[Jim Franklin]

complain about the undulations on the Streamsong Blue's greens? I thought it was terrific and if you were not in the right spot you could three putt. Quite a few of my really good playing friends hated it. They complain "it's tricked up" or something to that effect. I always ask if they have played The Old Course since those greens have some sever slopes and wide fairways as well. Plus, isn't the first line of defense a course has these days the green? As far as some of my friends hit it, the course needs some defense. Yesterday, my buddy complained he had five three putt pars. Drove 1 and 12 and then 3 par 5s. Thoughts?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I haven't played the course, so it may not be fair to comment, but in general, most of the people I know who have played the courses prefer the gentler CC greens. I told one golf writer, he could use my line of "Doak greens treat me like a baby treats a diaper" but he declined......

I am not a big fan of the severity of TD's greens (okay, so how's that for not chilling the discussion?) But in an overall sense, here is my take why:

The TOC argument is wrong in this case.  Besides the green speeds, golf design has evolved. It is possible that over 400 years and thousands of golf courses, that the function of a green has evolved, and design thinking has evolved, too.  On another thread, it is asked what is the function of a green, and most think its twofold - accept a shot, and allow a reasonable chance at 2 putts.  Some here don't like the concept of par, and I understand it, but the world apparently doesn't.  They expect a reasonable 2 putt.

In shorter terms - 1. They are too tough for most golfers.  Who should we design courses for?  2. Most golfers don't really like them.  Should we design for current tastes of the majority in most cases?  3. They are harder to maintain.  Maybe even to sustain, a buzz word today.

While we may celebrate the 1% or so of world courses that have Oakmont or Augusta type greens, we have to ask just how many more of them we need to build?  I find myself asking, if every other architect who built severe greens has had them softened, how long will it be until there is a movement to soften TD's greens?

Again, just trying to provide the other side of the spectrum, in the spirit on non chilled discussion about TD work.

[Tom_Doak]

There are certainly places where you can be left with a severe putt on the Blue, and the greens have been faster than I anticipated, every time I've been there since it opened.  That's a tough combination.

I do think that the overlooked part of the conversation is that the greens are so big.  Three-putting from 30 feet is tough.  Three-putting from 75 feet is common, even if the greens are flat.  Your friend wouldn't have complained about those same holes if the part of the green he'd landed on was a bunker, and he'd made par from the bunker.  It's the same discussion at Old Macdonald, so I'm familiar with it ... and my associates are under orders to build smaller greens.

I would argue with Jeff's opinion that "most players don't really like them."  There's plenty of people on both sides of that debate, so everyone can find support for their preference.

[Brent Hutto]

I always thought one purpose of a green COULD be to confound the good players, preventing them from shooting super low scores, so that the course from tee to green can be more friendly to the weaker player.

My home course is not long enough to defend against the very longest hitters (unless we grow the Bermuda rough out to ridiculously penal lengths and pinch in the fairways) and most of the fairways are reasonably wide and level. But when we cut 'em and roll 'em for a big tournament there are pin positions on nearly every green that are tricky. And 1/3 or more of the greens have ridges dividing them into segments. Under tournament conditions being on the wrong side of a ridge can mean even good putters three-putt as often as not.

For me it's an ideal combination. Under most conditions you can play 18 holes with near-zero danger of a lost ball even as a dodgy 17-index like myself. I really wouldn't want to play 100+ rounds a year on a course that costs a State Amateur level player strokes with rough, narrow landing areas and the like. But when the elite players do (very occasionally) play here, they don't often shoot 65 or anything like that because of the greens.

I wonder what proportion of "elite" level golfers prefer a course that's defended with "Doak greens" versus those who prefer all the difficulty to be on the tee shot or on reaching the green in the first place?

[Mark Fedeli]

I had heard all the talk about the greens at Blue before I went and actually found them to be nowhere near as punishing as I was expecting.

I love big, sloping greens and I putt very well on them, but none of the other guys in my group made any comments about them either, and they have no affinity for that style at all. Where there were slopes or big breaks in play, everyone just had a blast lagging their putts up. No one thought they had any unfair or impossible tasks, and we talked about the design of both courses a lot so it would have come up.

In the end, some of the highlights of the trip that immediately come to mind were dramatic long putts with a lot of movement and how much fun everyone had negotiating them.

[Kevin_D]

I think a lot of very good golfers don't like Doak greens. Isn't it as simple as them not liking shooting a bad score on what they think should be an "easy" (due to length and fairway width) course?

Tom,

I find it interesting that you say your associates "are under orders to build smaller greens".  Is that because you think the greens at Old Mac (and elsewhere) are too big?  I haven't played Old Mac (yet!) but in reading about it Keiser seems very proud of how big the greens are, and how it's similar in that regard to the Old Course.  I would just hate for you to be changing your practices because of unwarranted criticism.

Personally - I think variety is the spice of life.  If all greens were small, or big, it would be boring.  So I like playing courses with greens of a variety of sizes.  As to my enjoyment of a round, I do generally prefer larger greens, since I'm a 13 handicap and that lets me hit a few more than I might otherwise, and I'm less bothered by a 3 putt than a 2 handicap.  Case in point, I love Stonewall Old, but I actually prefer Stonewall North because of the additional fairway width and green sizes.

Kevin

[Chris DeToro]

I do think that the overlooked part of the conversation is that the greens are so big.  Three-putting from 30 feet is tough.  Three-putting from 75 feet is common, even if the greens are flat.  Your friend wouldn't have complained about those same holes if the part of the green he'd landed on was a bunker, and he'd made par from the bunker.  It's the same discussion at Old Macdonald, so I'm familiar with it ... and my associates are under orders to build smaller greens.

Couldn't agree more with this point.  However, and I'd love to get Tom's perspective on this, but to what extent do you utilize large greens as a way of "tricking" the golfer?  From my playing experience, I feel much worse walking off a green after having three-putted than if I had failed to get up down from off the green regardless of how long that putt was.  Plus, the large greens make me feel like I'm having a much better ball striking day when the reality is I'd be missing those greens most anywhere else.  

[Josh Tarble]

I really like the greens on the Blue...in fact I've played consistently better on the Blue than the Red both times down there.  I really like them because they make sense.  I've played a few courses where the greens are really wild, just to be wild.  There is no rhyme or reason to any of the undulations.  The greens on the Blue are really wild, but just generally looking at the land will tell you what's going to happen on the greens.

I believe that's part of what makes the Blue the better course, in my opinion.  From the fairway, a player is able to tell the best spot to play at on the green because of the severity.  Since the greens on the Red are a bit more subtle, you can't see some of the contours from far away, so you may be aiming at the wrong spot to begin with.  

Sure, if you miss your spot the Blue it's going to be difficult to get up and down....but there are plenty of options to try to do that.  If you can hit your spots, the Blue generally are easier to read and putt because of the extremity.  

[Jim Franklin]

Quite frankly, I loved the greens and had a great caddie to let me kow where I should and shouldn't miss.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I find it interesting that you say your associates "are under orders to build smaller greens".  Is that because you think the greens at Old Mac (and elsewhere) are too big?  I haven't played Old Mac (yet!) but in reading about it Keiser seems very proud of how big the greens are, and how it's similar in that regard to the Old Course.  I would just hate for you to be changing your practices because of unwarranted criticism.

Kevin:

I like variety, too.  I don't want all my courses to be the same.  So the huge greens at Old Mac were fine in setting it apart from its neighbors, even though they are very expensive to maintain.

However, when you are building greens out of pure sand and there's no expense in making them bigger, it's easier to get a bit sloppy about it and wind up with 18 big greens, a lot more grass to hand-mow, and a lot more three-putts.  And nobody likes to three-putt, myself included -- I am just a better than average putter.  

Think of it in the same terms as computer programming.  My sense is that modern design is really sloppy about using a ton of memory, because it's cheap and they don't care if you have to buy a new computer to run the bigger program.  Someone who takes pride in their work would want to write the software efficiently.

[Tom_Doak]

to what extent do you utilize large greens as a way of "tricking" the golfer?  From my playing experience, I feel much worse walking off a green after having three-putted than if I had failed to get up down from off the green regardless of how long that putt was.  Plus, the large greens make me feel like I'm having a much better ball striking day when the reality is I'd be missing those greens most anywhere else.  

The latter was Mike Keiser's mantra to David Kidd on the original course at Bandon Dunes.  But then Mike didn't want a lot of internal contour, because he knew people didn't like to three-putt and especially not to look silly doing it.  That's why he's been so critical of the greens at Streamsong.  I've reminded him that he wasn't my client at Streamsong ... the client actually loves our greens there.

I have, occasionally, built an extra-large green or portion of a green to lull golfers to sleep so they won't focus on hitting it close ... something I learned from watching play on the 9th and 10th at St. Andrews.  But I can't remember the last time, it's been a while.

[Mark Fedeli]

Tom, another version of Chris' question:

to what extent do you utilize large greens as a way to lift the player who is a poor shotmaker but a great putter, especially among casual golfers? for example, one guy hits a couple below average shots to get on the green but nowhere near the pin, and then 2-putts from there. while his competitor hits two above average shots but 3-putts from much nearer the hole because he underestimated the challenge that remained.

[Tom_Doak]

to what extent do you utilize large greens as a way to lift the player who is a poor shotmaker but a great putter, especially among casual golfers? for example, one guy hits a couple below average shots to get on the green but nowhere near the pin, and then 2-putts from there. while his competitor hits two above average shots but 3-putts from much nearer the hole because he underestimated the challenge that remained.

I use contours to reward great putters. 

But I don't build large greens to flatter poor shotmakers.  My attitude to poor shotmakers is that I'm just trying to keep them in the game.  So I will often give them a big area of short grass somewhere around the green to play to.  But I'll only make it part of the green, if I want to use it for a hole location sometimes.

[Carson Pilcher]

Streamsong Blue's green are fine.  I consider myself somewhat of a good player, and I liked Blue's greens very much.  My only other experience with Doak's greens was Ballyneal, and these seemed tame compared to those.

However, in my group we had two different players putt their first putt into bunkers.  One putted from behind the front right pin position on #8 and it took a left turn and rolled into the bunker.  The other was on the left side of #16 and rolled right past the hole and into the front right bunker.

That can be a little over the top.  However, I respond with, "don't hit your approach there next time".

[Adam Clayman]

Why blame the design when the HOC is to blame?

Augusta syndrome personified.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The better players see the game as making great shots and don't see putting as a shot....." I played really well but three putted four times...." "I hit it great but missed six putts from inside four feet".

Tricky greens and shorter golf courses throw the equilibrium back into the hands of age. It is possible a 59 year old could win a major if the course is playing short and tricky enough that he can use his wise skills to navigate the 72 holes in the lowest score. It has never been done but perhaps it is possible.

[Kevin_D]

Streamsong Blue's green are fine.  I consider myself somewhat of a good player, and I liked Blue's greens very much.  My only other experience with Doak's greens was Ballyneal, and these seemed tame compared to those.

However, in my group we had two different players putt their first putt into bunkers.  One putted from behind the front right pin position on #8 and it took a left turn and rolled into the bunker.  The other was on the left side of #16 and rolled right past the hole and into the front right bunker.

That can be a little over the top.  However, I respond with, "don't hit your approach there next time".

Also, to be fair, I putted into a bunker on Coore & Crenshaw-restored Maidstone. And I saw someone putt into a bunker on Pinehurst #2 this past weekend.  And there are a couple holes at my ~100 year old home course where you can putt into a bunker, or off a green and then 20 yards down a hill on the fairway. So it's not like that situation is unique to Doak greens.

[Mac Plumart]

Matter of fact, I remember someone putting into a bunker at Carson's home course here in Atlanta.

 

[Tom_Doak]

However, in my group we had two different players putt their first putt into bunkers.  One putted from behind the front right pin position on #8 and it took a left turn and rolled into the bunker.  The other was on the left side of #16 and rolled right past the hole and into the front right bunker.

I really can't visualize the putt you describe on #8.  The green doesn't drain toward the bunker, and there is not a lot of slope you'd have to putt up and over.

On #16, the intent was to make you scared of the bunker for your second shot, if you bailed out to the left of the green off the tee.  I didn't think it would actually affect players putting from the left side, only from off the green, but the greens ARE quicker than we visualized, and I very nearly did the same thing on my last round there in January, so I can see how it will happen sometimes.  The lack of a fringe cut on the greens is also a factor ... this is not unknown at Royal Melbourne, and I always thought of #16 as a Royal Melbourne type of hole [although the green is more severe than most there].

Good news:  at least you're not putting into the water, like Tiger did on #13 at Augusta a few years back.  That green is pretty over the top as well, but funny how nobody wants to blow it up.

[Adam Clayman]

I once saw Neil Regan putt into the rear bunker on the 9th in Holydoak. Grant it, he was 107 yards away.

[Chris DeToro]

The better players see the game as making great shots and don't see putting as a shot....." I played really well but three putted four times...." "I hit it great but missed six putts from inside four feet".

Didn't Hogan say that golf and putting were two different games?   

[Tom_Doak]

Didn't Hogan say that golf and putting were two different games?   

Yes, and he enabled a lot of others to think the same way, who are great at the first game and only above average at the second.  But none of the others were as mentally tough as Ben Hogan.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think I see what Doak is getting at about not a lot of analysis. Some of it may be down to the premises in Jim's question. He invites us to single out good golfers and frames their objections as relating to scoring or to some sense of fairness.

But then very few spit that bit and take the opportunity to expand or to reframe the issue -- despite Doak giving us what amounts to an invitation to consider legitimate issues that can arise from green size and internal contour -- and the effect of internal contour when it appears on large greens. (Something I would add to these factors are the axes or spines of the contours, particularly as those relate to approach angles, green slope and features / hazards just off the green surfaces.) And although those issues appear to be separate from green speed (Doak is surprised and dismayed) as a "design" issue, throw that in with green size, internal contour, and spines and you've got a very interesting brew to discuss and, yes, potentially criticize. Certainly at least to get to a deeper understanding. But green speed when raised presents another "dead horse" issue on this site that perhaps frees people from the burden of thinking critically about the design.

Not only that, but on top of the invitation to criticize, Doak props up none other than Mike Keiser "over in the far corner, in the Red (course) trunks" as a potential tag-team partner for those who would "get all analytical upside Blue's head."

And so, perhaps because of the OP's premises and a few "we've had that argument before" freighted terms, no one seems to take the intellectual bait to have the discussion. I actually have a few bones to pick with the course...maybe...maybe...but I'm very unsure of my opinions. I only played it once.

*Please no one take any of the above as shots at you, your intellect, or even your posts. I am trying to get at the dynamics of discussion and why they go in one direction instead of another. It's a thread thing.*

[Rick Shefchik]

I played Streamsong Blue with a low handicap senior who's a terrific putter. He shot upper 80s and said he thought the greens were goofy (I thought they were a lot of fun.) But this is the same guy who accuses me of wanting to make the game too easy by taking out a tree that blocks the right quarter of a par-3 green on our home course.

It's all a matter of taste, I guess.

[Dan Kelly]

Mike [Keiser] didn't want a lot of internal contour, because he knew people didn't like to three-putt and especially not to look silly doing it.

Well, THERE's the problem!

We need to cultivate golfers who enjoy looking silly as they three-putt.

I'm not joking.

I will long remember playing the 16th at Sutton Bay with Mark Amundson. We both faced long putts from the left side of the green to a hole pretty far right.

I missed my line by 10 feet to the right.

He missed his line by 10 feet to the left -- and it was HIS GOLF COURSE!

We both looked silly, and we both walked off with three-putts, shaking our heads -- not in embarrassment, but in wonder at the architecture of that green!

We need more golfers just like Mark and me (emoticon omitted).

The thing that makes me shake my head in disapproval is almost always a ridiculous hole location on an interesting green, not the interesting green itself. But that is not the architect's fault.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()