[Joe Hancock]

OK, first start of a thread for me!
As a player I know which greens I get most frustrated with: those flat, almost unreadable greens that you think you'll make everything you stand over. My question, pertaining to architecture, is this: does the architect feel that he/ she has to make a decision at the start of a project to go with those slopey, interesting greens we're always discussing here, or go with flat greens that are still playable when stimping at a bazillion feet that the owners/ memebers THINK they want? Is there some merit to those greens that has breaks almost unpercievable to the players eye, sometimes double crossing them? I almost always putt better on slopey greens that leave no doubt as to which way the ball is going to go after I strike it. Any examples of great greens that are considered "flat"?

Joe

[brad_miller]

Don't know if they would be called great, but the greens at Greenwich CC fit your comment well. When pins are  placed on the ridges of small noles they can be quite difficult to put. Isn't Garden City our best example of such??

[Frank U. Kaiser]

Garden City has the flattest-looking greens of any well-regarded course I have played.  They are relatively easy to putt because they are in great shape and are very fast.

Bethpage has flat greens compared to other championship courses.  Maybe they are very difficult in the US Open, but they are hard to putt on during regular play because they are so slow.

Shinnecock is another example of a good course with flat greens compared to other US Open venues.    

[Neal_Meagher]

Ah,  

A subject I can really sink my beat up old bulls-eye into.

To answer the first question, it should be the architect's responsibility to figure out going in what the overall character, feel and playabilty of every course should be.  If there is an overbearing owner who wants every green to stimp 12 every day, then you should know that.  Conversely, the most fun I have had putting was on Mr. Bahto's course in Hauppauge on Long Island.  Wildly undulating but slow enough that no one would get any heartburn over them.

And I agree that the almost flat green is the devil to putt on.  That is why I hate them.  I really prefer the roller-coaster ride greens.  And here is another one for you: would one say that those very over-the-top greens actually speed up play because it is so glaringly obvious how the thing breaks?  As opposed to sauntering around all four points of the compass, measuring the wind and barometric pressure and the final indignity, death by plumb-bob?  I'll just take the meandering, fun green any day.

But, that is for the right course and right client.  I have only had the opportunity to design one course for a demanding client intent on hosting major events.  Read that one again: MAJOR events.  Of course, those greens have some smooth and interesting undulations that tie in well and work for the shot called for, but not so much so that they will be out of hand when the tournament is played there.

In short, communication is the key ingredient when sizing up any golf project and that starts with the architect getting waaaaaaay inside the head of the people for whom he is designing.

[brad_miller]

Not if you take dead aim just don't give the hole away!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frank U Kaiser - anonymous - aka FUK,

With very wide fairways and flat greens that you say are easy to putt,
why does Garden City Golf Club resist scoring so well ?

[Jeff Mingay]

Very interesting thread.

I grew-up on a Ross course with "flat but tricky greens" -- flat ones that are often difficult to read. Bruce Hepner surveyed the greens at Essex (the course I grew-up on) and I recall him telling me that there are very few true flat spots outside 1 foot of any potential hole location throughout the course. Again, these breaks are imperceivable. And I imagine this subtlety has a lot to with the fact those greens were built without the help of a bulldozer.

On the same subject, Rod Whitman, Dave Axland and I were talking about building "flat" greens a month or so ago in Edmonton. Being the experienced guys they are, I take their word for it when they say building "flattish" greens, with the type of character described above by Mr. Hancock, takes an extraordinary talent. In other words, it's much easier to build a green with bold contour than one with interesting subtleties.

I'll never forget that conversation with Rod and Dave.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

Must be that lack of talent that makes me more comfortable shaping bunkers instead of tee tops...seriously!

I agree,

Joe

[Jeff Mingay]

Joe,

I never thought about it that way! But realize now I'm in the same boat -- much more comfortable doing bunkers than tees... which is probably why every green I've shaped is boldly contoured! A lack of talent  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()