[Tom_Doak]

And although those issues appear to be separate from green speed (Doak is surprised and dismayed) as a "design" issue,

*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.*

Mark:

Please be careful what you say, too.  I don't believe I used the word "dismayed" -- I said only that the greens are faster than I visualized they would be.  In general, the presentation of the courses at Streamsong is magnificent.  I would love to take Rusty and Kyle to another project, except that they're making me look good where they are, and I did have a hand in both of them being there. 

The green speed is faster than I would have it myself -- this is true more and more across America today -- but I'm guessing it's not faster than the client wants it.

*Please don't take the above as a shot at you.  It's just that the discussion frequently gets off track when someone quotes back another having said something different to what they really said ... just like discussions at home    *

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yes, my words not yours.   

When I have some time I'll try to put up my thoughts -- well, questions, such as: can every hole location be "solved" on the 6th green and: a) if so, do some/many take so long to solve as to render them practically unsolvable, given it's a public course; b) if not, what do we make of that?

These are meant as open questions even if they are somewhat leading in that they're based on limited personal experience. (I am not sure playing that course once makes me any more of an "authority" than someone who's played it not at all. In some ways probably less.)

[Tom_Doak]

Yes, my words not yours.   

When I have some time I'll try to put up my thoughts -- well, questions, such as: can every hole location be "solved" on the 6th green and: a) if so, do some/many take so long to solve as to render them practically unsolvable, given it's a public course; b) if not, what do we make of that?

These are meant as open questions even if they are somewhat leading in that they're based on limited personal experience. (I am not sure playing that course once makes me any more of an "authority" than someone who's played it not at all. In some ways probably less.)

Please include some thoughts on what you mean by "solved".

One of my old friends [Scott Pool, who worked on the crew at Long Cove back in '81] is now the guy who does those computer analyses of green contours for clubs considering renovation work.  He did an analysis of the 1st green at Sebonack, and showed me a diagram of how few hole locations there were where it was theoretically possible to make a putt from anywhere else on the green.  And I just shrugged and said I didn't always WANT you to be able to make a putt from anywhere on the green.

[Terry Lavin]

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

 

I saw a friend putt into a bunker at Chicago Golf Club, so it can happen at shrines as well...

[William_G]

Most good players in the US play the air game very well and expect 2 puts especially when they are playing medal play

3 putts are fine and those wild undulations are fun when you are winning your match LOL

[William_G]

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

 

I saw a friend putt into a bunker at Chicago Golf Club, so it can happen at shrines as well...

I think Mac may have been referring to a shrine in ATL as well

[Jeff_Brauer]

In a high school golf match, I got dyslexic and read a putt 4 ft left, but aimed 4 ft right, thus, de-greening my putt into a pond.  Pretty embarrassing!

I also recall putting into the green side bunker on the fifth at Pinehurst 2.  Caddy said "I knew you were going to do that as soon as I saw that backswing."(It was about a three inch backswing.....)

[Garland Bayley]

complain about the undulations on the Streamsong Blue's greens? ...

Good players complain about greens they three putt period! The single digit handicap I play with will start the clowns mouth complaint when he three putts any green on our home course. I always have to remind him that he knows the course and he knows where to leave his approaches, so his complaint is about his approach not the green.

Part of this perhaps is research that says being a liar is often a key to obtaining greatness. I.e., you lie to yourself that it was the courses fault not yours, so you suffer no damage to your confidence.

We high handicappers always know it is our fault, so we can never get any good at the game.

[Tom_Doak]

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

 

I saw a friend putt into a bunker at Chicago Golf Club, so it can happen at shrines as well...

I would wager it happens much more often at prominent courses.

[William_G]

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

 

I saw a friend putt into a bunker at Chicago Golf Club, so it can happen at shrines as well...

I would wager it happens much more often at prominent courses.

I would not bet against that

[Jim Franklin]

The green that my boy hates the most is #7 Blue. He said for a 200 yard shot, that green is way too severe. Granted, I have only played it twice, but a routine two putt par and an up and down par didn't seem too challenging. I know the guys I played with struggled with that hole, but I thought the green was fine. Anyone else think this green is too severe for its length?

[Bill_McBride]

The green that my boy hates the most is #7 Blue. He said for a 200 yard shot, that green is way too severe. Granted, I have only played it twice, but a routine two putt par and an up and down par didn't seem too challenging. I know the guys I played with struggled with that hole, but I thought the green was fine. Anyone else think this green is too severe for its length?

Of course, but so what?   There are a number of holes at Streamsong Blue that are a real challenge, which just adds to the fun of playing there. 

[Chris DeToro]

I actually didn't find that green too severe even for a hole that length.  Granted I'll admit bias as #7 Blue is on my favorite holes of all time list.  I thought the landing area was quite severe, but it should be.  There's plenty of width in other areas of the course, especially on that opening stretch of holes, that I think you can get away with demanding a more exacting shot here

[Tom_Doak]

The green that my boy hates the most is #7 Blue. He said for a 200 yard shot, that green is way too severe. Granted, I have only played it twice, but a routine two putt par and an up and down par didn't seem too challenging. I know the guys I played with struggled with that hole, but I thought the green was fine. Anyone else think this green is too severe for its length?

The back left is more severe than it was meant to be.  The original green site was quite tilted and we kept working on making it more level -- I think we had to go back twice to re-shape it while it was still in the dirt.  At the end, I thought it was okay, but it's very tough at the speeds I've played it.  The back-left hole location is nasty at high green speeds; all the other hole locations seem fine.

[Keith OHalloran]

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.

Tom, I think I have read  something similar about the green speeds at Sebonack, so with that in mind I was wondering if you could lend some insight on a few questions.
1. When does the green speed question come up with the owner?
2. What green speeds were you anticipating at Streamsong, and how much faster were they?
3. Now that you have seen this happen at least twice, do you think it is incumbent on the architect to anticipate this problem, and design for the higher speeds regardless of the promises during design?

[Steven Blake]

Good players, some not all, have extreme vanity to the point when they putt/play bad someone has to be at fault.  Perhaps its the greenkeeper who has the greens too fast or slow.  Or maybe its the golf course architect for designing such a silly green.  It's the group ahead who is playing so slow that is preventing me from playing at my best.

Anything other than the fact that they suck at golf. 

If good players are fooled by a green then I call it great architecture.   

My experience is that most "good" players like flatter greens, zero blind shots and a courses that have such little interest a person can play it successfully the first time through. 

Steve Blake

[Matthew Rose]

I don't think there are silly greens, just silly pin placements. Any green is playable if the hole locations are set properly. The problem I have is that many public courses that I play have people with no clue in charge of setting up the course, and they automatically put them in high spots or on slopes for drainage, without much thought as to fairness. Sometimes it becomes perilously close to miniature golf.

I don't really care about green speed as long as 1) the greens are fairly true and 2) the speed is fairly consistent on every hole. I don't care if they are running at 8 or 12 as long as they are in good shape and every hole is an 8 (or a 12).

Severe greens are fine if there is strategic merit. I don't mind the old-fashioned concept of "staying below the hole", as long as a reasonable shot can land there.

[Tom_Doak]

om, I think I have read  something similar about the green speeds at Sebonack, so with that in mind I was wondering if you could lend some insight on a few questions.
1. When does the green speed question come up with the owner?
2. What green speeds were you anticipating at Streamsong, and how much faster were they?
3. Now that you have seen this happen at least twice, do you think it is incumbent on the architect to anticipate this problem, and design for the higher speeds regardless of the promises during design?

1.  A lot of times we'll bring up the issue early, to try and get a sense of how much contour will be tolerable.  At Sebonack, the discussion wasn't until a bit later, standing on the 3rd green when it was shaped.  Mr. Nicklaus asked Mr. Pascucci if he intended to have "fast" greens, because if they were really fast, the contours my crew were building would be too severe.  Michael asked Jack what speed he meant as "fast" and Jack said "over 11 1/2" and Michael said he wouldn't go above that.  But in my experience, they frequently do.

2.  I won't put numbers to the greens at Streamsong, because Rusty doesn't own a Stimpmeter and doesn't want to do paint by numbers, and I respect that.  They're maybe a foot faster than I thought they'd get.  They are at their fastest in the winter months after a bit of a cold snap, the grass basically stops growing and all the traffic keeps them very firm and very keen, which is a bit hard to control ... either you have to be able to predict the cold snap, or keep the greens a bit slower than you'd like them until the cold snap comes.

3.  I've seen this happen at least ten times on my 30+ projects, going back to the original course at Stonewall in 1993.  Owners, or members, or superintendents just want to push the envelope on green speeds compared to the club across the street, and don't correctly weigh the difference in contours from one course to the next.  It's rarely that they get to be impossible -- despite these complaints, I don't think Streamsong has been anywhere near impossible -- it's just tougher than the customers want it.  I've gotten more cautious about green contours over the years [ask my associates], but I am not going to build them flat to avoid the potential of a problem, because then the only way to keep the interest in the course is to keep the greens fast every day, and that's one of the things that's killing the game, in my opinion.

I can continue to take my lumps on this happily, because I know that most of my greens aren't any more severe than many of the courses people revere.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
I wasn't tryin to "lump you up" just wondering. Seems like every owner will want every green as fast as possible regardless of what they say during construction. I would think that is one of the main issues with design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I preferred the Blue course, as did another GCA.com'er from NJ and I preferred the putting surfaces at the Blue.

To date, I've never had anyone tell me that they objected to the putting surfaces on the Blue.

[Tim_Weiman]

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.

Jeff,

Just so you can be assured you are not "chilling discussion" I want to say I hate everything you just said. So, there!

[Steve Lapper]

While I preferred the Red on design, continuity, and the lack of any uninteresting holes, I did really enjoy the Blue and didn't find most of the greens severe or ridiculous. I didn't care much for the green on 11, and found the slope on 8 a tad too steep and contour too busy, yet most all the others were eminently reasonable. Just another opinion.

[Tim_Weiman]

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?

Jim,

Here is my take on Streamsong Blue based on playing it just once: I don't think it is a good "resort course" where, most likely, guests will only play it once or twice. Should be a private club where members get to play it repeatedly.

Seems like the real fun on Streamsong Blue approach shots (and therefore with putting) would come from knowing something about the greens contour and how the ball is likely to move once it lands.

[Jim Nugent]

Here is my take on Streamsong Blue based on playing it just once: I don't think it is a good "resort course" where, most likely, guests will only play it once or twice. Should be a private club where members get to play it repeatedly.

Seems like the real fun on Streamsong Blue approach shots (and therefore with putting) would come from knowing something about the greens contour and how the ball is likely to move once it lands.

But are they aiming at one-visit players, or more the Bandon model, where the courses are so good they draw players back time and time again for repeat play? 

[Tim_Weiman]

Here is my take on Streamsong Blue based on playing it just once: I don't think it is a good "resort course" where, most likely, guests will only play it once or twice. Should be a private club where members get to play it repeatedly.

Seems like the real fun on Streamsong Blue approach shots (and therefore with putting) would come from knowing something about the greens contour and how the ball is likely to move once it lands.

But are they aiming at one-visit players, or more the Bandon model, where the courses are so good they draw players back time and time again for repeat play? 

Jim,

Good point. My understanding is the Bandon model which fits, IMO.

A place like Pebble Beach strikes me as more the "resort".  You can play Pebble "once in a lifetime" and enjoy it. But, Streamsong just strikes me as best repeated. Better the fifth time than the first.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()