[Brent Hutto]

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?

If you extend it forward a few feet will the new approach still be at grade? So presumably the first time they put the hole on the new front area of the green we're back to the same situation.

Am I correct in sensing that some of you guys consider deliberately aiming for the ball to finish a yard or two short of the "putting green" in order to guarantee being below the hole to be some sort of illegitimate tactic forced onto golfers by deficient design and maintenance of the hole?

As far as I'm concerned, if being several yards beyond the hole location of the day means almost certainly putting off the front of the green but the player can safely play short and leave a relatively simple uphill chip that is an entirely satisfactory situation. As a double digit handicapper, that describe at least a handful of holes at my home course on a typical high-summer day. Almost every green that has a front hole location should be played by a golfer like myself where at most one hits the ball hole high and one errs on the side of leaving a 10-yard chip from the fairway-length runup to the front of the green.

But maybe y'all are describing green situations that are somehow different than the usual "When the hole is on the front, being long is dead" kind of thing...

[Ally Mcintosh]

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?

If you extend it forward a few feet will the new approach still be at grade? So presumably the first time they put the hole on the new front area of the green we're back to the same situation.

Brett, I don't really understand... IF at grade then why not extend forward?... If not at grade, then is the approach area a legitimate "target" or does it leave a very difficult up and down... If the latter, then it is not ideally where you want to be

Ally,

Please read.

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

Jim, please read the thread title which is an entirely different question.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think these scenarios too often morph from what is possible to what is absolute.

For instance, if I've missed my approach and left myself with a very tough putt of 30 feet where there is a high chance I could putt off the green, is that OK? Let's say I putt 10 times and the putt is so touchy that 2 putts stay 10 ft short of the hole (worst possible result), 4 end up with in 6 ft, and 4 roll just off the green leaving an uphill 20 footer, is that OK? I think a lot of players would say no because they would remove the notion that they hit a poor approach shot and that even then if they put the perfect weight on the putt they could still get close. What they focus on, is the bad ending and that ends up being an absolute as in "its not fair that I hit a pretty good putt and it still ran off the green."
When golf architecture like that above is deemed unfair, we are done building interesting courses. We can build pretty courses, we can build natural looking courses, but we can no longer build interesting, strategic courses because we've removed subtle penalties and probably replaced them with absolute penalties like pretty ponds and streams. Penalties that don't bother the expert player in the least, but punish the high handicapper.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think these scenarios too often morph from what is possible to what is absolute.

For instance, if I've missed my approach and left myself with a very tough putt of 30 feet where there is a high chance I could putt off the green, is that OK? Let's say I putt 10 times and the putt is so touchy that 2 putts stay 10 ft short of the hole (worst possible result), 4 end up with in 6 ft, and 4 roll just off the green leaving an uphill 20 footer, is that OK?

Absolutely fine with that scenario Don...

Maybe Mike needs to rephrase his title thread question away from the absolute. Unless he believes that absolute.

[mike_malone]

 Ally,
 I intended the title to be only one of my questions. I'm just glad that an architectural thread has gone 3 pages!
This comes from calls at my club to "soften" the greens to avoid these results I brought up.My view is these things make our course distinctive

[JESII]

Mayday,

What holes are you referring to?

What's your thought about Ally's concern of balls running well away from the green once putted (or spun) off?

[mike_malone]

 Jim,
 At Rolling Green we have the usual suspects 8 13 15
 One of our scratch players was complaining to me about going at a back pin (upper tier) on 15 and having the ball spin 70 yards down the hill.
I said it only happens in the fall as there is less resistance on the greens and only good players spin it so much They should spin it less in my mind.
 I do find it unfortunate that on 15  one can catch the ridge that runs across the green in such a way that  the ball rolls back down the hill 70 yards but we all know it can happen and it leads to great grill room chat

[A.G._Crockett]

This thread is the biggest crock of crapola I have EVER read here, and I've read a LOT.

I have never once, not one time, seen a player who, after hitting a decent approach and a decent putt, watched it roll off the green and then considered it to be anything other than goofy, clown's mouth golf, OR a stupid pin placement.

Furthermore, I don't believe for a minute that you yahoos that are presenting yourselves as so dedicated to and appreciative of golf course architecture would be one bit different.  If YOUR well-struck putt rolls off the green and you lose your $10 nassau because of it, you'll bitch and moan just like everybody else.

If you play on a really old classic course that now has green speeds that lead to this phenomenon, that's fine.  But don't confuse an accident of time and space with good design.  It isn't.

[mike_malone]

A.G.
 I was just about to say this situation is actually proof of a well designed course. If we want these speeds on these classic courses than we must accept the consequences.

[Jud_T]

How is a classic course with silly speeds not a problem and a similar green on a modern course with silly speeds a problem?

[JESII]

AG,

This is golf.

When you ask for guarantees from the architect or super you end up with alot of crapola!

[A.G._Crockett]

It's Friday night.  I'm really tired and I've had a couple of beers and my brain hasn't worked properly for about 3 months now due to family illness situations. 

Despite all of that, I'm pretty sure that the last three posts by Jim, Jud, and Mike make no sense and that it isn't my fault that they don't make any sense.

Go ahead and make golf history: the next time YOU hit a good putt and it goes off the green and you lose a match or bet or tournament, smile and congratulate yourself on getting to play on a really cool green. 

Please...

[Jud_T]

It's Friday night.  I'm really tired and I've had a couple of beers and my brain hasn't worked properly for about 3 months now due to family illness situations. 

Despite all of that, I'm pretty sure that the last three posts by Jim, Jud, and Mike make no sense and that it isn't my fault that they don't make any sense.

Go ahead and make golf history: the next time YOU hit a good putt and it goes off the green and you lose a match or bet or tournament, smile and congratulate yourself on getting to play on a really cool green. 

Please...

A.G.,

This happened to me recently at Crystal Downs #11.  Of course if I'd heeded my host's guidance to stay below the hole I might've won the hole or at least pushed it.  I did actually chuckle as we walked off.

[Brent Hutto]

Surely it is permissible to design a green where a "decent approach" means one that is not above the hole.

I don't think anyone is arguing for the validity of greens where every possible putt will roll off the green if it misses the hole. That would indeed be goofy golf.

But I think it entirely valid to have one direction relative to the hole from which any putt will be severely punished. In that case, just hit the ball somewhere else and don't leave yourself that disaster putt.

It's back to Tom Doak's water hazard argument. What I'm hearing is that replacing the back half of a green with a water hazard might OK. Replacing the back half of a green with a bunker out of which it's impossible to keep the ball on the green might be OK. But put grass back there and cut it to putting green height and by god you've got to have a guaranteed way to lag the ball close to the hole or it's goofy golf.

Very strange thinking. There ain't a thing in the world wrong with having a certain area of the green and a certain hole location that mean DON'T HIT IT THERE.

The belief that "on the green" is supposed to guarantee any particular outcome is just as insane as the belief that "missing a fairway" is supposed to mean a stroke lost. The former leads to flat, boring greens and the latter leads to rough so thick that a foursome can lose a dozen balls in a round. All in the name of guaranteed exemption from the usual rub of the green that makes golf interesting.

If we're ever going to talk about "risk-reward" then surely we have to admit the following scenario:

--The hole is cut on the very front of the green, just where the "false front" falloff ends.

--If you hit your approach short of the green it will roll back off the false front. You'll have to chip up to the hole.

--If you can hit your approach exactly pin-high you'll have a makable birdie putt. If you're very nearly pin-high you will at least be able to putt safely and have a routine two-putt at  worst.

--If you hit it above the hole, any putt will run off to the same area where a too-short approach would have ended up.

This is risk-reward, right? If you're certain you can hit it hole high then you'll be rewarded with a birdie putt. If not, then you are smart to aim short and try for the easy up and down. If you go ahead and try to get pin high and go five yards too far you'll almost certainly make bogey.

How is this a worse situation than a decision whether to lay up short of a lake fronting a green? Or trying to decide whether you can carry a fairway bunker to put your drive in the optimal approach position? The only difference I can see is if you consider being "on the green" to have some special status that means where you are on the green can not result in a severe cost...

[Carl Rogers]

It is hard to describe my recent experience.
My ball is above the hole in 3 inch rough 12" off the green adjacent to the upper level of a two level green.  Flag located on the lower level. Green speed about 13+, about 18 " drop between levels.  Lower level drops pretty sharply to a false front.  There is a firm false front to green and a 20' drop to where the ball will come to a rest down the fairway.

A N Y chip, putt, pitch in any direction that clears the upper level gathers significant pace and rolls off the green and down false front the bottom of the hill.

The only remedy, had I known the course better, was to lay up in front of the false front down the hill and lob wedge it up the hill using the slope to the upper level as a backboard ... or (for me) hit a ridiculously lucky shot that balances itself on the lower level.

I contend this not right.

[Sean_A]

It's Friday night.  I'm really tired and I've had a couple of beers and my brain hasn't worked properly for about 3 months now due to family illness situations. 

Despite all of that, I'm pretty sure that the last three posts by Jim, Jud, and Mike make no sense and that it isn't my fault that they don't make any sense.

Go ahead and make golf history: the next time YOU hit a good putt and it goes off the green and you lose a match or bet or tournament, smile and congratulate yourself on getting to play on a really cool green. 

Please...

AG

So are you saying that at no time should someone who is putting not have any chance of staying on the green?  If that is the case, I disagree.  I won't say if its good architecture or not because that is determined on a case by case basis and highly subjective anyway.  What I would say is even if I don't like something I think it can not only be architecture, but also good stuff for a golfer to get into his head.  I don't see why from time to time the archie can't make flat out demands of the golfer - no ifs ands or buts.  That is how I see a downhill putt with no chance of staying on the green unless it goes in the hole.  Where I would personally draw the line in the type of situation is if one is below the hole, knocks a putt fairly close only to watch it roll back to his feet.  If that type of putt is knocked on the head it should help eliminate a large percentage of above the putts which are stupid. 

Going to Mayday's example of his course, I didn't see anything I thought was outrageous with downhill putts.  The problem was me not the course or set-up.  What I would say is there were too many greens with back to front slopes and uphill approaches.  I would prefer more variety in green complexes.  Perhaps the back to fronter is the least interesting type of green.  That said, I have played some courses with a large number of back to fronters, but there was also interesting contours/shelves to play off that increased the interest dramatically.  As is always the case, variety has to be the most important thing about greens.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

It's Friday night.  I'm really tired and I've had a couple of beers and my brain hasn't worked properly for about 3 months now due to family illness situations. 

Despite all of that, I'm pretty sure that the last three posts by Jim, Jud, and Mike make no sense and that it isn't my fault that they don't make any sense.

Go ahead and make golf history: the next time YOU hit a good putt and it goes off the green and you lose a match or bet or tournament, smile and congratulate yourself on getting to play on a really cool green. 

Please...

AG

So are you saying that at no time should someone who is putting not have any chance of staying on the green?  If that is the case, I disagree.  I won't say if its good architecture or not because that is determined on a case by case basis and highly subjective anyway.  What I would say is even if I don't like something I think it can not only be architecture, but also good stuff for a golfer to get into his head.  I don't see why from time to time the archie can't make flat out demands of the golfer - no ifs ands or buts.  That is how I see a downhill putt with no chance of staying on the green unless it goes in the hole.  Where I would personally draw the line in the type of situation is if one is below the hole, knocks a putt fairly close only to watch it roll back to his feet.  If that type of putt is knocked on the head it should help eliminate a large percentage of above the putts which are stupid. 

Going to Mayday's example of his course, I didn't see anything I thought was outrageous with downhill putts.  The problem was me not the course or set-up.  What I would say is there were too many greens with back to front slopes and uphill approaches.  I would prefer more variety in green complexes.  Perhaps the back to fronter is the least interesting type of green.  That said, I have played some courses with a large number of back to fronters, but there was also interesting contours/shelves to play off that increased the interest dramatically.  As is always the case, variety has to be the most important thing about greens.

Ciao

Sean,
Of course I'm not saying "at no time".  I said "after hitting a reasonable approach."

Anybody that's played a reasonable amount of golf knows that there are places on many, many greens where you just can't hit the ball and have a reasonable putt.

That said, when I've seen a good golfer hit a good putt after a good approach only to see the ball go off the green, it has invariably been because of a stupid pin position and/or on a green with too much speed for the slope. 

My issue with the thread is that many are talking as if they face this situation with equanimity, love of the game, and an appreciation of GCA.  Horse hockey.  You're pissed, not philosophical. 

[Peter Pallotta]

You're probably right, AG - we're pissed then (as it is happening, as it did to me at Crystal Downs when I putted into a bunker if I remember, but was too awed by the course and too polite to my host to let my anger show); and we're philosophical now (sitting comfortably in our easy chairs with a cup of hot chocolate and the golden retriever asleep at our feet). I can understand why that gets annoying after 4 pages, but on the other hand it may simply be the way of all flesh  

I'm sorry to hear of the stress you're under, and hope that healing is on its way.

Peter

[Sean_A]

It's Friday night.  I'm really tired and I've had a couple of beers and my brain hasn't worked properly for about 3 months now due to family illness situations. 

Despite all of that, I'm pretty sure that the last three posts by Jim, Jud, and Mike make no sense and that it isn't my fault that they don't make any sense.

Go ahead and make golf history: the next time YOU hit a good putt and it goes off the green and you lose a match or bet or tournament, smile and congratulate yourself on getting to play on a really cool green. 

Please...

AG

So are you saying that at no time should someone who is putting not have any chance of staying on the green?  If that is the case, I disagree.  I won't say if its good architecture or not because that is determined on a case by case basis and highly subjective anyway.  What I would say is even if I don't like something I think it can not only be architecture, but also good stuff for a golfer to get into his head.  I don't see why from time to time the archie can't make flat out demands of the golfer - no ifs ands or buts.  That is how I see a downhill putt with no chance of staying on the green unless it goes in the hole.  Where I would personally draw the line in the type of situation is if one is below the hole, knocks a putt fairly close only to watch it roll back to his feet.  If that type of putt is knocked on the head it should help eliminate a large percentage of above the putts which are stupid. 

Going to Mayday's example of his course, I didn't see anything I thought was outrageous with downhill putts.  The problem was me not the course or set-up.  What I would say is there were too many greens with back to front slopes and uphill approaches.  I would prefer more variety in green complexes.  Perhaps the back to fronter is the least interesting type of green.  That said, I have played some courses with a large number of back to fronters, but there was also interesting contours/shelves to play off that increased the interest dramatically.  As is always the case, variety has to be the most important thing about greens.

Ciao

Sean,
Of course I'm not saying "at no time".  I said "after hitting a reasonable approach."

Anybody that's played a reasonable amount of golf knows that there are places on many, many greens where you just can't hit the ball and have a reasonable putt.

That said, when I've seen a good golfer hit a good putt after a good approach only to see the ball go off the green, it has invariably been because of a stupid pin position and/or on a green with too much speed for the slope. 

My issue with the thread is that many are talking as if they face this situation with equanimity, love of the game, and an appreciation of GCA.  Horse hockey.  You're pissed, not philosophical. 

AG

It sounds like we agree so long as our idea of reasonable is reasonably similar.  However, my proviso would be that I wouldn't like to see more than one or two putts of the "can't get there from here" ilk on any given day.  There are few things worse than one trick ponies.

Concerning being philosophical when one runs into seemingly unfair putts, I turned a corner after playing Tobacco Road some years ago.  I can now laugh stuff like that off and indeed I had an outrageous situation on a suspect green not two weeks ago.  My first reaction was a laugh followed by zero anger.  Maybe I unusual, but I doubt it. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think anyone is arguing for the validity of greens where every possible putt will roll off the green if it misses the hole. That would indeed be goofy golf.

It's back to Tom Doak's water hazard argument. What I'm hearing is that replacing the back half of a green with a water hazard might OK. Replacing the back half of a green with a bunker out of which it's impossible to keep the ball on the green might be OK. But put grass back there and cut it to putting green height and by god you've got to have a guaranteed way to lag the ball close to the hole or it's goofy golf.

Very strange thinking. There ain't a thing in the world wrong with having a certain area of the green and a certain hole location that mean DON'T HIT IT THERE.

The belief that "on the green" is supposed to guarantee any particular outcome is just as insane as the belief that "missing a fairway" is supposed to mean a stroke lost. The former leads to flat, boring greens and the latter leads to rough so thick that a foursome can lose a dozen balls in a round. All in the name of guaranteed exemption from the usual rub of the green that makes golf interesting.

Brent, people are indeed arguing that every single putt from a certain position should roll off the green and I can assure you that rallying against this does not lead to flat, boring greens... It is very possible, nay easy, to design a variety of heavily undulating (over undulating in many people's opinions) set of greens where there is a chance - however difficult - to get your first putt near the hole without having to watch it career off the green (even if a bad putt might do just that)..... As for Tom's lake example and your response, you seem to have ignored my previous answer which tried to show that an equivalent example is a lake hard at the back of a quarter size / half size green with a false front, not at the back of a full size green.... Additionally, the chance to chip once you have gone too long enables you to apply backspin and possibly stop the ball on a lower tier... Putts do not offer this option... I like watching balls being putted off the green, but only if the putt wasn't good...

[A.G._Crockett]

It's Friday night.  I'm really tired and I've had a couple of beers and my brain hasn't worked properly for about 3 months now due to family illness situations. 

Despite all of that, I'm pretty sure that the last three posts by Jim, Jud, and Mike make no sense and that it isn't my fault that they don't make any sense.

Go ahead and make golf history: the next time YOU hit a good putt and it goes off the green and you lose a match or bet or tournament, smile and congratulate yourself on getting to play on a really cool green. 

Please...

AG

So are you saying that at no time should someone who is putting not have any chance of staying on the green?  If that is the case, I disagree.  I won't say if its good architecture or not because that is determined on a case by case basis and highly subjective anyway.  What I would say is even if I don't like something I think it can not only be architecture, but also good stuff for a golfer to get into his head.  I don't see why from time to time the archie can't make flat out demands of the golfer - no ifs ands or buts.  That is how I see a downhill putt with no chance of staying on the green unless it goes in the hole.  Where I would personally draw the line in the type of situation is if one is below the hole, knocks a putt fairly close only to watch it roll back to his feet.  If that type of putt is knocked on the head it should help eliminate a large percentage of above the putts which are stupid. 

Going to Mayday's example of his course, I didn't see anything I thought was outrageous with downhill putts.  The problem was me not the course or set-up.  What I would say is there were too many greens with back to front slopes and uphill approaches.  I would prefer more variety in green complexes.  Perhaps the back to fronter is the least interesting type of green.  That said, I have played some courses with a large number of back to fronters, but there was also interesting contours/shelves to play off that increased the interest dramatically.  As is always the case, variety has to be the most important thing about greens.

Ciao

Sean,
Of course I'm not saying "at no time".  I said "after hitting a reasonable approach."

Anybody that's played a reasonable amount of golf knows that there are places on many, many greens where you just can't hit the ball and have a reasonable putt.

That said, when I've seen a good golfer hit a good putt after a good approach only to see the ball go off the green, it has invariably been because of a stupid pin position and/or on a green with too much speed for the slope. 

My issue with the thread is that many are talking as if they face this situation with equanimity, love of the game, and an appreciation of GCA.  Horse hockey.  You're pissed, not philosophical. 

AG

It sounds like we agree so long as our idea of reasonable is reasonably similar.  However, my proviso would be that I wouldn't like to see more than one or two putts of the "can't get there from here" ilk on any given day.  There are few things worse than one trick ponies.

Concerning being philosophical when one runs into seemingly unfair putts, I turned a corner after playing Tobacco Road some years ago.  I can now laugh stuff like that off and indeed I had an outrageous situation on a suspect green not two weeks ago.  My first reaction was a laugh followed by zero anger.  Maybe I unusual, but I doubt it. 

Ciao

Sean,
I thought about Tobacco Road last night, but didn't write about it.  I will now.  I have had putts roll off greens at TR, some of them decently hit putts.  BUT in every case I had put my approach in a place that you simply couldn't play from, with ample room to keep the ball either below the hole or on the correct level of the green, and that is VERY different from the premise of this thread, IMO.

The greens at TR that offer the possibility of putting off the green are uniformly huge, almost the point of being double greens (think #15 and #17) or greens within a green (#8). If you miss those greens in a way that leaves the possibility of putting off the green, you've just hit a REALLY crappy approach shot.  In fact, on those three greens the putts that could roll off are farther from the hole than chip shots would normally be; they are pitch shot distance.

This is more subtle than the visual intimidation from the tees and the problems with lost balls if you get really wild off the tee or can't carry the tee shot far enough, but it's one of the reasons that TR has a very, very high slope relative to the course rating. 

[Kevin Lynch]

Sean,

The greens at TR that offer the possibility of putting off the green are uniformly huge, almost the point of being double greens (think #15 and #17) or greens within a green (#8). If you miss those greens in a way that leaves the possibility of putting off the green, you've just hit a REALLY crappy approach shot.  In fact, on those three greens the putts that could roll off are farther from the hole than chip shots would normally be; they are pitch shot distance.

Exactly - if you stop thinking that "green height grass" automatically means you did something good, you can get over this issue.  At TR, if the pin is left and you hit the right half of the green, you just missed your approach into a really well-manicured hazard.

As many have said earlier, the question is how close this "hazard" is placed to the "reasonable" intended approach or how many other options are given to avoid such an "absolute" fate.

[Tom_Doak]

The hole at Crystal Downs that raises people's hackles the most is #11.  If you are on the tier of the green above the hole, on any of the tiers, the only way to keep the ball on the green for sure is to putt away from the hole toward the front left corner.  However, there is plenty of room on the approach to stay short of the hole and use the contours in the green as a backstop for your chip.

The problems come when people are trying to putt or chip from the front of the green up to the upper tiers ... if they don't get it up there, their ball might roll back past them and down the hill a way into the approach.  That is a nasty result, and I can sympathize with them, but I still don't think it qualifies as UNFAIR.

Golfers who make rules about what should and shouldn't happen in golf course architecture probably haven't gotten around enough ... the courses that are accepted as the greatest in the world offer exceptions to just about every rule.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I seem to have ended up being one of the naysayers in this thread when actually I like to see the line walked... Just get fed up of a little too much idealistic mouthing sometimes... So maybe we should actually list some great holes where you can't physically hold the green putting close to the pin from other parts of the green... Crystal Downs 11th sounds like it almost fits the description (although not quite if you can hold your ball somewhere on the bottom tier)... I already mentioned Carne 9th.... There MUST be a David Kidd / Paul Kimber green or two out there that fits the bill?

[Sean_A]

For our talk of outrageous downhill putts, can folks come up with courses which feature too many of this sort?  I have heard mention of Pasa being this way, but I don't know how many holes of this ilk are questionable.  Again, it would seem that at Pasa it is a maintenance issue of greens being too fast rather than questionable architecture. 

For my part I may have dislikes of the back to front slippery slope being overdone at courses, but if we allow for the one or two outrageous examples, I don't think I have come across course where I thought the greens were simply silly.  The closest I have seen like is Castle Course, but that didn't have much to do with the slope/contours - more the raised nature of the greens when combined with the slopes (and wind) made more than a few holes pure folly.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()