[Patrick_Mucci]

Has the quest, or movement toward faster, flatter greens brought about a change in the architectural perspective of architects and consumers ?

One would think that faster, flatter greens would cause an increase in the architectural challenge to the Non-putting aspects of the game.

Deeper bunkers, more bunkers, centerline hazards, smaller greens, undulating fairways, etc., etc..

Have golf courses in the last 10 years been designed with an emphasis on the non-putting green features ?

Or, has there been NO architectural response throughout the rest of the golf course with the advent of faster, flatter greens ?  

[Steve Lang]

 

Per this consumer, having seen two late 1970's vintage courses ( one former PGA venue amongst these 36 holes) go under the rennovation knife in the name of "reduced maintenance and more playability" (read as code for eliminate 1/3 of bunkers, especially fronting ones and all back to front green slopes, flatten greens, insert drainage breaks, open approaches, improve irrigation system & attempt drainage improvements).. i say the experience is now less challenging, even with some more modern fairway features and especially with tree removal on doglegs.

Flattening the greens has rendered many of them mundane, only challenging the lag putting of players..  the non-putting challenge is figuring out from the fairway whether to land approach shots in the open approach and fizzle out due to wetness or land just on front section and watch it release to back.. because one simply doesn't have a spin shot.  Those that do, see little challenge.

The only putting challenge on "flat & fast" greens has become when the hole is cut on a slope and/or one must traverse the drainage divide, be it hump or swale...

visuals will be visuals, until one figures them out.. the gca may then become just part of the background or only offering the "go-for-broke" or "why-not-try-it doesn't-matter" shotmaking option.. easily avoided if score matters..

thumbs down on flatter greens for me.. you only need  micro imagination to succeed


 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Most modern courses have way more "stuff" going on between tee and green than the old courses did ... trying to make up for the lack of movement in the greens.  And it hasn't been as effective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

I agree, but course after course is flattening their greens and speeding them up, removing most if not all of their character, and more importantly, eliminating the importance of a properly thought out and played approach shot.

[JR Potts]

Steve Lang,

I agree, but course after course is flattening their greens and speeding them up, removing most if not all of their character, and more importantly, eliminating the importance of a properly thought out and played approach shot.

To me, there is little difference in playability between a slow green with a lot of undulation and a lightning fast green with little undulation.  With either characteristic, there are places that you want to hit it and places you don't.  

[Ulrich Mayring]

If maintenance is an issue, they could also make the greens smaller.

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I too feel that there's a lot more going on tee to green on modern golf courses than there ever was or is on most all of the older courses. But I don't think that trend has been primarily influenced by faster and flatter greens. It may've been influenced to some extent a while ago by the fact that most modern courses were not maintained firm and fast "through the green".

But I'll tell you that if and when they get most all these courses firmed up to where I'd like to see them generally (weather permitting) both "through the green" and on the green surfaces, there's not going to be such need for all the stuff going on "through the green" or even around some greens.

The ideal degree of green surface firmness, not necessarily green speed, is so important and essential in my mind that when it's IDEAL, everything, strategies and decision making and all start to filter all the way back to tees.

Furthermore, if the trend that I'm seeing to get to ideal green surface FIRMNESS continues enough we are going to see particularly good players first and then others begin to demand higher spin rate balls for much more control on approach shots and green-end recoveries.

And if that goes on and gets to a particular degree and extent---you know what it's going to start effecting? It's going to start effecting how far some of these guys can carry the ball.     I suspect, by now, you might know why that is.  

The whole damn thing is like one great big interconnected jigsaw puzzle in how all the components and pieces including both architecture and maintenance practices fit together and effect one another in various ways.

I think you know by now what I call it all.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

To me, there is little difference in playability between a slow green with a lot of undulation and a lightning fast green with little undulation.  

With either characteristic, there are places that you want to hit it and places you don't.  

Where don't you want to hit it on a flat green that's got some speed to it ?

What difference does it make where you hit it, other than the distance from the hole ?[/color]

[JR Potts]

Patrick, I see that you are strictly interpreting my words.  The topic references "Flatter" greens, not "flat" greens.

The greens of Ross, Tillinghast and Raynor that I have played all have very severe undulations that cannot be played when the greens are running at severe stimp speeds.  As such, the green speeds need to be kept down.  

More of the modern "flatter" greens (not flat) lend themselves to having less severe undulations.  However, the green speeds can be ramped up.  As such, given the increase in speed, the undulations become equally severe when discussing playability, shot selection and shot strategy.

All I indended on pointing out was that as a fairly good player, the severe undulations juxtoposed with slower greens play the exact same as moderately shaped greens with faster speeds.

I didn't know we were discussing dead flat greens.....because I've never played a course with those.

[Dave Bourgeois]

  I think that architecture in America has been more influenced by landscape architecture then flat/fast greens requiring more complex surroundings.  It seems that the hazards are built for esthetics in addition to strategy.  Greens are harder for the person not interested in architecture to appreciate, and if greens are too contoured the general public might call it goofy golf and not pay to play at the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Most modern courses have way more "stuff" going on between tee and green than the old courses did ... trying to make up for the lack of movement in the greens.  And it hasn't been as effective.

Can I then conclude from your statement that without contour and slope in the putting surfaces the game is getting bland because there's no interest or challenge at the green end, where the rubber ultimately meets the road ?[/color]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I am trying to digest both your comments that there should be more challenges outside the green to make up for flatness and those of Tom Doak who says we have put more challenges outside the greens.......I am not sure I see that, at least universally.  I see more courses -especially as golf goes more public from private that are continuing to reduce the many challenges overall, following the Augusta model, without the green contours to defend the hole.

As to your premise, my belief is that greens are being flattened soley to maintain relative putting challenge to the way greens used to be, or at least relative "fairness." I am not saying its working and certainly not working perfectly, but that that was the intent of flattening, and the belief was that all other shots remained unaffected.

Presumably, if you are trying to feather a shot into a side slope to trickle the ball down to the pin, a 2% slope at a 12 on the stimp should react approximately similar to a 5% slope at a 7, no? It wouldn't have to be exact, as judging that type of shot is the same degree of challenge in either case, with the possible exception that the smoother new greens might be more predictable.

[Dan Kelly]

...if greens are too contoured the general public might call it goofy golf and not pay to play at the course.

I don't believe I've ever heard of a course that "the public" (you know: my friends and I) have dismissed from the rota because of  goofy greens.

I've heard of many, many courses where the public has found various  tee shots goofy, or various approaches goofy, or various hazards goofy ... but I don't recall courses dismissed by the public because of their goofy greens.

Maybe I'm not listening properly.

[George Pazin]

Why do people always assume highly contoured greens must be slow? Why not simply make them as fast as reasonable, given the contour?

I think everyone knows where I stand, but just in case anyone missed it, I prefer heavily contoured greens, or greens with a significant pitch. In other words, interesting greens.

I don't care if the speediest greens are flat or merely flatter, to me they are boring.

And please don't anyone mention the flat greens separator theory....

[Adam Clayman]

Having recently played the not flat at all, slower greens at Ballyneal, my observations are that the the slower greens speeds create situations that require more forethought and awarness. Specifically the grain, which adds elements that the average player just can not adjust to easily. As opposed to high green speeds, where an average player that has a soft touch with the putter can adapt to rather easily.

The slower greens have brought back shot making skills with the putter, and the choice of chipping club. The undulations have brought back the fun.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

If you flatten a green, how can "all other shots remain unaffected" ?

Certainly approach and recovery shots are greatly affected by the removal of contour and slope.

All too often the process of flattening a green is thought of in the sole context of putting, with little or no consideration given to approach and recovery shots.

One of the reasons I like the "greens within a green" concept is the diversity offered to approach, recovery and putting.

When you eliminate the "greens within a green" by removing contour and/or slope you get one big putting surface that effectively defeats the entire strategy of the hole.

The hole self destructs, strategically, from the green back to the tee.

The approach shot is irrelevant to all but the basic tenets.
Hit it below the hole and close.
The importance of the position of the approach shot, the angle of attack becomes diminished, as does the need to drive the ball to the appropriate DZ.  The entire hole unwinds, strategically as contouring and/or slope are removed.

I'm of the belief that green speeds of between 9 & 10 are more than adequate to present a challenge, and as such, challenging contouring and slope can co-exist within those speeds.

And, if the greens had to be dialed back to 8 because the slopes and contours were so pronounced, so be it.

Why does every golf course have to have a universal green speed ?
[size=4x]
Why shouldn't the architecture dictate the green speed instead of the other way around, which by the way, is ruining golf course after golf course.[/size]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()