Ho hum greens...Great course

[Michael Blake]

I'll second Anthony F's nomination of Bethpage Black.

[Mac Plumart]

Chris B...amazing pics!

[Tom Huckaby]

I could argue Sand Hills; outside of a few exceptions there is a lack of internal contour on a large number of them.  They do vary in size and the defense is more the green surrounds than the greens themselves.  Often I had 20-30 footers with less than 6-12 inches of break.

You must have played those greens at quite slow speed if that was the case... which is interesting because a more common "complaint" on here is that they keep them too fast.

I'd put Sand Hills' greens on the other thread, myself.  I found them to be spectacular in every way.  I never faced the putts you did, that's for sure... nor did I face any absurdity of greens that were too fast.

I guess I just got lucky all three times I went there.

[Jud_T]

Haven't played it yet, but wasn't that the beef about Desert Forest in the CG that kept it out of the very highest ranking?

[Ben Sims]

The great course that immediately springs to mind for me as having average greens is Pebble Beach.  While unquestionably unique due to their incredibly small size, for the most part, I do not believe Pebble's greens are particularly interesting once you manage to find the putting surfaces.  It seems to me that most courses with great greens have relatively large putting surfaces in order to accommodate interesting contours.  That just isn't the case at Pebble.  Nevertheless, I lean toward the group that still thinks Pebble is among the best courses in the world.

Ed

This is very interesting to me.  There are two directions I was expecting the debate to go.  

1)  Recent US Open courses that are considered great by the masses.  Torrey, Bethpage, Olympic, Pebble.  These are the sort I was thinking of as having underwhelming--for their stature--green complexes.  I have played only one of those and seen one other.  I don't have any first hand knowledge of Torrey or Bethpage, but TV coverage and talking with those I respect seem to make the conclusion that their greens are less than great.

2) Some of the GB&I courses like Carnoustie and Turnberry.  Funny how that line of thinking has turned to the heathland.

What I didn't expect was to see Sand Hills and Cypress Point mentioned in this thread.  I haven't seen either one, but I'd be shocked if I had the same opinion if I ever do get to play those courses.  

[Kenny Baer]

The greens were very fast; a solid 11.  The first 3 holes have pretty wild undulations; from then on I don't recall anywhere near the severity, I can say this, I played Ballyneal, Sand Hills, and Prairie Dunes and without question the tamest in regards to contour and difficulty were Sand Hills; they were also the fastest of the 3 by far.

[Jerry Kluger]

I believe that any great course which needs its greens running at extremely high speeds to be considered great is really not that great at all.  Some great courses choose to do so but I think they do it for reasons other than making it a better course. i.e. Oakmont, Baltimore CC, etc.  

I would suggest that the powers to be at Torrey Pines should go and see Commonground to understand what can be done to make it far better than it is today.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ben:

I have played each of those, and I was shocked to see them included.  If those are ho-hum greens at either course, then I can't imagine what constitutes exciting.

I'm also confused about the inclusion of Pebble Beach... not sure what makes the definition of those are included.  Those are more subtle than wild modern (Ballyneal, Rock Creek from what I hear) or classic (Pasatiempo) greens but one does have to work very very hard to get the lines at Pebble... I cannot fathom how they are ho-hum given they allow for so many mis-reads (on the subtle ones) and have a few with massive breaks (11, 13, 14 potentially).  I don't get it.

I'm also confused by John Kirk's general take in the other thread (not the mention of Ballyneal, but the general statement) hey, he confuses me a lot.
 


Kenny:  I have played all three of those as well.  Sand Hills' greens would be the "tamest" for sure, in terms of overall internall contour.  But if you saw none after the first three holes, well... I think you need to think about it more.  In any case, saying those were the tamest against those two bastions of wildness is no knock on Sand Hills... can't see how they are "ho-hum" except perhaps when judged against those two.

I still think they belong more in the other thread, with those two of course also.

[Steve Kline]

I would even call Torrey Pines a good course. So, I couldn't put it on this list. Granted I played it a long time ago but I thought it was what it was - a muni.

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

I'm also confused about the inclusion of Pebble Beach... not sure what makes the definition of those are included.  

Huck,

Loss of turgidity should not be a reason for subtle break. 

Seriously though, after walking Pebble for an hour or so--once--I came away underwhelmed by anything but the size of those greens.  Pebble though, might be the most impressive course I've ever seen with such--at least in my mind--boring green complexes.  --Disclaimer.  This does not include the 14th green--

[Tom Huckaby]

Ben:

Love the use of the word "turgidity"... but my friend, walking does NOT equal playing, especially in this case.

Please do putt on them and then report back.  I feel very confident your opinion will change.

[Sean Leary]

Ben:

I'm also confused about the inclusion of Pebble Beach... not sure what makes the definition of those are included.  

Huck,

Loss of turgidity should not be a reason for subtle break. 

Seriously though, after walking Pebble for an hour or so--once--I came away underwhelmed by anything but the size of those greens.  Pebble though, might be the most impressive course I've ever seen with such--at least in my mind--boring green complexes.  --Disclaimer.  This does not include the 14th green--

The tilt to the greens is the key at PB, not the internal contour. Need to play them to appreciate them, IMO...

[Peter Pallotta]

....

The one set of courses where I fear the argument may be true are the heathland courses ... Woodhall Spa, Sunningdale, et al. do not have many greens to write home about, and they are still excellent courses.  But that makes them the exception, not the rule.

Tom - ah!  And if we could only understand how the Sunningdale's et al of the heathlands manage to achieve excellence without a focus/reliance on great greens, we'd all be instantly allowed entry into the secret coven of golf course architects....or at least have a better idea of how some new American courses might achieve the same (if and when the land doesn't naturally lend itself to the creation of a great set of greens)

Peter

[Tom Huckaby]

Exactly, Sean.

1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 all have pretty significant tilt.  The others confuse with subtlety.  But yes, one does tend to get this only when playing them.  I'd agree they don't look like much on TV, or from a walking tour - especially when the likes of Ballyneal seem to have become the standard.

[Pete Lavallee]

Ben, 

I completely agree with Sean and Huck; Pebble has great greens. When I played them In 1984 they were the most difficult to read putts I had ever encountered, and I played Pasatiempo on the same trip. You do need to play them to appreciate them; or take more than an hour to observe them.

[Pete Lavallee]

I would suggest that the powers to be at Torrey Pines should go and see Commonground to understand what can be done to make it far better than it is today.

This comment puzzles me? Jerry, do you think that Rees delivered something completely different than what the Friends of Torrey Pines asked for? If they wanted Doak greens they would have hired him. They wanted what the USGA wanted, surfaces that were flat enough in the different areas to accomadate 13 on the stimpmeter. They got that. I played there the last two Mondays and with the condition they are in now they are a lot of fun to putt and not by any means easy. They are repetative; all being trisected by ridges leaving three distinct pinnable areas. I think their horrid conditioning just after the redesign left a bad taste in a lot of rater's mouths.

[Ben Sims]

Exactly, Sean.

1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 all have pretty significant tilt.  The others confuse with subtlety.  But yes, one does tend to get this only when playing them.  I'd agree they don't look like much on TV, or from a walking tour - especially when the likes of Ballyneal seem to have become the standard.

The standard?  For whom?  This neophytes--like me--on this website?  Okay, you win that one.

But to the other 8 bajillion fafillion golfers out there who have never heard of Ballyneal, Pebble is the standard for quality golf.  I do agree that tilt is just as large a factor as contour (I've played Crystal, Oakmont, among other legendary tilters).  I also agree that I need to play Pebble and Bethpage to appreciate those greens.  

Other than the obvious title, what I think that this thread more clearly investigates, is the feeling that great greens can be many different shapes and sizes and severities and still be considered great.  What I also find interesting, is that generally--not wholly--better players prefer smaller, more subtle green complexes with more clearly defined edges and surrounds.  

[Sean Leary]

I would even call Torrey Pines a good course. So, I couldn't put it on this list. Granted I played it a long time ago but I thought it was what it was - a muni.

No matter how much shit it takes on here, Torrey is, at worst, a very good course. Maybe not what it could have been, but its very good, especially for a muni,,,

[Tom Huckaby]

Ben:

Given the discussion is taking place wholly in here, using the opinions of those in here would seem logical.

You do make a fine observation though that one size does not fit all when one is talking about "great" greens - such designation can come for many reasons.  That's what Sean and Pete and I were getting at.  Pebble's greens are great for reasons wholly different than those at Ballyneal (and I use that just as a very obvious example of "wild" greens familiar to so many in here).  Use Pasatiempo of that makes more sense.

Not sure that one can generalize about what better players prefer... but if you mean golfers whose livelihood depends on making putts, well... I'd say they want them as boring, uniform and flat as they can get.  Outside of that, "better players" also come in many shapes, sizes and preferences.

[Mike Hendren]

I hold The Old Course in highest regard.  That said, it has a handful of pedestrian greens.

Mike

[Scott Warren]

A "handful", Michael? Which ones?

[Mike Hendren]

A "handful", Michael? Which ones?

Arguably  1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 off the top of my head with a couple of those being a stretch.

Mike

[Ed Oden]

Tom, Sean and Pete, since I opened the Pebble can of worms, I'll take a crack at responding rather than putting the burden on Ben.  No doubt Pebble's greens can be a challenge.  But is that really a function of the quality of their design or their size combined with the vagaries of the poa surfaces?  Plus challenge does not necessarily define quality.  For me, the key to great greens (or any other aspect of a golf course) is interest.  And while I love Pebble as a whole, I do not find the greens interesting as a whole.  Granted, some are severely tilted.  However, is that unique?  Does it provide any meaningful interest beyond the difficulty factor.  In fact, I would argue that the two most interesting greens on the course are 14 and 17.  Yet you could make a good case that those are the two worst greens at Pebble, at least in their current form.  Let me ask you this, are there any greens at Pebble that inspire you?  For me the answer right now is most likely no.  That being said, I have seen some of the old photos showing the greens of yesteryear.  They look terrific and my opinion very well could change if they recaptured some of that past glory.  Just one man's thoughts and I respect those who see Pebble's greens in a different light. 

Ed

PS - For what its worth, I have played Pebble 4 times

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

You can have 5, 8, and 9.  The rest of those are a stretch, or you just don't remember them.

[Tom_Doak]

Kenny Baer:

I'd put Prairie Dunes and Ballyneal up there as having among the 10 most severe sets of greens in the world.  So, Sand Hills probably IS a notch down from those.  But, ho hum?  Not.  Heck, you can putt off any number of the greens at Sand Hills.  #6 would be a severe green on any course.  #9 is treacherous if you're putting over the crown in the middle.  #10 is severely tilted.  #18 is nuts.  They are not ho hum.

Don't feel alone, though.  A friend of mine who is on the ranking panel for GOLF Magazine told me he didn't like courses with severe greens, yet he has Prairie Dunes and Crystal Downs and Pine Valley among his top ten courses, and all of those are on the top ten most severe greens list.  It is amazing to me how many details of architecture a good golfer can miss, but it's taught me not to worry so much about what they think!