Who says a putt hit from above the hole must be allowed to stay on the green?

[Terry Lavin]

I'm not saying it HAS to stay on the green, but it sure rankles me if a putt winds up in a bunker, a pond or at the nadir of a twenty foot high slope. Just saying...

[Bill_McBride]

I make the comparison because I haven't played another American course that I can think of that is as wide and full of charming wrinkles and anges.  Obviously it's not a direct comparison, it's what, five years old?!   

Bill:

I have to say, I was so focused on the greens there that I discounted the width and angles of the course a bit.  You are right about the angles, though I wouldn't have used the word "charming" ... they are relentless in the way that it's so hard to get into a position where they are really helping you as opposed to hurting you.

However, the course did not play so wide today, between the strong north winds and the thigh-high native roughs.  There were some pretty good players in our four-ball, and among us we must have lost a dozen balls today.  It's been a pretty good year for growing grass in the roughs here, and I guess I kept Don too busy in Nebraska to give him time to cut the grass at the margins!

Sorry to hear about the high rough, I take it all back.  When I played there a couple of years ago, there was no hay, just a cut a bit higher than the fairways.   

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bill,
the course is exactly the same size as when you played it. there is still that small cut of bermuda rough around the course. Its the native outside of the bermuda that is out of control due to some actual rain this year. We'll cut it back once winter hits, and it'll depend on mother nature again whether is thigh high gunch or sparse native. Its not an area we have ever maintained other then dragging a brush hog thru it once a year. No one ever hit a "good", or even decent shot that ended up a lost ball. The closest would have been Mike who hit a pull on the drivable 1oth and lost his ball, the rest of us either hit the green or were very close.  

edit: Bill the photo below was taken in early November 2010.
That is about how the native TD was describing looks at this time of year. In the winter, Dec-Jan, we cut it back. And from late winter to mid summer it is can be sparse based on the climate. Usually by this time of year its pretty think and needs to be hacked back. You played in April, so the native rough wasn't up yet like it gets this time of year.

[Josh Tarble]

IMO front pins on greens with false front type slopes are THE most challenging position. They get in your head from the tee and I believe te also provide te most options to get it to the hole.  Wouldn't want 18 of them but they are certainly a challenge.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
the course is exactly the same size as when you played it. there is still that small cut of bermuda rough around the course. Its the native outside of the bermuda that is out of control due to some actual rain this year. We'll cut it back once winter hits, and it'll depend on mother nature again whether is thigh high gunch or sparse native. Its not an area we have ever maintained other then dragging a brush hog thru it once a year. No one ever hit a "good", or even decent shot that ended up a lost ball. The closest would have been Mike who hit a pull on the drivable 1oth and lost his ball, the rest of us either hit the green or were very close.  

edit: Bill the photo below was taken in early November 2010.
That is about how the native TD was describing looks at this time of year. In the winter, Dec-Jan, we cut it back. And from late winter to mid summer it is can be sparse based on the climate. Usually by this time of year its pretty think and needs to be hacked back. You played in April, so the native rough wasn't up yet like it gets this time of year.

Thanks, Don.   With 60 yard fairways it will be hard to lose a ball.   Thanks for the photo, love those Texas wildflowers!

[A.G._Crockett]

An important qualifier, I think:

If the pin position is such that there is an opportunity to hit the approach shot on the green but below the hole, then I have no problem with a well-struck putt rolling off the green if the player is above the hole.

That said, in most of the cases in which I've personally experienced a well-struck putt going off the green from above the hole, the pin was in such a place as to make it impossible to be below the hole.  I'll take the bait and say that I have a problem with that sort of setup.

A.G.:

I've got to call you on this one.  If it's impossible to be below the hole, what are you putting into when you putt from above the hole?

Or do you mean you demand an opportunity to be putting from the same level as the pin and below the hole?

Tom,
If I understand your second question correctly, the answer is "no".  BUT I think that a green/pin position on which you can't hit and hold an approach below the hole that is sloped so dramatically that you putt off the green from above the hole is not much fun, slows down play, and is probably poorly designed for today's green speeds.

[ChipOat]

I do.

[mike_malone]

 Chip,

   You are a man of few words but good ones. That is a rare and precious thing.

[JESII]

I do.

Why?

I'm a big believer in the green dictating much of what you do ahead of time.

Simply being on the green shouldn't guarantee anything...but then I figure if I'm going to be behind a tree I'd prefer to be in the fairway.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I do.

Why?

I'm a big believer in the green dictating much of what you do ahead of time.

Simply being on the green shouldn't guarantee anything...but then I figure if I'm going to be behind a tree I'd prefer to be in the fairway.

I agree that being on the green shouldn't guarantee anything... But I also think that a stroke and a half penalty is too much as in this hypothetical example:

Par four with two-tiered raised green and pin on bottom tier... Approach shot hit to back tier but impossible to hold putt going down slope... Ball therefore runs off front meaning up and down for 5 or up and two putts for 6... Too big a penalty...

[Tom_Doak]

I agree that being on the green shouldn't guarantee anything... But I also think that a stroke and a half penalty is too much as in this hypothetical example:

Par four with two-tiered raised green and pin on bottom tier... Approach shot hit to back tier but impossible to hold putt going down slope... Ball therefore runs off front meaning up and down for 5 or up and two putts for 6... Too big a penalty...

If there was a lake behind the green and you went over the green and into it, would that be too big a penalty?

If you hit an approach to the upper tier when you know it's going to be a stroke and a half penalty ... doesn't that merit a stroke and a half penalty?

[Jud_T]

This is silly.  What if the whole damned course was maintained as a green (not too much of a stretch at places like TOC)?  What would you then feel "entitled" to? This is the clearest distillation of the insidiousness of the scorecard and pencil mentality, medal play and the concept of "fairness".  Life isn't fair.  Golf isn't either.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree that being on the green shouldn't guarantee anything... But I also think that a stroke and a half penalty is too much as in this hypothetical example:

Par four with two-tiered raised green and pin on bottom tier... Approach shot hit to back tier but impossible to hold putt going down slope... Ball therefore runs off front meaning up and down for 5 or up and two putts for 6... Too big a penalty...

If there was a lake behind the green and you went over the green and into it, would that be too big a penalty?

If you hit an approach to the upper tier when you know it's going to be a stroke and a half penalty ... doesn't that merit a stroke and a half penalty?

Tom,

I don't think so...

In my opinion it depends on the size of the green and the distance from lake. Generally speaking with that example you are given a full size green (let's say 700m2) to hit and "be safe". Miss that long and you are wet and stroke and a half....

If you are given a bottom tier that is so small that a putt from the top tier can't physically hold it, either the tier is 5 foot high with the green running at 12... or the bottom tier is pretty small (let's say 300m2)... So now you have to hit a 300m2 target or be stroke and a half for going long... More severe than the top example...

I'm all for pushing the boundary and I don't mind it even going over once in a while (number 9 at existing Carne course pretty much falls over the edge and it's a great hole), just very rarely... A couple on the new nine at Carne will come very close to this scenario (1st green high back to low front and 8th green high right to low left) but if they fall over then that is not what was intended... Of course, I could have pretended that it was if I hadn't outed myself here...

Ally

[JESII]

Ally,

I think your "stroke and a half" is misguided. You are either suggesting the player is guaranteed a two putt just for hitting the green, or you're suggesting they didn't have the option to hit their approach shot short of the green. A hole location as difficult as we're describing should not offer an easy par for anyone in my view.

[Brent Hutto]

I think there's an underlying question of whether one thinks being on the putting surface should be accorded special status in terms of what's reasonable to expect as an outcome.

I have encountered players who honestly feel that if you "miss the green" by even a foot and there's no realistic chance of getting down in two from there, well then you should have hit the green. And they also feel that if you're somewhere on the green, even if it is in the wrongest of wrong parts of the green, then you ought to be able to lag the ball up near the hole with a good long putt and if you can't then the green is "unplayable".

There is certainly a way of thinking among golfers, encouraged IMO by some of the comments you hear broadcasters and Tour players utter on television, that certain things should carry a payoff or guarantee. Hitting a fairway should mean being in better than position than missing a fairway, no matter what the actual position relative to the rest of the hole. Being on the green should be better than being off the green, even if the difference is a couple of feet one way or another.

All of that sounds terribly wrong-headed to most of us high-minded traditionalists, right? Yet on the other hand there was a thread on this forum a couple weeks ago about how terrible it was that bunkers are maintained so nicely that often being in a bunker is preferable to being in the rough. After all, bunkers are supposed to be hazards so it should not be simple to hit a good shot out of them, right?

Lots of people have their prejudices. Most of them, whether they use the word or not, concern fair results from certain predefined categories of events on the golf course. Where what is fair seems to vary from person to person.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I think your "stroke and a half" is misguided. You are either suggesting the player is guaranteed a two putt just for hitting the green, or you're suggesting they didn't have the option to hit their approach shot short of the green. A hole location as difficult as we're describing should not offer an easy par for anyone in my view.

Jim, perhaps stroke and a half is a little strong for yes, hitting the wrong portion of a green should always hold the threat of a three putt... But it is most certainly more than one stroke.

Hitting short of the green is not a realistic option when you are talking about a large run-off at the front. Or let's say it is but it's one that no-one should have to make from 150 yards out... or maybe let's just say it is detrimental to playability in my opinion...

My point in my last post still stands. And by the way, I'm no naysayer... I'll even accept the odd green that doesn't let you get right by the hole with your first putt... I am talking purely about greens that necessitate you having to putt off the surface.

[Mark Pearce]

Ally,

I think your "stroke and a half" is misguided. You are either suggesting the player is guaranteed a two putt just for hitting the green, or you're suggesting they didn't have the option to hit their approach shot short of the green. A hole location as difficult as we're describing should not offer an easy par for anyone in my view.

Jim,

I agree with that.  However, what you appear to be saying is that it is OK for a miss which is long but still on the green (and, in some cases not far past the hole) to guarantee a dropped shot.  That is, there is no recovery from a shot which is on the (wrong part of the) green.  Effectively, that part of the green is functionally equivalent to Tom Doak's hypothetical water hazard.  That seems wrong, to me.

I have no problem at all with a green where it is relatively easy to three putt (by, say, playing to the tier the pin is on but not close to the pin) but trying to 2 putt can lead to more than one dropped shot, but a hole where no putt from a certain position can be kept on the green?

[JESII]

What I'm saying is designing a green that's impossible to putt off from any spot to any hole location will result in incredibly boring and non-strategic greens.

By the way, I've never played a hole with a green that left no option but to de-green.



Ally,

Your example describes a hole I've never played or seen pictures of...but it's still playable. The 5 foot high tier provides a very generous backstop for any ball short of the green, the player should not make more than bogey on that hole. How far short of the green are you suggesting balls putt off the green are going? Can that area be maintained as a slightly longer cut to keep balls nearer the green?

[Ally Mcintosh]

What I'm saying is designing a green that's impossible to putt off from any spot to any hole location will result in incredibly boring and non-strategic greens.

By the way, I've never played a hole with a green that left no option but to de-green.


Ally,

Your example describes a hole I've never played or seen pictures of...but it's still playable. The 5 foot high tier provides a very generous backstop for any ball short of the green, the player should not make more than bogey on that hole. How far short of the green are you suggesting balls putt off the green are going? Can that area be maintained as a slightly longer cut to keep balls nearer the green?

Jim, that is what this thread is about. We are talking about different things. I'm all for the possibility of de-greening, just not having it insisted upon me.

The 5 foot tier was not part of the example, it was just a case where the lower degreening part could be larger. Generally the degreening impossible pin position part is going to be very small exactly because there won't be a 5 foot tier with a green running at 12... Therefore it is a very small target with a very big penalty for missing.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ally
What if the lower target isn't 300m2, but also includes the approach?
Just because it is your target, doesn't mean it is mine.
Cheers

[Josh Tarble]

I think there should be more greens with a possibility to putt off of.  It seems that the best method of defending par (whatever that's worth) are the green complexes.

At my new club, all 18 greens have the option of putting off the green if you're not careful.  It's a fairly short course, but your game has to be completely on to score well.  If you are hitting from the wrong spot, even in the fairway, it's going to be tough to get at some pins.  To me, this is what a course should be about.  A testing green complex that affects your decision making from the tee.

[Mark Pearce]

Jim,

I completely agree.  I've never seen a green like this either, though I've seen plenty where the safe bet was to putt to a spot where I had a decent chance of 2 putting from and have absolutely no issue with a green like that.  I suspect we're pretty much in complete agreement on this question.  However, the OP did seem to ask us to consider a green where it was impossible to keep a butt on the green.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally
What if the lower target isn't 300m2, but also includes the approach?
Just because it is your target, doesn't mean it is mine.
Cheers

Mike,

If the approach is at grade (give or take), with putting back an option then I'm more inclined to give it a pass.... Even though it means it is a physical impossibility to get your first putt closer than seven feet to the hole - given that the pin will be minimum six feet on... But given the raised green in my example, your ball is running further and you are chipping back from a greater distance...

Raised green is more likely scenario because the false front / spill at the front is usually what will exacerbate the problem in the first place... If at grade, why not just extend the green forward a few feet?

[ChipOat]

Mike Malone:

Thank you for the compliment.

However, I've started entire threads on this subject (some with a Merion title) wherein I was considerably more verbose.  After Stupid Trees, this is my second pet peeve re: golf architecture.

Hence, there was no need to even read the opinions of others on this thread, nor to answer them in the same passionate way as I have done in the past.  I would even disagree with Tom Doak on this one if he took the other side.  It's a philosophical thing - there are no FACTS (Mucci emphasis), just a belief one way or the other.

This time, less was more and more would have been repetitive on my part.

For me - case closed.

[JESII]

Ally,

Please read.

Who says you must be allowed to putt at the hole from every place on the green?