

from Doak's interview ( a good description of why we get flatish greens)

Today, architects tend to err on the conservative side — Jack Nicklaus and Pete Dye won't build a green with more than 2.5 percent grade where the pin might be cut........

........If I had built Shinnecock Hills five years ago, then the debacle at the Open would have been my problem as the designer. Since the course was built more than 70 years ago, the blame falls instead on those who set it up for the tournament. As architects we tend to get more credit than we deserve, but we also tend to get more blame than we deserve. Anything that happens must be the fault of the design. Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus — the types of architects who build courses that may host professional tournaments — are afraid of just that. Somebody will turn up the speed way too high and make them look like idiots for putting contours in the greens.

[mike_malone]

 Ian
   Interesting that you bring up Doak---the subtle greens I played were at Beechtree--a Doak design.

    I wondered as we played  this understated course if it lacked the "sizzle" that the average golfer is looking for.I ,myself, love that course.

[ForkaB]

Wild can look cool, but too often it is only wild for wildness's sake.  Great greens should have multiple great pin positions each of which is a part of a greater whole.  "Greens within greens" are just tours de force if they are not tied together.  A great one which is tied together is #4 at Dornoch. I'm not sure yet (only having been there once) about #1 NGLA.

I prefer greens that don't strike you immediately as wild, but grow on you the more you play them, as you discover their subtlety and difficulty.  For example, 17 at Pasa vs. 16 there.  2 at Pebble beach vs. 14.

Wild is great for the one night stand, but you marry the girl that just sneaks up on you.......

[mike_malone]

 My guess is that the wilder greens would wear on players over time leading to less play.So, this becomes a financial issue.

[astavrides]

Mike,
also interesting to me that you are talking about beechtree.  i mentioned in a thread some time back that beechtree's greens are, i think, generally easier for me to read because the surroundings flow into the green.  for example, #5.  If the green had been 'flattened' (i.e., dirt moved to raise the low side of the green) with respect to the slope of the fairway and general slope of the land (like architects sometimes do), then it would be harder to read because of optical illusion.  im not saying which way i would prefer, just making that observation.

[mike_malone]

 Alex
    #5 is among my favorite greens---but that's one I screwed up yesterday.  #17 may be my favorite--can't resist greens that slope front to back--this does so with a bowl added for good measure.

[Tom_Doak]

I like both kinds, perhaps even both kinds on the same course.

If you prefer the subtler greens, go to Beechtree or St. Andrews Beach or Cape Kidnappers.  The greens are especially tricky at Kidnappers because of the pronounced 3-5% tilt of the whole site toward the sea; some greens look very flat but are actually very tilted.

If you prefer wilder greens, go see any of the greens I shaped at High Pointe, The Legends, Black Forest or Quail Crossing; or more recently Lost Dunes and Barnbougle.

[Dan_Callahan]

I really like subtle, confusing greens. Especially the kind that Tom Doak refers to where the entire site is tipped, creating break on a green that otherwise looks flat. My all-time favorite are greens where you would swear the ball breaks uphill. I don't know if it is planned by the architect or an illusion created by pure luck, but one or two greens like that on a course can really challenge your confidence (and, if your are familiar with the greens, give you a tremendous home-course advantage). Of course, I have many friends who hate such trickery, so I might be in the minority on this one.