Subtle greens? Yea or nea

[George Pazin]

After reading Tim Weiman's comments on Sand Ridge's greens, it raised many questions for me.

What are subtle greens? Are they harder? Easier? Easier to putt but harder to accept misses? Are they simply an excuse for boring greens?

If a green is severely sloped or undulating, I think it's easier to accept a missed putt (especially if you leave it within tap-in range:)), while a green that is "subtle" may leave you with a seemingly simply putt that you end up missing due to some incredibly minor slope that you can't detect, but gravity & the ball can. These types of putts usually leave you within tap-in range, but can still be hard to hole from any kind of distance.

I definitely prefer big undulations or severe slopes for the sheer fun of it, but I'm a relatively lousy golfer that never plays in any kind of competitions.

So what does everyone else think?

[Joe Hancock]

George,
I find the subtle greens easy to read if the course is relatively flat. The missed putts on those types of courses are very demoralizing, especially in competition.(that includes every round for me, in some form.) Subtle greens on courses with elevation changes are harder to determine the directionality of the breaks, and are still demoralizing. Greens with distinct undulation are easier to read, in terms of knowing what the putt will do, but usually more difficult to sink putts on. It is easier for me to accept those misses on that type of green. To me, it still boils down to beating my opponent, whether it's my 3 beating his 4, or my 5 beating his 6.

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

I agree, Dave. For out and out fun, give me the humps and bumps. I played a course here in Michigan on Thursday called Marquette Trails. It's a family built/ owned course near Baldwin. They built some of the most fun, sometimes over the top greens I've played in a long time! Like you said, some chips were aimed several yards one way or other of the pin. There's little jewels off the beaten path sometimes.

Joe

[angie]

it seems to me that one element of subtlety in a green has to do with the whole "green complex" and oftentimes the lay of the land that remains in one's mind and/or peripheral vision when lining up and stroking the putt or the chip contributes to what i might identify as "subtlety." i'm thinking that a degree of doubt created as you search for the line and attempt to guage the proper speed may be influenced by the peripheral elements. the green would not have to be large or hellish but couldn't be vapidly flat and featureless, either, since the human brain will only be fooled to a certain degree in most cases. anyhow, i love greens. i observe that frustration so often arises and makes us impatient when putting because at that point it's do-or-die for the score you want to make on the hole, and then the ever present demon   of "each 9 in 2 hours or less" rears its ugly head   .  i HATE a four hour round of golf. i'm all for 5. i would start a thread on that topic but for the fact it's not architecture related, so it would get dq'd.  

[Tim Weiman]

George,

FYI, I'm not really a fan of "subtle greens", mostly because they're just not as much fun.

But, that doesn't mean "boring" or "easy", just a different test that can easily fool and frustrate people.

I'll take fun over frustration any time.

[Paul Richards]

Subtle, maybe.

Interesting, yes!

[Paul Turner]

You can have subtle and still complex; not necessarily boring.

[WPM]

George-
   I think subtle greens are good or bad depending on how it fits in with the rest of the course.  For example, huge undulating Stranz-like greens wouldn't fit in at the Valley Club.  And subtle greens wouldn't fit in at Royal New Kent or Tobacco Road.

[Tyler Kearns]

George,
       I personally feel that undulating greens offer more choice and options around the green. They demand that a player possess many skills in order to save par repeatedly. On subtler, more flat surfaces, players are more likely to routinely use the same bump-and-run or pitch approach, whichever suites their game best.
       Conversely, severly rolling greens seem to add a detrimental element of luck to approach shots. Well struck shots can miss their target by a foot, and catch a downslope that sends their stroke bounding over the green. The same holds true for slopes that kill a bold approach landing just short of its target. I have no problem with penalties resulting from less than stellar play, but here, I don't think the punishment fits the crime. However, on recovery shots, these very same slopes are very useful in trying to kill a pitch that would otherwise be unstoppable. Same can be said for downslopes when faced with plugged bunker shots.  
         Ultimately, at the end of the day, the fun factor of well contoured greens wins the day, because luck is part of the charm of the game, and in the above case, does not affect play at the same frequency as do interesting surfaces.  

[A_Clay_Man]

For some reason the best example of subtleties I can think of are on the greens on the backside at Pacific Grove. Even some on the front have little characteristics that can only be seen when the greens are cut low. (Once or twice a year).

[TEPaul]

Personally, I would prefer subtle but complex greens mostly! Frankly, if they get really complex (even if subtle) they can begin to almost merge into the dramatic!

I do appreciate the differences in architecture and I don't mind the dramatic and obvious but subtly complex would be my favorite.

I'm a plumb bobber in reading greens and I have a few wrinkles I've developed with it over the years when things appear to get complex but there's just one green (one section of one green actually) that I can't apply anything to with reading it.

It's around the front right section of Pine Valley's #11! It seems to defy everything I know and can see! I like that a lot! And there are other sections of Pine Valley's greens I can pick up on and understand but the degree of them throws me sometimes!

But I look at that front section of #11 and think, Wow, how did they do that? That kind of mysterious architecture really interests me. I know how to putt that section now but I still can't understand how or why it does what it does.

And just a little secret here on the overall collaborative theme of PV. That subtly complex green was actually redesigned from Crump's original after George died by C.H. Alison!

[archie struthers]

I'm going to jumpt on Mr. Mulvihills' wagon and agree that the greens should fit the design. Absolutely they are the only way to go on a golf course that emphasizes the ground game, as wildly undulating greens wouldn't fit, in my opinion. I like variety, but not goofy golf!

PS TEPaul, I think we could help you on number 11!

[ed_getka]

I prefer greens with some undulation to them which adds interest to the short game and makes one think about where to land approaches, rather than just allowing one to dial in the distance to the green and play one set type of shot. I don't agree with archie's characterization that undulating greens don't go with the ground game. I think Kingsley Club has some outstanding greens that most would consider undulating and the ground game is the objective at KC.

[TEPaul]

Archie:

I've got #11 green figured out now but there are parts of it that still amaze me as to why it does what it does. I shouldn't say it's the only green that's mysterious in my memory but it's a good example.

Unfortunately, the truth is when you get older something must happen to your eyes which makes it harder to pick up nuancy sophistication in greens when putting. But #11 was one that did that to me when my eyes were good.

The plumbbob has always been a good green reading tool for me when reading break on greens but as I've gotten older the thing I can't do very well anymore is pick up the degree of slightly downhill or a bit more than slightly downhill. And on a course like Pine Valley, as you know, you have to pick up those slight downhills or you can be in trouble. Unfortunately, there never was anything the plumbbob could do to clarify the degree of downhill alone.