[Bill Gayne]

Should the center of the green always be a safe space? Is it ok if the center of the green is the wrong place to hit it?

[JESII]

Safe, yes. Guaranteed 4, no.


There is virtually zero chance a green is interesting if it is also supposed to assure a two putt.

[archie_struthers]

 


Assuming good putting it is safe most of the time. Save for the 4th at Rolling Green in Philly

[Ben Hollerbach]

The center of the green should "always" be a safe location to play an approach shot to, but it may not be the preferred location.


If the center of the green is not a good place to putt from, there should still be a location on the green that is approachable from the fairway to take this role. Bonus points if that location is pin position dependent and can vary from day to day.

[Thomas Dai]

Hit to the centre of the green in the air or hit to the centre using the ground game?
Also once upon a time flagsticks were a lot shorter, and most people were much shorter too. As an exercise try playing longer shots to flagsticks that are only say 3ft high and see where players aim.
Atb

[Matt_Cohn]

Bill,


My recent thread had a good discussion on basically this issue. It centered on a hole where a shot played to the center of the green left a putt that could not be stopped within 10 feet (other than hitting the flagstick) of one common hole location.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70040.0.html

[Bill Gayne]

Thomas, agree there would be a distinction with ground game and links golf. The context of my question is the modern aerial game.


Bill

[Bill Gayne]

Bill,


My recent thread had a good discussion on basically this issue. It centered on a hole where a shot played to the center of the green left a putt that could not be stopped within 10 feet (other than hitting the flagstick) of one common hole location.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70040.0.html

Matt,


Thanks for the link. I don't know how I missed a relatively recent five page thread but taking a quick look the questions are similar.


Bill

[Ally Mcintosh]

Bill,


My recent thread had a good discussion on basically this issue. It centered on a hole where a shot played to the center of the green left a putt that could not be stopped within 10 feet (other than hitting the flagstick) of one common hole location.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,70040.0.html

Yes I don’t want to revisit that one again, Matt….


I think it’s very difficult to make the centre of the green anything but safe for ALL pin positions… I’m perfectly OK with it leaving a quite difficult putt for some pin positions but (going back to the other thread) I’d expect a two putt to be very achievable.


Also have to remember the centre of the green will almost never leave a really long putt (aside from on outsized greens).


Generally it is a good place to be.

[Mark Pearce]

During the weekend of the BUDA this year, the pin on the 9th at Cavendish was at the very front left.  From the middle of the green this left a very tricky putt down a tier, and breaking hard left to right.  I saw at least one opponent putt off the green from closer to the pin that the very centre of the (reasonably large) green.  I'm not sure, to be honest, where the "safe" miss was, if there was one at all.  But then this was 130 yard drop shot, so I was OK with it.

[Jon Sweet]

Should the center of the green always be a safe space? Is it ok if the center of the green is the wrong place to hit it?

Much like life, there are no safe spaces. As others have said, this was argued out in a previous thread but the sense of entitlement from golfers is odd, especially good players.  They expect the ball to behave exactly as they want it to, IE stop exactly where they hit it.  Can think of 17 on Pete Dye where in another thread someone said I hit a perfect wedge and it didn't stay on the green.  Apparently you didn't or it would have stayed on the green. You are not entitled to a two putt, nor are you entitled to hit the green in regulation. Par is an arbitrary number anyways.  It is how to get around 18 in as few strokes as possible, that's it. If a pin or a green is built as such where being in the middle is dead, you should probably figure out how not to hit your ball there and how to work around the challenge presented. Lot of ways to crack an egg.

[Niall C]

I recall plying a foursomes comp at Dornoch with DT and us making a hash of the first hole with the pin placed in the back left level. Can't recall if that debacle started from the middle of the green but wouldn't be surprised if it did. I love that hole.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

One of the things Mr. Dye taught me about Tour pros is that when in doubt, they tend toward the safe option -- away from the water, to the side without hazards, or to the middle of the green.


So, one of the things we tried to do at Memorial Park was to make the middle of the green unpredictable.  We built quite a few greens that were higher in the middle than the sides, so short-siding yourself wasn't much worse than putting over the hump.  And we built a lot of greens that had a pronounced contour from high to low through the middle, so if you just played to the middle you wouldn't be sure whether you'd wind up on the right level or not.  You have to aim at the flag to assure that.


Mostly I was just hoping to reward the guys who were thinking about the hole they were playing, instead of just robotically hedging to the safe side.

[Matt_Cohn]

And we built a lot of greens that had a pronounced contour from high to low through the middle, so if you just played to the middle you wouldn't be sure whether you'd wind up on the right level or not.  You have to aim at the flag to assure that.

Thank you for putting words to this. Yes, this is a frustrating, in a good way, feature. 18 at Spyglass comes to mind when the pin is in the back.

[Tom_Doak]

And we built a lot of greens that had a pronounced contour from high to low through the middle, so if you just played to the middle you wouldn't be sure whether you'd wind up on the right level or not.  You have to aim at the flag to assure that.

Thank you for putting words to this. Yes, this is a frustrating, in a good way, feature. 18 at Spyglass comes to mind when the pin is in the back.

I noticed this was a trait of the work of the late Spanish designer, Javier Arana.  He had a lot of long, narrow greens with a high side and a low side.  It seemed to me to be the mark of a very good player, and in fact, he was.

[Ira Fishman]

Should the expected length of the approach shot factor into the calculation? That is longer the shot, the more the center of the green is rewarded ?


Ira

[David Ober]

One of the things Mr. Dye taught me about Tour pros is that when in doubt, they tend toward the safe option -- away from the water, to the side without hazards, or to the middle of the green.


So, one of the things we tried to do at Memorial Park was to make the middle of the green unpredictable.  We built quite a few greens that were higher in the middle than the sides, so short-siding yourself wasn't much worse than putting over the hump.  And we built a lot of greens that had a pronounced contour from high to low through the middle, so if you just played to the middle you wouldn't be sure whether you'd wind up on the right level or not.  You have to aim at the flag to assure that.


Mostly I was just hoping to reward the guys who were thinking about the hole they were playing, instead of just robotically hedging to the safe side.

Yes!


One of the things I love about some courses is if, by really thinking through my approaches, I can gain a bit of an advantage over others (being a very short hitter). And this is exactly the kind of thing I look for: Places where "short-siding" isn't all that bad -- or maybe it's even the better play. It can give a golfer much more confidence in going flag-hunting than if you have doubt if it's the "correct" play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In general, yes, with exceptions, there are always exceptions.


I have told the story before, but we put a knob in the middle of a green on a course we were designing for Jim Colbert.  When he saw it, he said you should always be able to aim at the middle of the green.  (Actually, I talked with him in the last month, and he reiterated that)  He then said, "Jeff, you must be the best damn golfer in the whole wide world if you could play a shot into that green!"


He never minded it once in a while, like any feature, but was on the TPC committee that revamped the greens.  He told Pete Dye, "Pete, I have no problem with that knob in the middle of the green on the first hole.....my problem is that you liked it so well, you did it 17 more times!"

[Peter Pallotta]

If memory serves (unlikely), it was the immaculate ball-striker Lord Byron Nelson who advised his wonderfully talented young grasshopper Ken Venturi to never aim anywhere but the centre of the green on every hole at Pebble Beach -- since, besides limiting risks and mistakes and big numbers, the small green sizes there meant you always had a chance to make the putt no matter where the pin was that day.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


Well, 17 at Pebble is an example where one side (in this case far right) of a wide green is the safer play, with the left side totally guarded by a bunker, and a ridge in the green at about what you would call the center.

[Mark Smolens]

One of the things Mr. Dye taught me about Tour pros is that when in doubt, they tend toward the safe option -- away from the water, to the side without hazards, or to the middle of the green.


So, one of the things we tried to do at Memorial Park was to make the middle of the green unpredictable.  We built quite a few greens that were higher in the middle than the sides, so short-siding yourself wasn't much worse than putting over the hump.  And we built a lot of greens that had a pronounced contour from high to low through the middle, so if you just played to the middle you wouldn't be sure whether you'd wind up on the right level or not.  You have to aim at the flag to assure that.


Many of the wonderful greens at the River Course in Kohler are like this. Chipping, hybriding, or putting from off the green is far better than putting on a large number of holes out there.


Mostly I was just hoping to reward the guys who were thinking about the hole they were playing, instead of just robotically hedging to the safe side.

Yes!


One of the things I love about some courses is if, by really thinking through my approaches, I can gain a bit of an advantage over others (being a very short hitter). And this is exactly the kind of thing I look for: Places where "short-siding" isn't all that bad -- or maybe it's even the better play. It can give a golfer much more confidence in going flag-hunting than if you have doubt if it's the "correct" play.

[Carl Rogers]

TD's Riverfront ..... I can count only 8 greens that afford relatively easy approach shots & putts when the hole is center cut.

[Jon Sweet]

Should the expected length of the approach shot factor into the calculation? That is longer the shot, the more the center of the green is rewarded ?


Ira

I’m having a hard time understanding why people are so caught up with the middle having to be the place to be. I’ve played a green shaped like an hour glass. Isn’t there a green with a bunker in the middle? What is the obsession?

[Ken Moum]

Should the expected length of the approach shot factor into the calculation? That is longer the shot, the more the center of the green is rewarded ?


Ira

I’m having a hard time understanding why people are so caught up with the middle having to be the place to be. I’ve played a green shaped like an hour glass. Isn’t there a green with a bunker in the middle? What is the obsession?

As has been said before, the card-and-pencil mindset of pretty much all American golfers, and a lot of others I suspect, has been the reason why a lot of unfortunate things have happened to golf and golf courses.


If we weren't so bloody intent on posting a score after EVERY round, we'd be less inclined to fuss about stuff like unfair greens, and we'd certainly play faster.


I MUST be getting old, having recently passed my 74th birthday, and saying on this forum that I want to bring the stymie back.  Nevertheless, I would also LOVE to go back to matchplay scoring by reckoning.  The below is clipped from ruleshistory.com/scoring, and I take no credit for it.


Reckoning
Up till 1933 the definitions included a method of reckoning in match play.  Here's how it works:
You tee off, you're playing 'the odd', i.e.. playing one more stroke than I.  I tee off, I am playing 'the like'.   We reach our balls in the fairway - or rather, upon the fair green - where we have played an equal number of strokes.  You will still hear players in the UK using the expression 'like as we lie' when they have played an equal number of strokes.
Your drive was longer than mine so I'm away, I am now playing the odd - it's a fantastic shot, of course!  You now play the like, a topped shot dribbling a short distance. Now, you have to play the odd, another bad stroke, going nowhere.
Your next shot is no better, you have played 'two more'.  Finally you get a good one away, onto the green and into the hole for 'three more'.  Now it's my turn, I play 'one off three', but it's a duff, so I play again, onto the green in 'one off two'.  My putt now is the 'like', so it's for a half.
The neat thing about this way of counting is that it was not necessary to keep track of the number of individual strokes to know the state of the hole at any point.  But, in 1912 an addition to the rules stated that a player was entitled to ascertain how many strokes his opponent had played.   Can we assume that the number of strokes relative to the player was sufficient rather than an absolute number?

[mike_malone]

Assuming good putting it is safe most of the time. Save for the 4th at Rolling Green in Philly

I blame you for my three putt from the center of the green to a front left pin today!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()