Does too many contours on a green ruins strategy

[Philippe Binette]

After some talk on the strategy of the greens at Augusta where the top players are preferring this or that side of the fairway for certain pins because they can land their approach perpendicular to the slopes etc, I went: that's all good for the best players in the world, but the average guy his not precise with his irons to do that.

On the other end, I noticed that there is a return to popularity of the Raynor, Banks and MacDonald courses. Those course, especially Raynor courses, have template holes, but it seems also template greens where there is one simple clear concept per green
Example:
the redan: a lateral and to the back tilt
the eden: steep back to front tilt
the biarritz: two plateau and the swale
etc..

To me, it seems that greens with multiple complex contours take some strategy out of a hole since the targets and bail-outs are too small for the average player (and even a 6 to 10 handicap) to aim fo it, so it becomes a hit the best shot you can and hope. So if that's the way your going to play your approach, what's the point trying to hit one side or the other of the fairway.

To point out this, take this example;

A) I love the 16th at North Berwick, but the targets are so small and complicated (especially with firm ground and wind) that I go for the hit and hope philosophy... small target, no spot to miss better than another, and maybe 5% of the players hit the green... go for the flag then... I can't play strategic to conquer the hole

B) The 12 th on the Old Course with a pin and the right shelf. From 100 yards out you can try the hero shot for the flag, depending on the conditions... but you can always play 35 feet left to a big area and 2-putt for a 4. One main contour the rest of the green is simple.

So should green have a main concept to be strategic?

Does making a bunch of slopes (angry seas) all over the place can make a good green?

[Tom_Doak]

Philippe:

There is something to be said for simplicity of design.

But, there are also occasions where more complexity is warranted, particularly if the complexity on and around the greens is offset by fewer complications through the green.

Most players are not good enough to execute a strategy once formulated, but that is no reason not to provide one for the players who can.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Philippe,
I don't think strategy is lost on the weaker player at all, it just comes later.
If you have a green with a severe tilt that favors one angle of approach, the pro is working on that angle from the tee and then on his approach. The 15 handicap is working on getting in the right place after his tee ball, but he still has to strategize, just comes a little later in the process. Moreover, the fact that more golf architects, and clients, do not realize this is the reason we have so many dumbed down boring golf courses.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think Tom has a very good point...severe greens like those at Ballyneal for example allow for a tremendous degree of strategy.
The hardest thing I find is that when the greens are that severe, it takes so long to figure out what that startegy is, by that time you have to leave.
Mast players cannot carry out the strategy they may have to play a place like Ballyneal, but as Tom said that doesnt mean he shouldnt design it that way....same could be said of Sand Hills
I love Ballyneal, everything about the place.
That been said it is a hard place to score on because of the severity of the greens.
That is not at all a critisism because playing on thos egreens is simply so much bloody fun, that you forget about the score...a great place to have a four ball event though.
I wish that Rupert would consider staging a national 4 ball event there..it would be so well attended...limited field 30 teams or so...awesome.

[Philippe Binette]

A green with a general concept can be severe and the ability of the better player will show if he can execute the shot to the nasty pins.

It's just that I see some greens with contour everywhere where it's like... come on, there's no real way to figure out a shot, I mean if the target is as small as the bail out, might as well go for the target.

A great green is more about temptation than anything else... for temptation to exist, there must be an option better than the other but you have to be willing to pay the price to get to the better option

[JNC Lyon]

Philippe,

I hope Simon Holt chimes in on the 16th at North Berwick, but I don't think the wild contours on that green retard strategy.  If the pin is on the back-left level, the safe play is leave the ball in the swale in the middle of the green.  From there, the player can putt up to the back tier and have a good chance at a four.  Only the bold (or foolhardy) will go at that pin, especially if the wind is up.

Why does the 16th green at NB work well?  The green is massive, leaving the player plenty of options and making it fairly easy to hit in regulation.  Holes become less strategic when wild contours are stuffed into small greens.  Size and width are key to preserving strategy, and these elements abound on North Berwick's 16th.

[George Pazin]

A green with a general concept can be severe and the ability of the better player will show if he can execute the shot to the nasty pins.

It's just that I see some greens with contour everywhere where it's like... come on, there's no real way to figure out a shot, I mean if the target is as small as the bail out, might as well go for the target.

A great green is more about temptation than anything else... for temptation to exist, there must be an option better than the other but you have to be willing to pay the price to get to the better option

Fantastic post. One of the (many) things I love about Oakmont is the great challenge created by relatively simple concepts: 1st hole fallaway green, 2nd hole green sloping severely toward the fairway, 3rd green perched atop the crest, etc.

Haven't seen it, but would Prairie Dunes and its famous Maxwell Rolls be the exception that proves the rule?

[Scott Szabo]

Michael Wharton-Palmer,  Ballyneal staged such an event over the summer. It was The Yucca hosted by Jim Colton and Matt Schulte.  It was a blast!  Hope they continue to have it every year or two. 

[Tom_Doak]

 if the target is as small as the bail out, might as well go for the target.

I would have phrased it the other way around, but this is an excellent point.  I've seen many holes designed by good players and professionals where even the bail-out shot is beyond the ability of the average golfer, requiring a forced carry to a small target.

[Sean_A]

Philippe

Bottom line for me is not all holes or greens need to be strategic in a classic sense.  I would also say NB's 16th is quite simple in its design because the features are so bold and few in number that it can't be complex. 

Ciao

[Jay Flemma]

I played Dismal River shortly after it opened, aznd a few of those greens were overdone...especially for 13 on the stimp...

[Brett Hochstein]

I believe this is the main criticism lobbied at the Castle Course--the contours are too bold and complex the strategy is lost and success is based on luck or extreme execution.  This is something I have always thought about when observing a course or drawing up a routing, though not in as plain of terms as this.  Usually I am trying to come up with more complex ways of introducing reasonable strategy, and sometimes the solution is just to go with the simpler, more clear cut strategy. 

There really is something to your point, Phillipe, in that many of the best and most enjoyable holes have that readily apparent risk/reward strategy.  This is also what I guess I would call the simplest level of the thinking man's game.  Not everyone is necessarily a "thinking man," but most would at least desire to be.  Simple strategy with risk/reward into a green is the easiest aspect to understand in the thinking game and can bridge the "simple golfer" into becoming a "thinking golfer."  This makes the golfer feel smart and feel good about themselves, even if they do not/cannot execute the strategy at hand.  If they do pull it off, well, is there really a better feeling in golf? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philippe,

I think green contours enhance strategy, on the approach, recovery and putting.

Having the putting surface divided into quadrants, tiers, sections places greater emphasis on getting the ball to the appropriate section, which in turn puts emphasis on driving the ball to the optimal location for the approach.

It also places a greater emphasis on where to "miss" a green, such that a recovery shot is from the prefered miss is easier than a recovery from a non-prefered miss.

It rewards accuracy (and planning and luck) once the ball reaches the green since balls hit to the right section don't have to negotiate humps, slopes, tiers, etc., etc.

I recall the photo of a green at "Stillwell Park ?" .  It must have had a dozen sections.

The 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th and 12th greens at NGLA have pronouced contours which add tremendously to the strategy of the hole.
The 4th  at Spyglass too.

In my limited playing experience, I can't think of a green that I've played that had too many contours.

Perhaps someone can name some greens that might be considered to have too many contours.

[Carl Johnson]

Just an offhand observation.  Where does fun come in  -  in all of this?  or, is it all macho v. macho?

[Patrick_Mucci]

FUN ?

Hitting to, and putting on the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th and 12th greens at NGLA is FUN !

And, it's even more fun on a repetitive basis.

[jim_lewis]

Phillippe:

What's wrong with "it becomes a hit the best shot you can and hope." ?  That's the way I approach every shot!

Jim

[Peter Pallotta]

Phillippe -

A diagonal ridge running across the centre of the green and separating two distinct plateaus seems to me as much green contouring as any strategy-seeking golfer really needs.   

If there is much more contouring than that does it "ruin" the strategy?  No, I don't think so -- but I do think it draws too much attention to the green itself, both visually and in the playing, and in that sense lessens/negates a sense of a 'whole-hole' approach.

IMO It makes the green (and the game) too 'precious', for lack of a better word.  But I think I'm in the minority on this one.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

A lot depends on the length of the hole in conjunction with the size of the green.

# 1 and # 6 at NGLA are short holes, hence having more than two sectors of putting surface is more than acceptable because a golfer should have a higher degree of accuracy with their 9-iron, PW, SW and LW.

# 1 and # 6 at NGLA, while very short holes, provide challenge, excitement and fun, in approaching the green, recovery and putting.

I certainly wouldn't suggest putting the 1st green at NGLA at the end of a 480 yard par 4.
So far, it seems to have worked quite well on a downhill, 289-327 par 4

[Jeff Taylor]

It's quotes like the ones below that make this place so special.
Thanks to Tom and Patrick.

"Most players are not good enough to execute a strategy once formulated, but that is no reason not to provide one for the players who can."

"I certainly wouldn't suggest putting the 1st green at NGLA at the end of a 480 yard par 4."

[Carl Rogers]

Philippe:

There is something to be said for simplicity of design.

But, there are also occasions where more complexity is warranted, particularly if the complexity on and around the greens is offset by fewer complications through the green.

Most players are not good enough to execute a strategy once formulated, but that is no reason not to provide one for the players who can.

Many Holes at Riverfront follow this dictum.
(In my case, I can maybe 50% of the time execute the strategy)

[Carl Rogers]

Just an offhand observation.  Where does fun come in  -  in all of this?  or, is it all macho v. macho?

Isn't this a function of allowing the golfer the opportunity for a recovery shot when there is a execution mis-cue?

[Carl Johnson]

Just an offhand observation.  Where does fun come in  -  in all of this?  or, is it all macho v. macho?

Isn't this a function of allowing the golfer the opportunity for a recovery shot when there is a execution mis-cue?

Unless you're "in the water," lost or ob, I would say there is always there is the opportunity for a recovery shot.  The question in these other cases, is, "How easy is the recovery shot?"  On the "wrong" part of the green, or not even on it, you might take two or three (or in my case, more) strokes to get down.  If you are really skilled, or just damn lucky, and that's the fun, you might get down in one.

[Anthony Gray]

  I think this is the main complaint with The Castle Course.Because of all the massive undulations the approach shots are unpredictable.

  Anthony