[George Pazin]

Putting may or may not be overemphasized, but every potential solution to this problem (if it exists) I've read has been far worse than the problem.

As someone said early on, a long drive counts the same as a short putt, statistically anyway. I can tell you that driving has a far greater influence on my score than putting, so maybe this problem only exists for the best players in the world.

One of my problems with the modern whoop-de-doo random contours is that it is close to impossible to control a shot well enough to make a difference for any shot longer than 150 yds out.  What I enjoyed at the RTJ Trail courses is that the sections of green were so well defined that shot making did come into play.  I grew tired of the drive, crap shoot, lag putt, putt some more strategy of a course like Bandon Trails.

Can't say that I understand this comment at all.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

If random contours require a golfer to place in the air a shot from 150yds in a radius of 5 feet it is no longer strategy and is simply gambling.

[George Pazin]

Fair enough. Can't say I've ever seen that situation occur.

[Jim Thompson]

I believe the real question here is why doesn't the entire path from tee to green require touch, feel and restraint like it used to?  It is not that the green or putting inherently requires a different set of skills then the rest of the game it that the rest of the game no longer does and that paradigm is exaggerated as skill increases.  Remember when a player sought to strike the ball at 75-80 percent of his full swing speed to result in optimum result and often had to couple that pace issue with shot shaping.  Relatively flat greens have also minimized the need for shaping.  Couple that with any green that is only functional or has feature impact at or above a certain green speed and you have found a sub par putting surface.  We need a ball that spins at a level that requires touch throughout the course of the round.  It is just that simple.  To continue to avoid this will result in the game becoming little more then a math contest and he with the best range finder or yardage will win.  Highly contoured greens are the only significant challenge the current game has to present other then water or native hazards or OB.  Change the ball and change the game.

Cheers!

JT

[John Kavanaugh]

I believe the real question here is why doesn't the entire path from tee to green require touch, feel and restraint like it used to?  It is not that the green or putting inherently requires a different set of skills then the rest of the game it that the rest of the game no longer does and that paradigm is exaggerated as skill increases.  Remember when a player sought to strike the ball at 75-80 percent of his full swing speed to result in optimum result and often had to couple that pace issue with shot shaping.  Relatively flat greens have also minimized the need for shaping.  Couple that with any green that is only functional or has feature impact at or above a certain green speed and you have found a sub par putting surface.  We need a ball that spins at a level that requires touch throughout the course of the round.  It is just that simple.  To continue to avoid this will result in the game becoming little more then a math contest and he with the best range finder or yardage will win.  Highly contoured greens are the only significant challenge the current game has to present other then water or native hazards or OB.  Change the ball and change the game.

Cheers!

JT

Highly contoured greens are the only solution that simple minded critics accept, it is not the only solution.  We are stuck with the ball so we need to get over it and come up solutions that work because in another 10 years we are going to have nothing new except treeless over extended putt putt courses.

[Jim Thompson]

John,

So go ahead and present a solution.  What tools does the architect or designer have left in his bags of tricks short of turning golf into the golf course into a glorified crochet course that is so target based that onyl a small group of players can partake of any given course?  If you design by the centerline formula and place features at set intervals then thepalyer can only play those courses for which he or she fits the mold.  The other alternative is to make courses void of tee to green contouring anf features to have a broad based playability or to include enough feature and roll into the tee to green experience that the weaker player will be left to battle with what the general public considers unfair or extreme lies.  The designers that are encouraging features around the destination are the only hope to stop the game from becoming a giant putt putt as you describe.  The better players will always seek the tools to negotiate the challenges put forth and in turn the weaker players generally follow the better players lead.  If you build greens that require shot making and shaping, shot making equipment will return to the market.  Furhter, if you have playing surface that requires spin to hold, spin will be back in the ball.  The tree comment is a red herring and you know it.  Links styling is marketable and it is all about the market.  At my last employment stop I had to play some pretty goofy greens.  They achieved that status due to the severity of their slope and excessive speed.  Oh yeah, they are about the only thing Ross would recognize if he could come back and see it also, but he wouldn't cut them to a 10 stimp.

Give me a few of your solutions.  I'm pretty sure you know better then to consider me to be of a simple mind as well.

[Jim Nugent]

The top ten putters last year, measured by putts per GIR, were:

1.  Tim Clark
2.  Jonathon Byrd
3.  Frederick Jacobsen
4.  Tiger Woods
5.  Ryuji Amada
6.  Brian Gay
6.  Steve Stricker
8.  Bob Estes
8.  Nathan Gree
8.  Justin Rose

So if John is right, Tim Clark and Jonathon Byrd should out-perform Tiger Woods.  Mickelson should not be a top ten golfer.  Neither should Furyk, Els, Scott, Choi or Harrington. 

John is obviously wrong.  Golf is about a whole lot more than putting.  Tiger has mastered that "whole lot more" way more than anyone else.  THAT is why he is number one. 

[Michael Blake]

http://www.sportingchronicle.com/golf/britishopen.html


These guys seem to have been pretty well-rewarded for being great shot-makers on randomly contoured greens.

[Gib Carpenter]

"the art of turning three shots into two"

-"Champagne Tony" Lema

It's probably my favorite golf quote and the one that has had the greatest influence on my own approach to and enjoyment of the game.


Probably my second favorite & most inspirational golf quote:

"Three of those and one of these makes four"

-Walter Hagen

[Kyle Henderson]

One of my problems with the modern whoop-de-doo random contours is that it is close to impossible to control a shot well enough to make a difference for any shot longer than 150 yds out. 

I'm pretty sure has control outside of 150 yards (especially since he's hitting wedge or a knockdown 9 to control his spin where mortals are hitting 8 iron or more). That's part of why he wins, along with his putting.

[Melvyn Morrow]

HAS PUTTING ALWAYS BEEN SO VITAL?

Now there is something that has not changed in over 150 years – yes of course putting is vital. There is a quote by Young Tom about his father
Old Tom which dates back to around the late 1860’s. Tulloch quoted it in his book and it reads as follows:-  “that father would be a good putter if the hole would only meet him half-way”.

That seems to still ring true for me and I expect for many out there.

Tulloch again mentions in his book that Old Tom “In his prime, then, Tom may be said to have been a driver who, as a rule, could be depended on as a long and straight hitter, a splendid approacher, and, with the exception of those fatal short putts, a most admirable putter”.

I read recently that Tiger Woods success over the other professional golfers is down to his consistency with the putter – the author linked this ability to only one other golfer which was Young Tom.

The following are not my words but those of Major Chalmers of Blairgowrie talking about Young Tom
“The best golfers will admit that while they have days when their putting is quite at its best, they have also days when it is very bad indeed. To this failing Young Tom was a notable exception. Whatever the rest of his game may have been on an odd occasion, his putting never varied from its wonderful accuracy. Most players have occasionally to own that they were short with a putt because of sclaffing the ground behind the ball. Tommy never from this cause failed in a putt, because in putting he always half-topped his ball, which caused it to run like a high-hit billiard ball. The ball thus rolled over slight obstacles instead of jumping, as sometimes happens. In addressing his put there was no crouching with right forearm on knee. He stood well up, legs nearly straight, right foot pointing to the ball and so near it that the spectator almost expected to see him hit the toe of his shoe, but this never occurred. If the green was good he always used a wooden putter; if rough, he putted with a common cleek. Many have tried to imitate Tommy’s method of putting; we have never heard of one who succeeded”.
So the secret is out – no new super high tech aerodynamic putter just a wooden shafted putter or cleek – a must for every GCA golf bag.
 
Whatever club you decide upon to complete each hole, it still does not get us away from long course. One of my reasons for disliking long courses is that it becomes a race track with long fairways to speed over in buggies to the next wham, bam thank you ma’m stroke, yet the game really comes alive within 150 m of the flag – it’s the finishing that counts, proven just recently by Tiger.

So “Has putting always been so vital” it always has been and will never change (I hope). I also think the quotes from Young Tom and Major Chalmers are still very much applicable today.

[BVince]

Basically the Bandon Resort is nothing but a walk with beautiful views and a putting contest.  Tiger wins tournament after tournament because he putts better than anyone else.  Bandon IV is now being celebrated because any hack can hit the huge green and it is going to be delicious to watch them putt.  Has putting always been so vital?  Has its  importance gone over the top?  Shouldn't the ball striker be rewarded equally if the game is going to remain fun and balanced?  Is this the result of a lazy populous that begs for everyone to be on equal footing?

Although I think you have a point in that greens may be getting too wild (some greens are like a putt-putt golf course), I think you are off on the statement "the Bandon Resort is nothing but a walk with beautiful views."  Do you think those courses would be booring without the ocean?  These courses are highlighted by the ocean views that excite the senses.  I will back up my point.  The bunkering at both Bandon and Pacific Dunes are wonderfully done.  Pacific's bunkering is world class, the awe-inspiring depth and scale of the bunkers intimidates even the best of golfers.  I think Bandon Dunes does a wonderful job with strategic lines forcing the golfer to calculate his tee shot.  The fairways on all three of the courses are interesting, utilizing contours to a nice effect.

Are you trying to state that harder greens will only make Tiger better?  Why are we so obsessed with Tiger when talking about GCA.  Tiger will pick apart any course, he has proven that.  What doesn't he do well? 

Do tougher/undulating greens not reward the ball striker?  I beg to differ.  The ball striker must hit his approach shot to a portion of the green to maximize the opportunity to make a good score.  Good golfers know that the pin position is a critical element to consider when hitting into the green. 

[Dean Stokes]

Even if the long or belly putter has not skewed the number of putts per round, it should be banned anyway.  When the butt of the club is anchored somewhere on the body, it is not a free swing.  To my mind, it isn't a golf stroke any longer and should be regulated out of the sport.

Wayne, I agree with you but my question remains.... how many guys have won anything of note with the long putter, excepting Bruce Lietzke?


Bob

I think the question should be "how many guys are on tour with a belly/long putter who wouldn't be with a short putter"?

[Scott Witter]

Though I have not been there, I have seen countless photos and good ones that show very well the rumpled contouring in the fairways, roughs and the greens and I have spoken to many average, good and very good players who have been there and when asked a similar question about their experience, none of them have even come close to describing the scenario you present John K.  Most of these players didn't go there because it was cool, they went because from what they heard it was the type of golf they love...different from their previous 25 years of american golf.

From my experienced eye, I believe there is no doubt that the natural and built contouring at the Bandon Resort engages a good many if not most who play there and coupled with the creative putting surfaces, probably offer a bit more than just a good walk and a putting contest IMO.

There is no question that history has shown us that great greens are the heart of the course supported by a great routing, the backbone, therefore there is no doubt that Doak and many other talented architects have taken careful note of this fact and incorporated this into their work.  These same architects are also quick to instill many other essential characteristics and features as a complete package--the contouring of fairways and roughs, to keep the player on guard and off balance at the tee and when facing an approach, yes, to that wild green.  Isn't that the point.  I highly doubt Tom Doak's sole focus was to create the boldest greens possible to push the edge  and basically forget about everything else between the tee and green...for it almost seems that this is suggested

Jim Thompson has it right

"The designers that are encouraging features around the destination are the only hope to stop the game from becoming a giant putt putt as you describe.  The better players will always seek the tools to negotiate the challenges put forth and in turn the weaker players generally follow the better players lead.  If you build greens that require shot making and shaping, shot making equipment will return to the market."

[Kyle Harris]

The top ten putters last year, measured by putts per GIR, were:

1.  Tim Clark
2.  Jonathon Byrd
3.  Frederick Jacobsen
4.  Tiger Woods
5.  Ryuji Amada
6.  Brian Gay
6.  Steve Stricker
8.  Bob Estes
8.  Nathan Gree
8.  Justin Rose

So if John is right, Tim Clark and Jonathon Byrd should out-perform Tiger Woods.  Mickelson should not be a top ten golfer.  Neither should Furyk, Els, Scott, Choi or Harrington. 

John is obviously wrong.  Golf is about a whole lot more than putting.  Tiger has mastered that "whole lot more" way more than anyone else.  THAT is why he is number one. 

Not true if they weren't hitting that many greens in regulation, and they can't get up and down.

[John Moore II]

While I would take a lot of money from people if ball striking was the most important, putting has and will continue to be the most important part of the game. I'd even like to see the US Open held on a putt-putt course with huge sweeping greens. Not really, but an interesting idea. Yes, putting is the most important and will continue to be, it hasn't gotten out of hand, except for those that can't putt.

[Phil McDade]

Even if the long or belly putter has not skewed the number of putts per round, it should be banned anyway.  When the butt of the club is anchored somewhere on the body, it is not a free swing.  To my mind, it isn't a golf stroke any longer and should be regulated out of the sport.

Wayne, I agree with you but my question remains.... how many guys have won anything of note with the long putter, excepting Bruce Lietzke?


Bob

Bob:

My brief recollection and research reveals a few players have won tourneys with the long putter -- McCarron, Couples in his comeback win at Houston a few years ago, Langer has used it pretty extensively late in his career, Monty as well in Ryder Cups. Nick O'Hern has had a fairly serviceable career, including one match-play win over Tiger and President Cup appearances. I think most of Singh's significant wins have come with the shorter putter. Rocco Modiate is credited with the first PGA tour win in '91 using a long putter exclusively.

[Jim Nugent]

The top ten putters last year, measured by putts per GIR, were:

1.  Tim Clark
2.  Jonathon Byrd
3.  Frederick Jacobsen
4.  Tiger Woods
5.  Ryuji Amada
6.  Brian Gay
6.  Steve Stricker
8.  Bob Estes
8.  Nathan Gree
8.  Justin Rose

So if John is right, Tim Clark and Jonathon Byrd should out-perform Tiger Woods.  Mickelson should not be a top ten golfer.  Neither should Furyk, Els, Scott, Choi or Harrington. 

John is obviously wrong.  Golf is about a whole lot more than putting.  Tiger has mastered that "whole lot more" way more than anyone else.  THAT is why he is number one. 

Not true if they weren't hitting that many greens in regulation, and they can't get up and down.

You just made more of my point.  Hitting greens is critical to great golf.  So is short game, outside putting.  Though they, too, are not enough by themselves.   

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

If you'd like to see a system that would probably solve some of your concerns you should read George Thomas' chapter in his book "Golf Architecture in America" entitled "Arbitrary Values." He recommends putts be counted as half-strokes and that courses have half-stroke pars. He believed this would serve to make the "par" value on all types of holes more equitable between good players and the rest. It would also reduce the proportion of scoring with the putter from app. 50% of the strokes of a round to app. 33% of the strokes of a round. The benefits, as well as cost benefits, to architecture would also be pretty interesting.

[Brent Hutto]

In my view, the biggest shortcoming of the game of golf as a game has always been the disproportionate role of putting. That's just a fundamental fact when the object of the game is to roll a ball into a hole only 2-1/2 times the size of the ball. There is no way around it. Unless we want to reinvent the game with a peach basket being the goal we just have to live with the fact that what separates winners from losers in a game between golfers of similar skill comes down to who gets the most putts in the hole.

Generations of players have loved the game in spite of that one little quirk and I love it too. I don't see it being any bigger deal today than it was when Bobby Jones or even Old Tom's were playing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JAKA B,

As putting surfaces get flattened and flatter in order to accomodate higher speeds, I think the trend and emphasis you allude to will continue.

Removing slope and contour diminishes and removes the challenge.

While distance remains THE critical factor in putting, absent appreciable or substantive slope and contour, putting might become akin to free throw shooting, where golfers are expected to make them almost every time.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

You completely missed JakaB's point; he says that Old MacDonald will be a putting contests because the greens are huge (any hack can hit them) and highly undulating (prompting a putting contest). In fact he wants flatter greens so that the better ball striker will have an advantage.

Didn't we have a spirited disscussion about who highly undulating greens favor, good putters or bad? I can't seem to remember who won that extended argument.

[Phil Benedict]

It's a sample of 1 but Tiger really had trouble on the greens at Oakmont, which are among the hardest in the world.  Maybe the difficulty of the greens diminished the edge he has from having near-perfect technique.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You completely missed JakaB's point; he says that Old MacDonald will be a putting contests because the greens are huge (any hack can hit them) and highly undulating (prompting a putting contest).

I didn't think I missed his point, although I do think his premise is flawed.
I thought that JAKA B started off referencing Bandon and OM but expanded his thesis beyond the local confines to a global presentation.[/color]

Basically the Bandon Resort is nothing but a walk with beautiful views and a putting contest. 
Tiger wins tournament after tournament because he putts better than anyone else. 
Bandon IV is now being celebrated because any hack can hit the huge green and it is going to be delicious to watch them putt. 
[size=4x]
Has putting always been so vital? 
Has its  importance gone over the top? 
Shouldn't the ball striker be rewarded equally if the game is going to remain fun and balanced? 
Is this the result of a lazy populous that begs for everyone to be on equal footing?[/size]

In fact he wants flatter greens so that the better ball striker will have an advantage.

I'm certainly against that.
And, more highly contoured/sloped greens FAVOR the better ball striker because he's more likely to put the ball in the ideal position on the green.[/color]

Didn't we have a spirited disscussion about who highly undulating greens favor, good putters or bad?

There was a thread on that subject.

The skilled player always has an advantage, but, that's what handicaps are for, to equalize that advantage.[/color]

I can't seem to remember who won that extended argument.

I'm on the side that maintains that substantively sloped and contoured greens make it more difficult for every golfer to putt, and, that it accentuates the premium on good ball striking.

GCGC, Oakmont and other courses with slope and/or contour remain a challenge for the best players in the world.

Many concede that Tiger is the best putter in the world, however, I don't believe that Tiger made a putt over 10 feet at Oakmont during the Open.

Poor J.B Holmes witnessed what can happen on relatively flat greens.

For me, the beauty of substantively sloped and contoured greens is the heightened chance of three putts and the diminished possiblility of one putts, along with the premium placed on the approach and recovery.

It makes the approach more significant and it makes the recovery more critical.

That rewards good ball strikers, it doesn't penalize them as JAKA B believes.

Back to JAKAB's premise at Bandon/OM.

I take the opposite view.

Large putting surfaces with slope and contour place an emphasis if not a premium on the approach and recovery.

In addition, they reward a lost art, the art of lag putting.

Neil Regan is a virtual magician at lag putting.

With LUSH GREEN conditions, few golfers attempt to putt from off the green.
Whereas, it used to be the norm.

Anyone who's been on the 6th green in regulation at NGLA, on a tier removed from the hole location, can tell you that no matter how good of a putter they are, they're going to, at least, three putt that green.

While I'm not familiar with the internal slope and contouring of the "short" hole green at OM, I'm fairly confident that a poorly hit approach, even one that remains on the green, will be penalized vis a vis a very long approach putt over an undulating putting surface.

Putting from 90 feet or longer is no easy task, for the average or best of golfers.

It's a shot that is seldom presented today.

What JAKA B also forgets is the difficulty of hole locations near the perimeter of that large green.

Miss on the short side and you face a very dicey recovery.
Miss on the long side, leaving yourself a 90 foot putt and you could easily putt into the adjacent bunker or leave yourself well short of the hole.

My guess is that the "short" hole at OM, with its enormous diversity with respect to hole location, will become a favorite hole with repeat play due to its unique personality and playing characteristics.

[Mark_F]

"I'm on the side that maintains that substantively sloped and contoured greens make it more difficult for every golfer to putt, and, that it accentuates the premium on good ball striking.

Patrick,

Don't small greens do this as well?  With the added bonus that misses bring in a large variety of recovery options, not just lag putting.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()