[Tom_Doak]

Can we really ascertain that?  Did Maxwell, for instance, ever write that HE thought the possibility of de-greening a putt was a good thing on his greens?  Or were the 6-8% slopes used then "tuned" to the soils, drainage, speed, etc. to try to achieve about the same thing modern archies try to get with 2% greens?

Jeff:

No, we don't know that.

But, I don't build severe greens because Maxwell did or MacKenzie did.  I build them because my observations of golf courses when I was 19-20 was that the courses with more severe greens were more highly regarded, TODAY; and because I found those greens more interesting to play, not just from famous architects, but at places like The Old Course and Machrihanish where they aren't attributable to any particular architect [cue the wrath of Melvyn ]. 

It may well be that those courses are ranked highly partly because of those architects' stature ... but  I think that's an overstatement of the truth.  If you think back to 30 years ago, before Cornish & Whitten's book, and before most people paid attention to Ross and MacKenzie, what were considered the top courses in the USA?  It was still the same ones as now.  Those courses made their architects famous, not the other way around.

[Ben Sims]

Over the course of a round, is it such a bad thing to have the fear of putting off a green once or twice?  

One thing Don said once in regards to slope/speed sticks out.  We were cutting cups at Wolf for a match one afternoon and I rolled a ball from a few yards above the hole as slowly as humanly possible, and the putt didn't stop until the slope flattened out.  

Don remarked "It's not whether the ball will stop rolling when going downhill, it's whether it will roll to a stop and settle if hit from below the hole."

Shouldn't a green punish a player if out of position just as much as bunkering and blindness can punish wayward tee shots?

[Tom_Doak]

Don remarked "It's not whether the ball will stop rolling when going downhill, it's whether it will roll to a stop and settle if hit from below the hole."

Shouldn't a green punish a player if out of position just as much as bunkering and blindness can punish wayward tee shots?

Lots of players would object to those two statements, but Don has it right, factually ... when you have to call off play is when it gets to the point that the putts are turning around and coming back at you.

[David Harshbarger]

As a member of an unassuming 9-hole course with limited (17) bunkers, it's a blessing to have, depending on pin placement, 4 greens on which one could degreen a put.  I would recommend it on any course, especially more modest courses where the greens and surrounds are asked to contribute the bulk of the interest.  I feel those types of features help a course punch above its weight.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

That is a question I hinted at but no one is really answered - are small, moderate and big breaks inherently about the same amount of fun?  Conceptually, judging the break and executing distance and line is the same, regardless of break.

As Pete Dye says, forget the tour pros (although he doesn't) because their goal is a green you learn quickly when in town for a week.  Add in the speed and reduced break and it does seem that kind of putting is more mechanical and less feel.  (But, what do I know?)

For me, the question is if gentle rolls are really inherently less interesting than the big wild greens?  If not, then I find problems with designing big rolls where they cause maintenance issues.

I also fall in the Colt category of believing that once on the green, if you execute and plan, you should be able to make the putt or put it close.  And, I feel that the more contour is there, the more chance is involved in something freaky happening.  While golf will never be entirely fair, and we can design to a formula far too much in trying to achieve the unachievable, for the most part, I think designing for current conditons of speed, etc. is what we should do.

If you feel that more sloped greens (and I am thinking over the typical 2-3%, not over 1.5% some archies favor now) the question is whether there is there a specific and unique type of big breaking putt you try to achieve that cannot be had other ways? 

Certainly putting over the top of a small knob, or negotiating a tier (the 11th at CD being a great example) cannot be achieved with a gently rolling green.

I recall you adovcating subtle changes in mid slope, such as increasing a 2% slope to 3% for a short distance to mess up distance judgement.  How do you feel about the "up and down" component of every putt some pros say makes putting more difficult to judge?  Is that worth putting in nearly every green?  Of course, those are subtle contour changes, not severe.

Any other neat ideas that cause you to favor wild greens, or just a personal preference based on your own golf experience?

Speaking of that, I wonder if anyone has ever really done a survey when presuming that average golfers like flatter, dull greens?  Or do the course managers simply presume that they know that?

[JESII]

I think it's a mistake to afford golfers the realistic ability to putt the ball stone dead from anywhere on any green. I believe that has to result in less interesting greens, green complexes and course setups.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,

That is a question I hinted at but no one is really answered - are small, moderate and big breaks inherently about the same amount of fun?  Conceptually, judging the break and executing distance and line is the same, regardless of break.

As Pete Dye says, forget the tour pros (although he doesn't) because their goal is a green you learn quickly when in town for a week.  Add in the speed and reduced break and it does seem that kind of putting is more mechanical and less feel.  (But, what do I know?)

For me, the question is if gentle rolls are really inherently less interesting than the big wild greens?  If not, then I find problems with designing big rolls where they cause maintenance issues.

I also fall in the Colt category of believing that once on the green, if you execute and plan, you should be able to make the putt or put it close.  And, I feel that the more contour is there, the more chance is involved in something freaky happening.  While golf will never be entirely fair, and we can design to a formula far too much in trying to achieve the unachievable, for the most part, I think designing for current conditons of speed, etc. is what we should do.

If you feel that more sloped greens (and I am thinking over the typical 2-3%, not over 1.5% some archies favor now) the question is whether there is there a specific and unique type of big breaking putt you try to achieve that cannot be had other ways? 

Certainly putting over the top of a small knob, or negotiating a tier (the 11th at CD being a great example) cannot be achieved with a gently rolling green.

I recall you adovcating subtle changes in mid slope, such as increasing a 2% slope to 3% for a short distance to mess up distance judgement.  How do you feel about the "up and down" component of every putt some pros say makes putting more difficult to judge?  Is that worth putting in nearly every green?  Of course, those are subtle contour changes, not severe.

Any other neat ideas that cause you to favor wild greens, or just a personal preference based on your own golf experience?

Speaking of that, I wonder if anyone has ever really done a survey when presuming that average golfers like flatter, dull greens?  Or do the course managers simply presume that they know that?

Jeff:

Did you ever hear the phrase "paralysis by analysis" ?

You always seem to want to reduce this stuff to a formula.  I am anti-formula, and I think that's precisely why a lot of our fans like the courses we are building.  I'm sure there are some tendencies that could be uncovered through careful analysis, but that's why I've always said if someone pegs what we are doing, we will change and start doing something else.

I don't really give a crap what a survey of average golfers would say.  And I don't always build severe greens, either.  Depends on the site, and it depends on my mood, and it depends on the client, and it depends on who's doing the shaping.  But we are never going to build BORING greens, and sadly, that's all it takes nowadays to set yourself apart from the pack.

[Grant Saunders]

Would it be fair to break down "severe" into 2 different categories from a putting perspective.

Firstly, I feel that you have pitch or constant gradient creating challenge.

Secondly, I see multiple levels or tiers that require putting up, down or across.

A pitched green is for the most part flat and requires the player to calculate the amount of turn the ball will take and how speed will be influenced.

A tiered green ask the player to negotiate a surface that changes predominantly in elevation and requires the golfer to judge how the ball speed will be affected by this.

I have no great issue with either form of challenge on its own, but feel that greens that exhibit both these features are probably entering the realm of difficult for the sake of it as opposed to interesting.

My preference is for greens that utilise levels as opposed to strong pitch. I feel that is a green is made up of fairly benign areas broken up by elevation differentials it is much easier to retain playability.

A tilted or pitched green will become unpinnable or unplayble a lot easier if speeds creep up too much and introduces the ability to putt off the green from more locations. A tiered green will certainly challenge the player to position their ball well and reward them accordingly for doing so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()