What Kind of Hole Should Have a Severe Green?

[Tom_Doak]

I've taken Dan Kelly's question off the Ballyneal thread and put it here instead.  It came up because the sixth green at Ballyneal is one of the most severe greens on the course -- on the end of a 480-yard par four.

Which, obviously, I have no compunction about doing from time to time.  Ever seen the 18th at Winged Foot West?  The first at Oakmont?  The Road green at St. Andrews?  In each case, those greens separate out the best players from the merely very good.

Low-handicap players tend to think the size and contour of the green should be directly related to the length of the approach shot.  However, in many cases, these greens are being approached with a wedge third shot by someone who couldn't reach the green, or who missed wide.  If they were dead flat and pretty big, then the low-handicap would often make par even after missing the green, and the player who hit the green and two-putted would not be properly rewarded.

Note that I am rewarding him in the context of making his opponent pay -- not by always giving him an easy par or a birdie chance.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am one who generally subscribes to the short appraoch...severe green mentality, however that does not mean that I am adamant it should be restricted to such.
One of my favourite green complexes anywhere is on the 12th or 13th at Pacific Dunes at the end of a long par four..awesome green and surroundings, on a very tough approach.
Equally so the 3rd and 5th at Merion, the 13th at Pine Valley and the 8th at Pebble.
So basically I think a severe green just "fits" certain holes.
I do think that some architects jsut use severe greens in excess as a source of tougheneing the golf course in light of other course deficiencies..to me this is a cop out.

[Brent Hutto]

The seventeenth hole on the public course where I learned to play and the fourteenth hole at my home course (Columbia Country Club) are long Par 3's. The former had a pretty severely sloped green in comparison to other greens on that course and the latter has a big front-to-back pitch as well as a pronounced ridge separating the back half of the green into two sections with a very difficult putt between them. Plus a lot of very counterintuitive grain no matter where on the green you're putting.

Now neither of these would hold a candle to the sixth at Ballyneal for severity but my experience playing them a few hundred and a few dozen times respectively is that a tricky green helps reinforce the purpose of a long Par 3. If you put a flat green 200 yards from my tees or 240 yards from the tips then the challenge of the tee shot is to see if you can hit it that far while keeping it in the proper ZIP code.

However, put a green with difficult contours at the other end of that fairway wood shot and the challenge is to try and get the ball to the hole and if you fail in that challenge you have to worry about what sort of chip and putt you're going to end up with. Now you can do the same thing with deep bunkers or thick rough but a cunningly designed "severe" green does a better job of fractional-stroke penalties for missing in the wrong place as well as offering all levels of players the most opportunity for a brilliant recovery.

In theory, a severe green on a long Par 4 can be considered an extension of this same line of reasoning. But in that case you have the situation you mentioned where weaker players (or at least short hitters) are often hitting a wedge from the fairway. I'd argue that having a desirable "zone" for that wedge shot that's very small due to contours within the larger green is even more desirable on the long Par 4 than in my example of a 200+ yard one-shotter.

The seventeenth at Littlestone is a tough green at the other end of a tough tee shot (at least into the prevailing wind) although the difficulty comes more from the big front-to-back pitch than from smaller-scale contouring. So I guess that green is a further example of the design I mentioned in my other two for-instances. It's a superior hole to the ones I see at home because of its position in the match (seventeenth hole) and the wind.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

This brings to mind the frequent complaint when a par 5 is converted to a par 4:  "this green was designed to accept a wedge, and we're hitting 3-irons into it!"  More like 7-irons these days, but...

I first heard this in 1980, when the Kemper Open converted a par 5 at Congressional (#10?) into a par 4.  I have heard it consistently ever since, usually associated with a US Open.

I never really bought it, but now it is a particularly weak complaint.  Modern balls and clubs allow everyone to play like Jack Nicklaus; bring it in high, and land it softly.  

For tournament play, at least, nasty greens are need to separate the great from the good.

[Brent Hutto]

...what is often otherwise a bit of a slog type hole (though I really believe all good courses should have a par 4 or two which are brutal-they just don't tend to be my favourites on the course).

I agree. For my level of player, there's nothing more tedious than a couple holes in a row that are too long to reach with even my best driver and 3-wood combination but with a flat, easy green. Once I lay up it's a matter of my trying to hit a wedge to ten feet while my opponent can trivially execute a shot with a 5-iron (or whatever) to 30, 40, 50 feet. So now I have to make a mid-length putt in order to halve his longish two-putt. Much more interesting if he is challenged to hit the right portion of the green in order to take a 3-putt out of play and then I'm in turn challenged not to hit a sloppy wedge that's two breaks, three ridges and an inflection point away from the hole myself.

I'll tell you where's a good place for a flat, easy green. On a short Par 3. Give the player a 9-iron and a flat green. He'll feel like he "ought to" have an easy putt at birdie and even if he hits a mediocre shot to 35 feet he can still bear down and try to make the resulting straightforward long putt.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kudos to Dan for raising the question, and Tom for posting it in a separate thread - I would much rather get involved in these types of discussions than "Why doesn't Rees get love?" Who wants to know about Rees sex life anyway?

On the Sand Creek Station thread, I told Ed Getka that I like to design tiny green on at least one long par 4 on each course for similar reasons to Tom.  A severe green would serve the same purpose.

Besides that, I have always found that a hole will stand out if it is either beautiful, unique, or very hard. So, if I want each hole to stand out, I try for one or more of the above.  I seemingly get most comments on the very hard ones, with good players in  particular somewhat aesthetically challenged.  Any hole that breaks the long shot, large green mentality would also be seen as somewhat unique.

Last comment:  Nothing wrong with a hard hole every once in a while!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
It's simpler for me to think where you might not use one, like on a hole with a blind approach, where the green could still be interesting, but not necessarily severe.  

I wish we'd see more courses with severe greens, it might help to lessen the focus on overall length.

[Lou_Duran]

Answer:

Where maintenance is not an issue for smaller green sites, short 3s, 4s, and 5s.

"If they were dead flat and pretty big, then the low-handicap would often make par even after missing the green, and the player who hit the green and two-putted would not be properly rewarded." Tom Doak

It seems to me that by making the approach all that more difficult, thereby greatly increasing the probability of taking three additional strokes (putts or a chip and two putts) to hole out, that you are neither rewarding the player who hit two good shots nor penalizing the one who needs a third for the approach.

Take #8 at Rawls into the prevailing wind, with the pin 3/4 back and left.  I'll be the proxy for a low-handicap player (I once was) and an infrequent player on the course.  Let's say I can run up a well-hit three iron to the right front of the green after hitting a great drive, or lay-up short 50 or so yards after a so-so effort.  My probability of getting it up and down from the front of the green is maybe 30 - 40% as opposed to maybe 10 - 20% from 50Y out.  Soften the ridge and flatten out the bottom portion of the green and my probability of holing out in two putts goes up to 80-90%, while that from 50Y doesn't change appreciably.

I do agree with Sean.  I enjoy a couple of unconventional, counter-intuitive, difficult holes in a course.  I like a par 4 where I really have to bust a couple of great shots to reach the putting surface, and a long par 3 that has a challenging green but not overly guarded by penalty generating hazards.  Unreachable par 5s are now the norm for me, but I prefer those which challenge not only the drive, but also the lay-up shot.  

[Jim_Coleman]

     Am I correct that we like "severe greens" and find them more fun than "ordinary greens" (if that's the opposite of severe)?  I don't understand why a golf course has to have any ordinary greens.  When's the last time anyone raved over an unintersting green?  Yes, there are great courses with uninteresting greens (or at least one,the Black).  But wouldn't every course be better if all the greens were interesting.  And aren't well designed "severe greens" more interesting than "not severe" ones.
     So, I would answer Tom's question that, yes, long holes should have severe greens.  And so should short ones.  And so should medium length ones.

[wsmorrison]

I don't believe in standardization in golf design so I don't think in terms of rules of thumb but I guess severely sloped greens are less appropriate on blind or semi-blind approaches.  

If one of the purposes of a severe green is to reward proper placement of the tee shot or second shot to set up an approach or reward a well executed tee shot on a par 3, it is subordinated when the green and pin location is blind.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Tom

A very testing and severe question.

But first how would you classify a severe green? Are you referring to the green surface or also to the bunkering and the slopes around it.

Confining myself to the green surface I find the most severe greens are the ones that fall away from the direction of play making it difficult to stop the approach ball – especially when they are firm and fast.

Or a crowned green that rejects the approach shot unless it’s within the « inner circle ».

The green with lots of modelling can sometimes offer easy pin positions in slight hollows which capture the approach and guide the putt – obviously these greens can also offer difficult pin positions – but they can be benign for the approach shot.

Small greens, although more difficult  are not necesarily difficult to get Par unless they are ringed with bunkers or US Open rough. Often the up and down is easier than on a larger green.  

Another favourite is the island green.

A severe green to putt I find are ones that are on a plus 3% tilt from front to back – every putt is a banana and the further away the more extreme the swing.

To answer your question I think the fall away greens are more effective on long slightly down hill par 4’s where the low iron has to be rolled in makeing it really difficult to judge. These kind of greens can become meaningless to a lob wedge though.

On the other hand a crowned green could be better on a short Par 3 . Where the severity can be seen from the tee and the pscho ratcheted up.

The island green I’ve seen on Par 3’s, Par 4’s and Par 5’s. The Par 5 being the most interesting by far.

As far as putting greens go  - let them have wild modelling and let the pin position decide whether the approach and putt is severe or benign.

[tlavin]

The easy answer, of course, is a short hole for the par, but there are plenty of examples of terrific golf courses that have a individual hole or two that have severe greens despite being long, difficult holes.  The first at Winged Foot comes immediately to mind.  It seems to me that the longer a course is in existence, the more likely we are to accept the anomaly of a severe green on an already long or difficult hole as an expression of the talent and/or temperament of the architect.  We are more likely to forgive or even applaud a quirky or arguably inconsistent feature in a golf hole if it's been around for a while.

So, I guess I would encourage the Doaks of the world to throw in the occasional brutal green on an already brutal hole.  You'll be remembered for centuries!

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom

I don't like formulas. In my opinion there is a place for a huge green on a short approach and a tiny green on a very long one. Contours can vary as well.

I think the Kingsley Club is a great example where the 4th hole I believe is a short pitch to the largest green on the course and the 15th, a very long par 4 has the smallest green that is very severe for putting and short pitches.

[Paul Carey]

I think this discussion is excellent especially around the use of severe greens on long par fours.  For many players they are in fact Par fives or at least Par 4 1/2 and a severe green is a great way to offset a distance advantage betweeen two players.

More importantly than par I think severe greens are best used when the player can observe much of the green and, more importantly, observe the shot as it rolls through the undulations.  It is always fun, exciting and sometimes very disappointing as a shot rolls off a slope either towards or away from a hole.  A sever blind green loses much of the excitement value.

[Jim Sweeney]

It would be interesting to know something about on what type of holes the golden age archtects used severe green sites. did they employ a "rule of thumb?"

Sixteen at Pasatiempo might be a good example.

The two most severe greens at my old home course, Maketewah CC in Cincinnati, a 1920's Ross, are on the two longest par fours (8 and 13). At the course of my youth, CC of Waterbury in CT., another 20's Ross, they are on the shorter par fours(6, 10, and 13).

I don't think there's a formula that works all the time.

[John_Cullum]

here in the States we have a stroke play mentality. I think a long par 4 with a severe green is fine but it would be best to have it take the place of a par 5 in the route. We don't want our scorecard wrecked.

[Ted Kramer]

#15 Bethpage Black is good example of a long tough hole with a very severe green. I think it is one of the best holes that I have ever seen or played. I don't like the idea of formulas or a strong push for "fair". I have no problem with tough greens on both long and short holes. I'd rather see some variation and deal with the occasional "overdone" scenario than play course after course with big flat easy greens on the long par 4s and tougher greens on the shorter holes.

-Ted

[Jordan Wall]

I've taken Dan Kelly's question off the Ballyneal thread and put it here instead.  It came up because the sixth green at Ballyneal is one of the most severe greens on the course -- on the end of a 480-yard par four.

Precisley what you did at #18 at Tumble Creek.  There is no question it is the most severe on the course.  I like the idea of severe greens on longer par fours because I think long par fours are hard enough as it is lengthwise.
Let me explain.
If you have a 500 yard par four you need to great shots to get on the green in reg.  Because you need two great shots, making the hole harder by adding bunkers and what not can sometimes make the hole too hard.  Making it a dogleg may work too.  Maybe sprawl one or two fairway bunkers just to distract the player, but leave ample room to blast a drive.  Obviously if the drive is in a bad spot, such as deep rough, or a fairway bunker, the player can blast out and have 100 yards to the green.  A severe green now becomes even funner as a wedge shot has to be very precise.  Since the hole is long a longer club may be hit, which usually calls for an approach that runs more.  Severe contours can make a shot which rolls funner and can either funnel a ball to the hole, which would show  who the better player really is if indeed he does that.  Also, if you miss a green on a longer par four, which is a lot more likely than missing the green on a shorter length hole, recovery shots are made a lot funner by a severe green.  I know most of this may not make sense to some people but I simply like the idea of a severe green on a long par four, just like 18 at Tumble Creek.

[ed_getka]

I used to subscribe to the long hole, big easier green theory (although I have always like them to be contoured). However, in my travels over the past few years Kingsley Club #15 (small green), Crystal Downs #13 (severe green),  Dornoch #14 (raised up green, shallow to approach) etc... have changed my thinking. On holes like this you simply ignore what "par" is and hit the best shots you can. On any of the above holes, bogey is going to be a good score more often than not.
 

[Mike Hendren]

When's the last time anyone raved over an unintersting green?  

Allow me to praise the 9th at The Old Course.

Mike

[ed_getka]

Mike,
   Come to your senses my good man. #9 green TOC is interesting? Please explain that one.

[George Pazin]

    Am I correct that we like "severe greens" and find them more fun than "ordinary greens" (if that's the opposite of severe)?  I don't understand why a golf course has to have any ordinary greens.  When's the last time anyone raved over an unintersting green?  Yes, there are great courses with uninteresting greens (or at least one,the Black).  But wouldn't every course be better if all the greens were interesting.  And aren't well designed "severe greens" more interesting than "not severe" ones.
     So, I would answer Tom's question that, yes, long holes should have severe greens.  And so should short ones.  And so should medium length ones.

My kinda guy....

[Smokey_Pot_Bunker]

Mr. Doak,

     IMHO A severe green can and should be placed where ever the architect chooses it to be.  It should not matter if it is on a hole like Sitwell Park #18,#6 at Ballyneal or anywhere else for that matter.

     If you think a green is severe IMHO it's most likely because

     A. You're approach shot which you thought was good was in fact not good enough.

     B. You hit the green and proceeded to three putt.

     C. Or the rarest case of all the green does not receive any shot well including a putter because it is in fact a pointed cone.


Mr. Doak, a great question.  From the day I visited you at Ballyneal that great site (#6) seemed so natural I can't imagine your team having to do much because from the picture it seemed as if all the contours I saw pre work were already there, Am I wrong.

Also the Up day challenge took me a while but I got it done for Old Memorial in Tampa.  Hope all is well.

As a golfer it is YOUR responsibility to get the ball in the hole in the fewest putts possible, if you can't do that don't blame the architect blame yourself.

Sorry for the rant

Carmen

[TEPaul]

I think really complex and severe greens are best on short par 3s, 4s and 5s.

And maybe once in about a hundred blue moons throw one in on a long par hole just to break that standard and really piss people off to create some good 19th hole controversy and couple of 20 page threads on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

I think one of the real benefits of a very severe and complex green on a shortish par 4 or 5 is that differing strategies and perhaps some real agression off the tee kicks in bigtime for obvious reasons---eg to get something in your hands on the approach that's as short as possible. Hence, the constant highly varied club selections on the tee of the great 10th at Riviera even amongst the Tour pros.

[JR Potts]

I have no problem with severe greens on long, severe par 4s.  However, it should not be a reoccuring theme.  I think that every golf course should have one par four, that is long and presents a significant putting challenge.  In my opinion, these par 4.5s present some of the most significant and memorable holes on many golf courses.  I find the challenge of make par on these holes to eclipse the glory of making birdie on the average 380 yard par 4s - severe green or not.

The 15th and much maligned 18th at Whistling Straits come to mind.