The Two Putt Par.

[Ryan Crago]

After spending a few months in lurker-dom, Tony Titheridge's comment below in the Bandon Trails has inspired me to start this thread.. that and fear of thread-jacking.

In discussing greens at BT, Mr. T said:

"The course doesn't owe ... a quota of two putts. The two putt par mantra is one of the most damaging principles of modern golf."

This is potentially the most intriguing/inspiring things i have read on here lately, in particular identifying it as "one of the most damaging principles of modern golf".

The questions that follow are many (bear with me through my brainstorm):

- is this in fact accurate? and why it so damaging?
 
- when did a shift in golfer expectation to 2 putting as a standard happen?  what was the driving force?  was it a general move towards medal from match play?  was it conditioning/maintenance?
 
- is it possible to CHANGE this expectation, without treading on the fearful "F" word? (fairness, not firm nor fast).

- what are the design implications?  subtle greens are often well reverred... but by definition, a subtle green is often very two-puttable.  

I could go on....any thoughts?

 

[Phil Benedict]

The greens have speeded up at my home course recently.  Some of the recent flag locations have made two-putting problematical.  Maybe 25% of one 5000 square foot green last weekend was two-puttable unless you hit the hole with your first putt, which happily I did.  Some of my playing partners expressed a sense of moral outrage at the conditions and flag locations.

Personally I think every green should be two-puttable if you hit your approach in the right area.  This area doesn't have to be overly generous but it shouldn't be tiny either.  Flags set too close to ridges are bogus.

[Bill_McBride]

Personally I think every green should be two-puttable if you hit your approach in the right area.

Assuming you know how to putt and have the appropriate touch for today's greens!

Look at George Thomas with his half putt idea, and Hogan who thought putting shouldn't count period after he contracted the yips!

The only sure things in life are death, taxes, and occasional poor putting!  Even from the right place on the green.  

[Phil Benedict]

Personally I think every green should be two-puttable if you hit your approach in the right area.

Assuming you know how to putt and have the appropriate touch for today's greens!

Look at George Thomas with his half putt idea, and Hogan who thought putting shouldn't count period after he contracted the yips!

The only sure things in life are death, taxes, and occasional poor putting!  Even from the right place on the green.  

I am not sure the question originally posed is whether putting should be as important in the scoring of the sport as it is.  There is something out of proportion where someone can hit two shots over hundreds of yards to reach the green and take two more shots from 10 yards and all four shots count for the same thing.  The Thomas half-shot suggestion addresses this nicely.  But that doesn't answer the question of how many putts should be needed on normal greens.

[tonyt]

Personally I think every green should be two-puttable if you hit your approach in the right area.

That notion is equally as ridiculous as saying that "I think every par 4 green should be hit in two shots if you hit your tee shot in the right area."

We accept that golfers of varying standards cannot hit a load of GIR. So equally, the other half of the equation (putting) must observe the same variety of outcomes.

If an elite player (pro or scratch marker) may have the opportunity to hit each green in regulation, then perhaps he too may have the opportunity to two putt each greens. Where do you possibly get off asserting that an average golfer, perhaps a player off a 15-20 h'cap with no chance of averaging much more than 5-6 greens per round suddenly be offered a far higher instance than that of two putting?

[Phil Benedict]

I meant two-puttable by a good putter if he or she puts themself in the proper area on the green.  I don't think that's a ridiculous standard at all.

[tonyt]

I don't either. I'll celebrate that standard with you, so long as it is a general principle to be often followed and not a compulsory box to be ticked 101% of the time.

In your eyes, is there room for one or two greens per course where the overall green complex is very difficult to approach perfectly and then two putt? Not in the name of disallowing a two putt, but in the name of allowing the enjoyable scenarios that can be crafted by a designer with a green of that ilk.

My thoughts are based on how limiting it is if we have to build this in to 18 out of 18 greens.

[Rick Shefchik]

I agree with Tony. No two par 4 holes have an equal degree of difficulty -- that's why the handicap system ranks each hole on your course from 1 to 18.

Same is true for putting. I can two-putt from 30 feet a lot more often on a flat green with no break than I can on a green with a lot of contour. Some greens are harder to two-putt than others, and should be -- that's golf.

[Phil Benedict]

I have no problem with greens that are hard to two-putt. The best hole on my home course has a severely back to front sloped green where a two-putt is always well-earned. My objection is to greens and hole locations which are borderline impossible to two-putt from most of the green.

[tonyt]

My objection is to greens and hole locations which are borderline impossible to two-putt from most of the green.

Again you aren't quite being clear.

I too would utterly despise a course with 18 such greens. However, if a course had 18 deliberately designed greens so that NOT ONE of them was allowed to be this way, then that is too limiting.

I get your drift, but on a four day five course trip with buddies, if we came across one or two such greens in the 90 holes and your point was laboured over, I'd block my ears in horror. To make any of these general principles a 100% formula for 100% of circumstances is terrible. Why? Because you will have revealed that you don't get that particular hole, and what it may be offering in lieu of the two putt to inherit its design merit and its legitimate challenge. Perhaps that hole's offer to the player of a reward is held in another fashion. if done well, then it is brilliant.

[Phil Benedict]

Tony,

We seem to be at odds here which is ironic since we appear to like the same things - golf, drink and good food.  Let me provide you with an example:  The 7th (Redan) green at Shinny in the '04 Open was silly.  The area where a two-putt was feasible was absurdly small.  On the other side of the coin, the 9th at Augusta is very demanding from above the hole and the margin for error below the hole is small.  But it's still a great green and two-putts are possible from above the hole, even if it's no day at the beach.

Does this clarify?

[Andrew Summerell]

Every single green in the world is 2 puttable. Even horse-shoe greens & greens with bunkers in the middle. Of course, you might have to sink a 15 foot putt for your 2nd, but so be it.

[tonyt]

Tony,

We seem to be at odds here which is ironic since we appear to like the same things - golf, drink and good food.  Let me provide you with an example:  The 7th (Redan) green at Shinny in the '04 Open was silly.  The area where a two-putt was feasible was absurdly small.  On the other side of the coin, the 9th at Augusta is very demanding from above the hole and the margin for error below the hole is small.  But it's still a great green and two-putts are possible from above the hole, even if it's no day at the beach.

Does this clarify?

See, I agree with those two examples (mainly because Shinny was a one-off, not to do with that green's regular play, but would throw the toys out of the crib if you were to suggest that a green cannot be contoured to make a two putt almost as tough for day to day play. I'm not saying an archie should look for all sorts of opportunities to build such a green wherever possible.

I'm rather alarmed at one of your pretenses. Does the borderline green half a dozen times a round strengthen your point? Sure does. I'm still talking about an occasional green, not all over the place. I use my prior example. If a green that is next to impossible to stroke a first putt to within two or three feet was to occur once in a blue moon, is that a bad green? It seems so by your definition.

One thing you haven't addressed is that rarity of the style makes a HUGE difference to the equation. To say a flat out NEVER is I think a terrible scenario. I would not accept a world where there were NO impossible two putt greens on the face of the planet.

[Gary Slatter]

The three-putt green seems to be the norm today as most golfers are bad golfers. I don't mean new golfers, some who have played for 40 years still can't putt. For a scratch player I feel every course should have a few challenging greens, difficult to two putt , nothing automatic.  I work in the south where the majority of greens are two puttable (bermuda grass) and really love it when I get north and find the greens as challenging as the t-shots.

Question: if I could go to Scotland for the third time or Oregon for the first time, where should I go next May?

[Tom_Doak]

Gary:

Either one is a good choice.

Ryan:

I like this topic.  Thanks for bringing it up.

Crystal Downs has a bunch of holes where being on the green in two means squat if you are on the wrong part of the green.  In fact, on several holes, you are better off missing short of the green than being above the hole, and that's a great lesson about architecture for those who eventually learn it.  (Some never will.)

By the same token, I don't think there's anything wrong with a big hole and a tiny green where you might have to make par with a chip and a putt.

Any of these rules of designing greens in the interest of "fairness" are really about "entitlement".  Good players feel entitled to not be embarrassed by a severe green.  Good players judge their game by how many greens they hit in a round and don't like the idea of missing one deliberately, even if it is the best way to play the hole that day.  But if you listened exclusively to good players when you were designing a golf course, it would probably turn out really boring.

[tonyt]

Any of these rules of designing greens in the interest of "fairness" are really about "entitlement".  Good players feel entitled to not be embarrassed by a severe green.  Good players judge their game by how many greens they hit in a round and don't like the idea of missing one deliberately, even if it is the best way to play the hole that day.

I love this comment, but more to the point, you've added for me another insightful and accurate descripter. "Entitlement". Such as how many players feel that the reward for a good shot should satisfy one or a number of key points in order to legitimately pose as a good and reasonable example of such reward. The candy needs to taste good, but you don't get to choose the flavour as if via touch screen.

Another example of how on a 150-250 acre playing field, too many "if - then" principles getting enshrined in the name of consistency and fairness makes the land use a waste of space.

[Mark_F]

Good players feel entitled to not be embarrassed by a severe green.  Good players judge their game by how many greens they hit in a round and don't like the idea of missing one deliberately, even if it is the best way to play the hole that day.  

Exhibit A being the 9th green on the Gunnamatta course when the pin is up front and you have anything more than a casual underhand toss onto the green.  

Exhibit B being the 10th green on the Gunnamatta course when the pin is anywhere.

[Phil Benedict]

As a general matter, I think it should be easier to make par by hitting the green in regulation (ie requiring two putts) than by missing it, relying on a one-putt.  An occasional hole where missing the green is a better strategy with a certain pin position is probably ok, but I think it's bad design if this happens routinely on a golf course.  Why have the greens in the first place if you're not supposed to try to hit them?

[Jamey Bryan]

I've got to weigh in with Tom and Tony on this one, and it's a very strong vote.

I think the issue really boils down to course management and strategy, the essence of the game.  Greens where one must be in the correct position on the green to have an "easy" two putt greatly emphasize the importance of both strategy and execution.

As an example, my home course (a 6500 par 70 Travis/Ross layout) has extremely small greens of approximately 3000 sq. ft.  Accordingly, it's no small feat simply to stop a shot anywhere on the green.

However, the best example of proper management might occur with a 180 yard uphill par three with a green containing 4' of drop from back left to front right, and an additional 3' or so false front.  With a front right pin (also approx 15' from a side bunker), there might be 100 sq. ft. of landing area which would yield an uphill birdie putt (which wouldn't be over 3-4 feet).  Anything long to the pin, however, and the approach putt won't stay on the green.

Mangement is generally where to "miss" a shot.  I play this hole so that if I hit the rare "perfect" shot, I'll have that short birdie putt.  If I'm anything less than perfect, I'll be short of the false front with a 10' to 15' chip or "texas wedge" which I'll get up and down a lot more often than not.

Good holes and greens require as much mental execution as physical.  I would quickly tire of a sport where all I had to do was hit a 6000 sq. ft. target from 150 yards or so, then simply avoid a brain spasm (which I admit to having frequently) to make par.

I guess this is my "not so humble" opinion.....

Jamey

[tonyt]

As a general matter, I think it should be easier to make par by hitting the green in regulation (ie requiring two putts) than by missing it, relying on a one-putt.  An occasional hole where missing the green is a better strategy with a certain pin position is probably ok, but I think it's bad design if this happens routinely on a golf course.  Why have the greens in the first place if you're not supposed to try to hit them?

Phil I think many of us feel similarly to you. The danger is in commenting on a sound general principle, but then by judging every green via that principle, one ends up with a 100% formula. Your use of the word "occasional" lifts me.

In answer to your question, sometimes it is to deceive the player into thinking one shot is better than another when it actually isn't necessarily. Don't assign the greens an automatic and repetitive role.

[ed_getka]

Andrew,
   Every green is one puttable for that matter.

Tom,
   I was thinking of Crystal Downs while reading this thread too.

Virtually impossible not to 3 putt at CD at least once a round, but the more you learn the greens and where death is, the better your chances are.

I see no reason why missing a green on purpose for a particular pin is a problem, it is just good course management.

[Jamey Bryan]

Ed Getka....

One more example of a person's intelligence correlating to the degree to which they agree with you......   You're an intelligent fellow.

Jamey

[Tom_Doak]

"Why have the greens in the first place if you are not supposed to try to hit them?"

Phil:  I am sure that 99% of golfers would agree with this sentiment, but I don't.

One of the most important lessons I learned about golf in Scotland is that every little mogul has two sides to it.  If you get on the wrong side of one, it's a downslope which makes it tough to get close to the hole ... but if you keep to the proper side of it, it's a backstop for a chip or putt.

That is one reason I just hate water hazards with tight grass leading to them ... they taketh away but they almost never give you anything back.

[Phil Benedict]

I see no reason why missing a green on purpose for a particular pin is a problem, it is just good course management.

I think this should be the exception rather than the rule on a golf course.  Greens in regulation along with fairways hit are the standards for ball-striking in golf.  IMHO, there should generally be an area on the green where a two-putt is likely for a good golfer.  It doesn't have to be the entire green; nor must it be overly generous; but it ought to be large enough where a good shot-maker would choose to aim for that zone rather than someplace off the green.  In most cases.

To clarify, I don't believe a player is entitled to a two-putt par just because he made the green in regulation.  As a real world example, the 12th at Yale is a two-tiered green where you are dead if the hole is on the lower tier and your ball is on the upper tier.  The only way to two-putt is to make a fifteen footer coming back.  There's nothing wrong with this green.  Just keep it on the lower tier (which is not small) or miss the green to the right and it's a fairly easy two-putt or chip.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Andrew,
   Every green is one puttable for that matter.

Dammit, I want every green on my golf course to be designed to funnel into the hole every shot that I hit to within ten feet of the cup...and to reject my opponents' shots!

This thread causes me to ask the architects:  Do you advise superintendents something like:  "If you value your life, don't ever, ever, put a pin on top of that little mogul I left on the 14th green.  They'll want to string us both up."

Do you and your staff ever gleefully remark over a beer at the end of a long day after arriving at a design which is sure to infuriate:  "That's a good one!  They'll never 2-putt from anywhere on that green!"

Hmm, I thought the idea was 1) to get the ball in the hole, regardless of how many greens you hit or putts you take, and 2) to design "A very interesting hole as it presents an endless riddle of how best to play it" (as #14 at Ballyneal is described elsewhere on this site).