Courses with the Toughest Greens

[MrT]

After 5+ months of playing only Mc/Mc or higher with moderate to difficult pin positions I have come to my own conclusion:

- Some greens can be impossible if the wrong pin placement is chosen for certain types of conditions (Mc/Mc or higher), regardless what course was selected.

- Once I was able to eliminate the most outrageous pin placements, based on my playing time, Oakmont has the toughest greens, They have so many gradients that it is almost a miracle to sink a putt from more than 10 yards. Other courses are tough too, but at Oakmont almost every single green is a challenge. The problem is compounded by the fact that Oakmont is not a pretty course. I mean the Links' Oakmont is done very well (and spent much time to check the views and the way each hole plays against real game footages), but the real Oakmont is way prettier than LInks' Oakmont where the color of the grass is sort of depressing. Augusta, at least is pretty, and one can play 2-3 round a days without getting depressed. Looking at the score of the 2016 US Open at Oakmont, one realizes why this course is "lethal".. If Augusta is the site of the US Masters, Oakmont could very well be hosting the US PHD's of golf.

- Some courses are impossible to fix. Once one steps into Mc/Mc or higher, I spent hours in practice, changing pin placements, shot styles, etc. and still a few course have the odd 2-3 holes that are "unsolvable". For instance there was a hole at Chapultepec that even from 1 yard, once the ball gets going, unless it goes in, it goes on almost "forever" like the Duracell bunny. But there are a couple of flat pin placements and only those are suitable for the speed of the greens. As someone explained to me: some courses just were not created with challenging conditions in mind at all. Or, at least, it was not the first and foremost concern. To prove these folks' point, those holes I mentioned play fine in M/M or even in F/F.

That is all I know. After playing Mc/Mc or higher non stop for 5+ months one gets the hang of it. My best: +1 at Oakmont is a tough thing to accept, but in real life breaking EVEN there is pretty damn'd tough as well. In M/M I scored -4. It is impossible to go back to non-challenging conditions for now the game feels fake. I feel like I am driving when I am putting. I chose the less traveled road and I think it is ok.

[braden1308]

Oakmont is one course on my to do list, having played there IRL I can say the links version does not do the course justice. I only live about 10 minutes from Oakmont and have some limited access so a good version is doable but I have some other things on my plate first.

[MrT]

Oakmont is one course on my to do list, having played there IRL I can say the links version does not do the course justice. I only live about 10 minutes from Oakmont and have some limited access so a good version is doable but I have some other things on my plate first.

I think that all in all the course is really well done. I spent hours checking every single hole against real footage. In particular, the 2016 US Open. The scores there by top pros show that this course is a "nightmare" which is well captured in the game... Punishing rough? Done! Being a bitch to hit from sand without the ball running all over the green? Done! Position of bunkers on fairways? Done!

It is my impression that Mc/Mc is the realistic speed for most greens when compared to real game footage. However, and I could be mistaken, I sensed that fairways are faster in real life than in Links.

It is such a challenge that it has become my "chosen game" for challenge. I never did too bad, but I never broke Even either. I might be -4, but by now I know that unless it is the 18th hole, there is no telling what the final score might be. Just one bad place on green can destroy a very good game.

Only feature that, in my opinion, needs remediation is the overall look.. In particular the grass has a color that is really depressing. During the US Open it was way greener and more exciting.

A few holes make no sense when playing in challenging settings (Mc/Mc or higher). In one case it can be a serious issue. For instance: hole # 2, has only one intermediate pin placement, #12. It is unplayable in Mc/Mc as the ball will not stop if hit from above and does not find the cup e even if barely hit. And from below, unless the ball ends in the cup, mostly it returns back like a boomerang. Being only intermediate pin placement, that is an issue. To me #12 is the most difficult pin placement for that hole.

But, the challenge at Links' Oakmont is quite real. Not super difficult to play it, but the greens are scary... I mean they are nearly unreadable in terms of lines and little nuances. There must be a reason the Stimp-meter was motivated by Oakmont.

[Adelade]

I actually like the colours of Oakmont (Scott Lewin's 2010 beta that is). I can see what youre saying, and I certainly wouldnt want all courses to have those colours, but I quite like them as they are. Even if the version suffers a little bit from some improper texture properties, I find it really well made otherwise, and I like how it plays too, so it is one of my very favourite courses. A few months ago I sent an email to the address mentioned in the course notes to see if Scott Lewin would let me finalize the beta, but I've had no reply.

[braden1308]

Hi Adelade,

I had approached Scott some time ago about upgrading the course and he said no, no reason so I'm guessing he just didn't want anyone to touch his work. The texture's he used in his version of Oakmont are very dull, if you had the opportunity to see just how vibrant and green the course really is you would appreciate my reason for wanting to re-do the course.

Glenn

[MrT]

I actually like the colours of Oakmont (Scott Lewin's 2010 beta that is). I can see what youre saying, and I certainly wouldnt want all courses to have those colours, but I quite like them as they are. Even if the version suffers a little bit from some improper texture properties, I find it really well made otherwise, and I like how it plays too, so it is one of my very favourite courses. A few months ago I sent an email to the address mentioned in the course notes to see if Scott Lewin would let me finalize the beta, but I've had no reply.

There are also a few places where, if a player has to hit from the sand near the perimeter on somewhat deeper than average bunkers, the legs disappear and the player looks "planted" on the course. Having played Oakmont many times, I have become accustomed to most of the nuances. It is the only course where I can say I know the map of the greens. Once in Mc/Mc or higher, the probability of scoring well just out of luck is for all practical purposes zero. It is an amazing course, truly well done, in terms of challenge. And the greens have much, if not all, the spirit of the real Oakmont. The real course is 2x prettier than Links' version, but that is about the only criticism I have.

Many holes (fairways and greens) look pretty close to the real deal. Not all though. During the US Open, several holes looked somewhat different. But, then the version in the game is from more than 10 years ago.

[pmgolf]

Once in Mc/Mc or higher, the probability of scoring well just out of luck is for all practical purposes zero.

At LSPN, we have a Links 2003 tournament at Oakmont every year. It isn't as difficult as you seem to think for experienced Links players. For example, here is the scoreboard for the 2019 tournament:

s_067.jpg (34.14 KiB) Viewed 2823 times

And here are the conditions used for the rounds:

s_068.jpg (3.58 KiB) Viewed 2823 times

Pete

[MrT]

Good for you pmgolf. I guess it is just me who is not good. I only started playing for a little over one year after stopping in 1995 or 1996.

Frankly, the day I play -10 at Oakmont, it means that the game is not realistic any more and so my fun would be diminished considerably.

I believe that also pin placements and RTS vs Classic Swing can make a difference. But I never played Oakmont in CLS. I do not pick my pins for games and sometimes 1-2 holes can be responsible for a +6 on my score due to poor pin placements for the green speed. I picked the pin placements in practice ones and score -5, but that got rid of all the nasty stuff that used to kill me. Still I cannot see myself playing under 60 and I do not even want to. Already, played Sawgrass at -9 and began to not like playing there anymore because it feels pure arcade gaming.

To each his/her own.

Nevertheless, I played Augusta under even, all Mike Jones' courses under even, etc.. Oakmont is the only one that still says "No!" to me. That is why I like it.One day I will break the even and I will be immensely satisfied. When that happens I am not sure.. for now I ma collecting plenty of +1's and +2's....

[pmgolf]

Like you, MrT, I like to shoot scores around even par. I played for over 10 years using the Click method of swing until the game started feeling too easy. I switched to RTS and have now been using that swing method for 18 or so years. But now, in order to continue shooting near-par scores, I have to use conditions that are faster than Mc Mc, pins that are moderate to difficult, and wind that is always at least breezy.

Seeing you warn people that they won't be able to handle conditions faster than Mc Mc makes me think you're only recommending that because you haven't been playing long enough yet. And amazingly, there are other players that catch on to the difficulties of Links even faster than me! People are different, MrT. That's why everyone doesn't play sports at the same level.

Pete

[MrT]

My "hint" was perhaps that certain hole placements on certain holes will not be handled in settings faster than Mc/Mc at Oakmont and on other courses as well and that can easily ruin a game. One can play the courses at any settings, maybe with thousands of games, he/she can handle anything. Still, I am confident that some holes are unplayable in very challenging settings if certain pin placements are chosen.

Some courses were not developed with challenging settings in mind. When you hit from 1 foot and barely miss the hole but the ball keeps rolling down the steep cliff past the hole, that is not a realistic placement (I do believe that USGA warns against it). In M/M or so one does not even notice it because balls are glued to the green.... on Mc/Mc or Fc/Mc it is a completely different story. I get the experience factor, sure, but if you try in practice 100 times and the outcome does not change, well that is not a realistic pin placement. I am not talking about putting with a driver, just a slight touch with a putter and hell breaks lose.

I do not see myself playing this game for another 20 years, honestly. It is a great game, perhaps one of the greatest games ever. Those who created and modified this game are geniuses and deserve all the praises. But it is not a perfect game. And it is a game, not real life.

I insist in playing my games in about 30 minutes or 40-45 at Oakmont for I need to look closely to the greens. I have many other sports and hobbies that interest me. Golf I let go years ago, mostly because playing rounds with 4 players it took too much of my time. In Links I can play fast.

I am worried that some courses are already getting too easy. Oakmont is the only one that, despite I played it 30-40 times and another about 50 times in practice rounds to test shots and strategies, still is eluding me. TPC Sawgrass, my favorite because of the variety of holes, when I played it at -9, I was happy, but also sad. Now I know it is just arcade and nothing else. It is a game, yes, but I will not play arcade games.

However I get your point and will abstain from any comment from now on. You have a point there: I am not experienced enough.