Short putting difficulty and green design

[James Brown]

I have a question for the architects:  How do you approach the question of pin locations and the relative difficulty of short putting in designing greens?  Over the past 5-6 years as I have played more high level events and great courses, I have stated to divide green designs into "continuous slope" greens and "shelf" greens, with the shelf greens being flatter around the hole locations but steeper else where.  For me, shelf greens, with different regions, are generally more interesting, but perhaps easier, since I am a very good short putter but tend to struggle on long putts with a lot of slope and speed.  Very [size=78%]many of the best tournament courses seem to be more of the continuous slope variety, e.g Oakmont.  My favorite courses seem to be more shelfy, e.g. The Old Course[/size]




Is this a set of distinctions that make and sense?  What do you think. 

[Tom_Doak]

"Continuous slope designs" are rare on modern courses because the standard of maximum slope has changed so much due to higher green speeds.


In the old days, architects would start with a 2% or 3% back to front slope, and then oscillate up or down within the green.  But today, any portion of the green that's over 3% has been deemed "unpinnable" [and therefore wasted space], so you are less likely to see something like that.


That said, I think the idea that it won't work anymore is wrong, because it still works so well on a lot of Golden Age courses.  I'd love to find a project where it made sense to build a set of tilted greens like that.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I probably do three or four greens per course of greens that are flattish or tilt all one way. Nearly all my greens have multiple drain outlets now. Rewinding 25 years it was probably only three or four that had multiple drain outlets.


The shelfing I like to do myself with a sandpro and blade just to make sure important pinning areas remain.

[James Brown]

I probably do three or four greens per course of greens that are flattish or tilt all one way. Nearly all my greens have multiple drain outlets now. Rewinding 25 years it was probably only three or four that had multiple drain outlets.


The shelfing I like to do myself with a sandpro and blade just to make sure important pinning areas remain.

What's your thinking on how big (or small) you make your shelves? 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I probably do three or four greens per course of greens that are flattish or tilt all one way. Nearly all my greens have multiple drain outlets now. Rewinding 25 years it was probably only three or four that had multiple drain outlets.


The shelfing I like to do myself with a sandpro and blade just to make sure important pinning areas remain.

What's your thinking on how big (or small) you make your shelves?

No rules really other than creating enough pinning space overall in the green. Shelf wise I just vary the size, but I have gone as small as just a 3 foot circle.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good question.  Like Adrian, I limit continuous slope greens to a few, really 1 to 2 each course if I can.  Greens that slope to the front right or left corner are reserved for uphill approach shots, where even the tiniest ridge would blind a lot of the green.  On about half my courses I have done a Redan and/or the old Ross reverse slope green (typified by 12 (I think) at White Bear Yacht Club and 14 at Oakland Hills.


Using a digital level, and some advice from Pete Dye, I cap my continuous slope greens at 2.25% which at green speeds of 10 or so is on the edge of comfortable and scary, but doable.  If I had any thought they would get greens to 13 or whatever, I would only go slightly over 2%.


And like Adrian, I also try to do some flattish greens, basically all 1.5% (minimum drainage for me).  I can't really prove the theory works, but figure if I mix basic slopes from 1.5 to 1.75, to 2, to 2.25% it may confuse putters all day that they can never get a read by osmosis where every green has 2% slope.  I like to think it makes a difference, but who knows?


As to shelves, at an ASGCA meeting one time, Jack Nicklaus mentioned he would never aim at a shelf target unless it was at least 40 foot diameter.  That was good enough for me to make that the minimum size, and frankly usually go 45-50 feet to allow for the edge of the green creeping in.

[Grant Saunders]

Could part of the reason for less examples of uniformly pitched greens in today's architecture be that they dont gel as well with a goal of naturalism?  They are much more difficult to tie into surrounding areas where bold movement is promoted

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure its tied to naturalism, more just as works of art, flat surfaces, like tees, don't usually look that great in rolling topography.  There is also the practical factor that its preferred to drain greens 2 to 3 ways, and the single sheet flow green doesn't do that as well.

[James Brown]

Good question.  Like Adrian, I limit continuous slope greens to a few, really 1 to 2 each course if I can.  Greens that slope to the front right or left corner are reserved for uphill approach shots, where even the tiniest ridge would blind a lot of the green.  On about half my courses I have done a Redan and/or the old Ross reverse slope green (typified by 12 (I think) at White Bear Yacht Club and 14 at Oakland Hills.


Using a digital level, and some advice from Pete Dye, I cap my continuous slope greens at 2.25% which at green speeds of 10 or so is on the edge of comfortable and scary, but doable.  If I had any thought they would get greens to 13 or whatever, I would only go slightly over 2%.


And like Adrian, I also try to do some flattish greens, basically all 1.5% (minimum drainage for me).  I can't really prove the theory works, but figure if I mix basic slopes from 1.5 to 1.75, to 2, to 2.25% it may confuse putters all day that they can never get a read by osmosis where every green has 2% slope.  I like to think it makes a difference, but who knows?


As to shelves, at an ASGCA meeting one time, Jack Nicklaus mentioned he would never aim at a shelf target unless it was at least 40 foot diameter.  That was good enough for me to make that the minimum size, and frankly usually go 45-50 feet to allow for the edge of the green creeping in.

Very interesting.  I would love to see some putting stats on the difference in difficulty in making a circle of five footers at 2.25% versus 1.5% at different green speeds.  I don't think that relationship is linear. 


We debate length a lot here, but seems to me, GCA could be more creative in raising the difficulty of the greens,  Stronger slopes with slower greens? 

[jeffwarne]

As to shelves, at an ASGCA meeting one time, Jack Nicklaus mentioned he would never aim at a shelf target unless it was at least 40 foot diameter.  That was good enough for me to make that the minimum size, and frankly usually go 45-50 feet to allow for the edge of the green creeping in.

Aside from maintenance concerns, wouldn't that be a reason TO build a shelf target smaller than 40 feet?
i.e. to seduce someone without the strategic discipline of Nicklaus into a mistake and rewarding over time the disciplined player who made the choice to hit to the safer, larger target.
Put another way, always making the target choice obviously obtainable negates the strategic genius of a Nicklaus

[Jeff_Brauer]

My thought was that if it was too small for Jack to hit, it is too small for the rest of us to hit.


If you want to entice players to take the risky shot, you need to make it doable.  Not sure what % of players with skill are that undisciplined to make it work at smaller sizes, and we sure don't want to make it near impossible for average players.

[jeffwarne]

My thought was that if it was too small for Jack to hit, it is too small for the rest of us to hit.


If you want to entice players to take the risky shot, you need to make it doable.  Not sure what % of players with skill are that undisciplined to make it work at smaller sizes, and we sure don't want to make it near impossible for average players.

agree completely with the first sentence


I agree with most of statement two as well.
That said, occasionally worthwhile to find out who is thinking best?
Jack was one of the most conservative players out there
hit lots of 1 irons off tees and hit nearly all irons to the center of greens
I would say the average good player is more likely to go at a shelf/pin than Jack was, even though they are/were far less physically talented.


As far as the average player, if Jack needed 40 feet of diameter to give it a go, the average player probably needs 200

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,


I see what you are saying, but perhaps too tired to give it too much thought tonight.


One thing about tiers that many don't like is occasional lack of "proportional punishment."  Miss by 10 feet and a shelf may careen your shot all the way across the green.  Golfers hate that, or at least love to complain about hating it......On gently rolling greens, miss by ten feet and most likely, you are ten foot away.  The further you are away, the less chance of making a birdie, etc.


Seems to me, if a target is too small to actually hit, you are potentially punishing a good shot.  There could be a few exceptions, but creating an impossible to make shot for most players isn't what I aim to do.  A 45 foot wide shelf is enough of a sucker punch as it is......

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


I see what you are saying, but perhaps too tired to give it too much thought tonight.


One thing about tiers that many don't like is occasional lack of "proportional punishment."  Miss by 10 feet and a shelf may careen your shot all the way across the green.  Golfers hate that, or at least love to complain about hating it......On gently rolling greens, miss by ten feet and most likely, you are ten foot away.  The further you are away, the less chance of making a birdie, etc.


Seems to me, if a target is too small to actually hit, you are potentially punishing a good shot.  There could be a few exceptions, but creating an impossible to make shot for most players isn't what I aim to do.  A 45 foot wide shelf is enough of a sucker punch as it is......

Thanks for the reply-I actually hate tiers anyway as they have become the overused crutch of agronomy too fast for interesting imaginative strategic design.
 i.e. flattish landing areas on tiers(rather than a gradual overall slope or tilt) have eliminated strategy and made shorter putting much easier.


as far as complaints,I'd say it's dangerous to judge any work soley by a few complaints or one risks being ruled by the tyranny of the minority:)

[Thomas Dai]

Not particularly keen on tiers. Playing and maintenance issues etc plus those 'dead' zones near tier edges which are unpinable.
Atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not particularly keen on tiers. Playing and maintenance issues etc plus those 'dead' zones near tier edges which are unpinable.
Atb

I am not keen on tiers either. I was thinking more about making flatter areas within a general slope.

[JC Urbina]

James,


Some of the best greens ever built had progressive slopes built into the surface,  this made relatively short putts more difficult to read. Only one modern architect that I know of builds these types of putting greens anymore.


After restoring some of the most storied greens on Mackenzies, Pasatiempo, and The Valley Club, Tillinghast greens at  San Francisco Golf Club and The Paramount Club and Emmet and Travis greens at Garden City, Alison Greens at Bob O'Link and just recently the new greens at Yeamans Hall.  Each time I surveyed the surfaces they all had one thing in common, the slopes were not always consistent, some were progressive.


The lost art of green design. 


Coore and Crenshaw are the only golf design firm that I know of that is still using this style of green designs, classic.


I always try to sneek one of these progressive slopes into every new green I have persoanlly shaped.  The front right slope on # 5 at Old Mac, Hole # 6 at Sebonack, the 4th green at Pacific Dunes, the 4th at Apache Stronghold,  to name a few.

[Sean_A]

Not particularly keen on tiers. Playing and maintenance issues etc plus those 'dead' zones near tier edges which are unpinable.
Atb

Even if tiers are graded with noses etc, the sections near the top and bottom are unusable.  If they was to be the criteria for building greens there would never be greens with hard slopes to the front, rear or wings. Sometimes a section of green has to be sacrificed for the interest of the other hole locations. I dare you to look at Huntercombe's 4th with disinterest or disdain. As with anything in design, get the balance of features right and there are no rules.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Not particularly keen on tiers. Playing and maintenance issues etc plus those 'dead' zones near tier edges which are unpinable.
Atb

Even if tiers are graded with noses etc, the sections near the top and bottom are unusable.  If they was to be the criteria for building greens there would never be greens with hard slopes to the front, rear or wings. Sometimes a section of green has to be sacrificed for the interest of the other hole locations. I dare you to look at Huntercombe's 4th with disinterest or disdain. As with anything in design, get the balance of features right and there are no rules.
Ciao

As highlighted above, back in time when green speeds were slower 'dead areas' near tier edges were effectively smaller.
Re the 4th at Huntercombe and the like, some variety is nice.
atb

[Jim Hoak]

2 questions--
1)  For those of you that have problems with "shelves," what do you think of "spines"?  By that I mean a shelf that runs from the front of a green to the back, rather than across the middle.  Personally, I think that feature has great advantages in requiring a precise tee shot to make the approach shot to the correct side of the spine easier.  And it is a feature that has not been overused.
2)  I recently heard a discussion of "Maxwell rolls."  Is this a common term?  The point was that Perry Maxwell was a genius at creating interesting interior rolls on greens, much harder than creating the rolls on the edges of greens.  Is he renowned for that?  What are examples?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not particularly keen on tiers. Playing and maintenance issues etc plus those 'dead' zones near tier edges which are unpinable.
Atb

Even if tiers are graded with noses etc, the sections near the top and bottom are unusable.  If they was to be the criteria for building greens there would never be greens with hard slopes to the front, rear or wings. Sometimes a section of green has to be sacrificed for the interest of the other hole locations. I dare you to look at Huntercombe's 4th with disinterest or disdain. As with anything in design, get the balance of features right and there are no rules.
Ciao

As highlighted above, back in time when green speeds were slower 'dead areas' near tier edges were effectively smaller.
Re the 4th at Huntercombe and the like, some variety is nice.
atb

I was working on the 4th at Greys Green today just a few miles from Huntercombe and was thinking about this thread whilst creating some flat shelves among the humps. I reckon 70% of the green is unpinnable but as you say there has to be sacrifice and no rules. It's an angled green, short par 4 that you must not miss on one side.

[Tom_Doak]

Coore and Crenshaw are the only golf design firm that I know of that is still using this style of green designs, classic.


I always try to sneek one of these progressive slopes into every new green I have persoanlly shaped.  The front right slope on # 5 at Old Mac, Hole # 6 at Sebonack, the 4th green at Pacific Dunes, the 4th at Apache Stronghold,  to name a few.

Hmm ... there's a contradiction there.  I didn't think any of those were Bill and Ben's designs.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff's theories about draining greens three ways [a landscape architecture tenet brought to golf] has had as much or more effect on changing golf design away from "golf" design as any of the landscape painting theories from the new Feature Interview. 


Ross, MacKenzie, and their peers built a great variety of greens, but I would guess that only a minority of them drained to three different spots.


I understand that drainage is important, but shaping greens with this as a primary driving force has almost got to result in greens that don't feel like a natural part of the landscape ... as does building greens out of fill, generally.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff's theories about draining greens three ways [a landscape architecture tenet brought to golf] has had as much or more effect on changing golf design away from "golf" design as any of the landscape painting theories from the new Feature Interview. 


Ross, MacKenzie, and their peers built a great variety of greens, but I would guess that only a minority of them drained to three different spots.


I understand that drainage is important, but shaping greens with this as a primary driving force has almost got to result in greens that don't feel like a natural part of the landscape ... as does building greens out of fill, generally.

Tom,


Those old greens that were designed to drain off in one spot were back before irrigation was so abundantly available and applied. To say that rainfall was a welcomed relief back then is an understatement. Now, it's the blame for every soft condition on golf courses. Multiple surface drainways is as much a reaction to modern maintenance as it is a landscape decision.

[Tom_Doak]

Those old greens that were designed to drain off in one spot were back before irrigation was so abundantly available and applied. To say that rainfall was a welcomed relief back then is an understatement. Now, it's the blame for every soft condition on golf courses. Multiple surface drainways is as much a reaction to modern maintenance as it is a landscape decision.

Joe:


I understand that it's about drainage.  That's my problem with it ... it is unnaturally, about drainage, before building interesting contours for play.  I try to avoid that by picking locations for greens where drainage is not a big issue, and by working on sand


What I don't understand is, we consult on a lot of old classic courses that have lots of greens that don't drain in three directions, yet most of them do not have bad drainage issues.  That's why I'm a skeptic when people tell me they have to design a certain way, because "drainage".