[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
"Tone down their skills"??  Not sure what you mean by that??  It is not that hard to build a wild and crazy green.  I would venture to say it might take more skill to build a really good subtle one.  Come see the Flynn greens on my home course, Lehigh CC.  There are no buried elephants, no wind mills or clowns mouths to putt through, and the greens don't need to roll at 14 (10 or 11 is plenty) and they will challenge the best putters on the planet.  Our 5th green looks benign yet scratch golfers will walk off that green countless times scratching their heads.  Sometimes simple can be very complex 
Mark

[Sean_A]

Mark


I think it is hard to do it well and in balance.  Take the 16th at N Berwick.  It is a wacky green, but so much as it looks....it putts easier than it seems like it should.  The real problem is getting on the bugger.  There are also wild greens which are essentially gathering, so again, not as difficult as they look.  More importantly, for me anyway, is the balance of not too many or too few.  A steady flow of wild greens dampens the impact.  Most sets of greens tend to be similarish. I would prefer to see the gambit of styles (and obviously so) in one set...which is partly why elevation change should be so valued.  I think this is where the ODGs were better than AMGs...the land dictated routings and therefore greensites and styles more than today.  Hence we get some cool sets of greens which really stand out for various reasons other than simply having wild contours as the defining element.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  now you are being like these other guys, pimping for your own ideal of the happy medium instead of looking hard at the courses you love, many of which have a bunch of wild greens.


The argument about having 18 wild greens is a straw man ... even Augusta and Crystal Downs have some that are flatter than others, though the tamest green on either would still be considered pretty tough on most courses.


What I want to know is, why don't we have threads similar to this about courses with flat greens?  It's because the courses with modest or boring greens don't capture people's emotions the same way.  Which of the top courses really have a bunch of gentle greens?

[Sean_A]

Sean:  now you are being like these other guys, pimping for your own ideal of the happy medium instead of looking hard at the courses you love, many of which have a bunch of wild greens.

The argument about having 18 wild greens is a straw man ... even Augusta and Crystal Downs have some that are flatter than others, though the tamest green on either would still be considered pretty tough on most courses.

What I want to know is, why don't we have threads similar to this about courses with flat greens?  It's because the courses with modest or boring greens don't capture people's emotions the same way.  Which of the top courses really have a bunch of gentle greens?

It doesn't have to be 18...it could be 9!  IMO...that is too much, but I fear we have different ideas of wild greens if you think the courses I love are packed with them. 

St Enodoc...no wild greens...maybe the 4th for location, but not really

Kington...no wild greens, much to the detriment of the design

Perranporth...the 6th because of its harsh location, angle and size...not contours.  The 4th is crazy because of the location, not contours. 

Welshpool...there is a small handful...#3 for its crazy false front, 8 due to being narrow and sloped, 14 because of the angle (a completely unknown set of greens which may be the best in Wales)

N Berwick...16

Elie...9, severe slope to the rear

Worlington...2 harsh dome, 5 very narrow

Cavendish...13 bench Redan, 15 crazy Eden...a truly crazy green which doesn't look it

Pennard....7 raised double bowl running away from play, 11 narrow bench green, 16 slope (in general a hugely under-rated set of greens)

Dornoch...no wild greens

On none of these course would I say the set of greens is wild and very few due to contours (which is what we get for modern courses because slope is verbotten).  I would more characterize the sets as well balanced except for perhaps Elie (but I really like fall-away greens so it gets a pass  ). In truth, I would generally like to see more wild greens in the courses I love. 

I would say one of the few courses which is rated very highly with flat greens is Woodhall Spa...but you don't think those greens are flat. But then I am not saying I want predomonately flat greens.  I want green sets which are well balanced. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Variety is what makes most great courses great.  But there are many great courses that I would definitely say don't rely on "wild" greens to be considered as such.  Courses like Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point, The Country Club at Brookline, Bethpage Black, Cherry Hills, Riviera, Maidstone, Salem, San Francisco GC, ... are just a few that come to mind.  I wouldn't say any of them have wild and crazy greens.  Difficult yes, boring I don't think so, but not what I would call wild and crazy.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

While I was posting, I see Sean added a bunch more.  Played most all of those courses too and couldn't agree more. 

[Tom_Doak]

Courses like Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point, The Country Club at Brookline, Bethpage Black, Cherry Hills, Riviera, Maidstone, Salem, San Francisco GC, ... are just a few that come to mind.  I wouldn't say any of them have wild and crazy greens.  Difficult yes, boring I don't think so, but not what I would call wild and crazy.
Mark

I will see you those and raise you Augusta, Oakmont, Oakland Hills, NGLA, crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, St Andrews, Pasatiempo, and Ballyneal.


I get that many people are more comfortable with moderation in all things.  But when I hear you express it, I think you'll keep arguing the point until there are no wild greens at all, and I'm just saying I'd rather have eighteen of them (at reasonable speeds) than none at all.  But I'm happy to meet you somewhere in the middle.

[Wayne Freeman]

I'm all for moderation...  certainly it's cool to play greens running 12 or more sometimes, but mainly I think that detracts from
   what golf should be for most people.... fun...     two of my own experiences come to mind....  one time playing Ballyneal
   and Pinehurst #2 when green speeds were at least 13 creating nothing but misery in our group ( even our caddies were
   shaking their heads)..... and then on other trips playing with more reasonable speeds in the 8-9 range.. joyous.

[Sean_A]

....I think you'll keep arguing the point until there are no wild greens at all, and I'm just saying I'd rather have eighteen of them (at reasonable speeds) than none at all. 

When you put it that way I agree.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

By green do we mean putting surface or something more than that?
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
In poker terms I might suggest you made a "call" vs a "raise"    but regardless, your final sentence about "meeting in the middle" is all I am suggesting.  Too much of anything is usually not a good thing.

[Mike Schott]

As we in general only talk about a select group of private courses here (yes that's a dig), surely no one here has played Hilltop a muni in Plymouth, MI except probably Ben Cowan. Of course players from out of town would not be inclined to make a trip to play most muni courses.


Getting back to the course, it has some of the wildest greens in the Detroit metro area or that I've seen outside of Pasatiempo. Some have limited pin positions due to the crazy slopes. Back when it was my home course the story was a golfer walked off the course after his 6th or 7th putt on hole 6. To be fair the manager at that time (John Jawor) loved fast greens. 18 is crazily sloped with some nice undulations. 14 is wild as is 15 if I remember correctly. I threw my putter into a tree after 4 putting 10 one time.


It's a fun little course but wear your hard hat.

[MCirba]

I'd just point out that many of the courses identified as having relatively flat greens (i.e. lack of internal contours) also have serious slopes negating the need for anything additional.   Lehigh is a good example...when they get those greens running you really never, ever want to be on the high side of the hole and that high side can be the front or sides, not only the back.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Equally important, I think, is that a course stay true to itself, and that it be what it is -- lest a sudden/rare change of style bring the architect's 'hand' too obviously into the mix. 
I played a course this summer by Graham Cooke, Piper's Heath.
Compared/relative to other courses I tend to play, its greens and surrounds were very contoured and challenging.
Reading this thread reminded me of it.
At the very first green, after chunking a chip off a tightly mowed grass depression and then putting up and over a large, front right contour, I thought to myself "Okay - so this is what this course is about".
Sure enough, the greens and surrounds throughout the round were equally challenging and fun - including one hole where from the middle of the green I had to aim my putt way to the left, out onto the collar, and watch it slide back down towards the pin.
And I think that, in this context if I suddenly came to a benign green or a more typical/simple back to front sloping green, it would've stuck out like a sore thumb - as if I could hear the architect saying "Now look at this - this is called "variety" and it's important in a quality golf course".
Conversely, if you took one or two of the greens from that course and dropped them in the middle of the other courses I tend to play (with many relatively flat but tilted greens), they'd again stand out, this time as if the architect was saying "Aha, you thought you had it easy and that I didn't have it in me -- but I know this is the hole you'll be talking about after the round".
All of which is to say: when an architect is in for a penny, in for a pound, the course becomes (or feels) more and more "what it is" and less and less what the architect wanted to "make it".
In terms of an over-all experience, I think the former quality/impression is important, and preferable to the latter.
Peter   

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
No one hear (at least not me) said "flat".  I said not wild and more subtle.  You know I know the greens well at Lehigh and you are correct, being above the hole is generally not good (that is a pretty good tip on most greens if they are rolling with any kind of speed), but at Lehigh, it is often not that easy to see or realize how quick those putts can be if you are above the hole.  Due to the topography of the land and the way Flynn designed them, it is sometimes hard to tell just how much slope is really there.  Look at the runaway green on #10 which I know you know well.  Pretty simple but very complex the more you study and get to know it.  Flynn was a master at using what I call "pull-ups" and "roll-offs "where he lifted up the edges of the green or let them slope off.  He would allow those areas to bleed/transition into or off of the green.  This creates all kinds of interest and subtle movement without having to bury elephants for internal contour.  I go back to what I said before, there might be even more skill required to design greens like some of those on the courses I mentioned than simply creating a mogul field in a 6000 square foot area 


Mark

[Tom_Doak]

I guess I'd like to understand the point of this thread.

Most of the courses named are widely considered to be among the best courses in the U.S.  To be sure, there are other courses with severe greens that aren't so good that are being overlooked, because they aren't any good.

Yet I feel sure that there are some people here who want to play the scold ... that "truly great" courses should not resort to such severe greens, and that somehow the other top courses that don't have them are morally superior.

You know you're out there.

This thread has finally got to where I figured it was headed:  who's going to be the arbiter of what's "too extreme" ?


For me, it's all about whether the greens work as a part of the golf hole in question.  You could take the same green and put it on a different hole -- or next to a water hazard, so that you couldn't play below the hole -- and it would go from cool, to over the top.


But there are plenty of guys who get embarrassed when they can't get their first putt close to the hole, and if those guys make the rules, then we are going to see a lot of super cool stuff get eliminated from the game.  Indeed, a lot of super cool stuff has already been eliminated from the game, like the 12th at Garden City was.


If we could just keep the discussion to what's cool, instead of what's extreme or wild , we wouldn't have to deal with the b.s. like Mark's last sentence above.

[Michael George]

Isn't the nature of the green often dictated by the topography of the land.  If you have a flat course, you need more undulating greens in order to create more interest.  If you have more dramatic land, you may want more subtle greens in order to not overdue it. 

Tom - I just look to your work at Bandon Dunes.  Old Macdonald was more a flattish site and it has the most undulating greens at the resort, which really creates the fun of the golf course.  Meanwhile, Pacific Dunes has possibly the most dramatic dunes and it has more subtle greens. 

There are other factors that contribute to the amount of undulation in a green, such as the difficulty in the golf course from tee to green and the difficulty of the surrounding green complex.   

Shouldn't the green be judged by how well it fits the hole and course in which it sits?

For instance, with a flattish site, I doubt that someone would criticize the large undulations in Pinehurt #2's greens, as those greens really create much of the interest for that course.  Further, with incredibly penal green complexes at Fishers Island and Camargo, I doubt that someone would want very undulating greens, as any approach shot would become too difficult.

[Josh Tarble]

When I think of a place with extreme greens I think of Harbor Shores in Michigan.  They're very wild and they don't make sense.  It doesn't matter what angle you approach from, they're no easier or harder. 


Contrast that versus some of the places that have been mentioned, Crystal, Pasatiempo, Lost Dunes, Old Mac.  Those greens are also wild, but typically can come in from a preferred angle and the shot is easier.  To me greens are only extreme when there is no option to make them more manageable.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Don't get defensive.  I realize very well that you don't just build 6000 square feet of moguls.  I am sure there is a lot of thought (and I mean this respectively) that goes into each contour that you layout.  Yes it all has to work together with approaches and surrounds and shots that will likely be played into them and sometimes it does.  I spent days working with one of your shapers, Kye Goalby - very talented guy, building greens on our project out at Mira Vista in CA.  There is a lot of thought that goes into every spine and mound and contour on each of those greens.  I get that.  But sometimes this can get out of hand and when a golfer is faced with a 40 foot putt that breaks eight different ways till it gets to the hole it can get plain goofy.  I have no problem with a few of those during a round but all I am telling you is that it can get old and when the far majority of golfers are just trying to land anywhere on the green (because that is what 95% of most golfers are capable of) all that clever strategy goes away or is missed when they are left with those kind of putts.  This goes back to my earlier point - has putting become a TOO IMPORTANT part of the game.  Seems some think the only way to "defend" their golf courses is ramp the speeds up to something stupid or build greens that only Ben Crenshaw can two or three putt unless you are in the perfect spot. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Isn't the nature of the green often dictated by the topography of the land.  If you have a flat course, you need more undulating greens in order to create more interest.  If you have more dramatic land, you may want more subtle greens in order to not overdue it. 

I was actually going to say almost the opposite.


If you have wildly, undulating land with short radius micro-contours, it seems quite artificial if you then don't extend this somewhat in to the green surface.


Similarly, if you have a flat, benign landscape, then overly fussy green complex contours look very out of place. Doesn't mean you can't have undulating greens with flattish land but it takes effort to marry it in.

[Joe Hancock]

This seems like another exercise in developing rules of design. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
You know there are no rules of design and I doubt there ever will be (sure hope not). 

This all seems like a big debate but I really don't think it is.  You and Tom and many others have seen wild and crazy greens that are just pure nonsense (wild for the sake of wild).  You have also seen wild and crazy greens that are amazing.  I just saw the Lion's Mouth - #16 at CC of Charleston.  It is amazing and is one of the wildest and coolest greens I have ever seen.  But if there were a half dozen more of them on that course like that they wouldn't be so special and it would get old fast. 

Cypress Point is a great example of balance.  If every hole were like #15 and #16 it wouldn't be so special.  The same goes for wild sets of greens.  A steady dose of them can get over the top fast.  Even the courses Tom mentioned don't offer a steady dose of wild.  There is a balance. 

[George Smiltins]

Brookside (canton). All scary and slick but #6 still gives me nightmares 3 years later.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,


There is smart wild, and there is dumb wild, as you have somewhat alluded to. But I’m really getting to the idea of importance of putting, which is really your main point. I think that there should be holes that do put the emphasis of putting as the primary challenge of the hole(even if it’s already a brute of a hole...or not...), simply as a matter of a variety within a course. That’s the *rules* part I hope to avoid.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
We agree. 


The importance of putting is one that will take time to find common ground on (industry-wide).  That might be where the game of golf has changed the most - the importance of putting.  I am not sure it has been for the better. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()