Elevated greens

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are elevated greens inherently better, architecturally, than non-elevated greens ?

[cary lichtenstein]

Depends...some are much worse, ala Jones at 9 and 18 at Spyglass.

Miss the green, can't see the pin or the surface. Very hard to make the recovery shot anywhere close.

With Ross and Nicklaus, you have a chance, although a difficult one at best.

[Kyle Harris]

Yes.

Particularly when the green site or green pad is elevated above the immediate surrounding area. I think the qualifier of "inherent" is the important aspect of this question. I can think of some greens that aren't elevated too much, if at all that are superior to most other greens I've ever putted on.

However, in a categorical sense, an elevated green seems to give the architect (and as a result, the golfer) more options for hazard placement, green and surrounding contours, and drainage. All these factor into a preponderance of elevated greens being architecturally better.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

There are holes that become brilliant because of the elevated green.  Among a few great ones are #3 Teeth of the Dog, #4 Southampton, #13 Piping Rock, #15 Creek, #9Garden City CC (#12 old routing), #4 Soboba Springs, #13 (Tournament#4) Westchester(Though the effect is currently compromised by the stupid pines framing the back of the green--actually makes for an easier shot--though this is an extremely difficult green to hit). To negotiate them successfully, usually requires some thought and precision with the drive.  Though a few current architects seem to elevate almost everything but do not seem to design their greens with optimal approach angles.

[TEPaul]

"Are elevated greens inherently better, architecturally, than non-elevated greens ?"

I don't know if I'd say they're inherently better architecturally but I think generally they're probably more challenging in play than greens that aren't elevated.

Personally, I think I'm coming around to respecting greens you can't even see until you actually get right on them. I wish there were more of those. They're around but they are pretty rare birds! And I doubt we can be expecting more of them in the future since the entire world has decided to go to far more instant gratification than in the old days.

[SL_Solow]

As in most things related to golf course architecture, I believe that variety is essential and thus elevated greens are not inherently better.  Most elevated greens limit ground game options and thus are often preferred by players who are capable of caarying the ball to the target with sufficient spin to control distance.  As such they can be viewed as more challenging.  On the other hand, on windy sites they can limit options.  Moreover, imposing elevated greens on terrain more suited for those at ground level can appear unnatural and break the flow of certain sites.  Accordingly, I don't believe there is an absolute response to your question; it depends on the location and nature of the particular hole.

[JESII]

Are elevated greens inherently better, architecturally, than non-elevated greens ?

Pat,

If, by elevated, an example would be #9 at Shinnecock, I would say no.

If, by elevated, an example would be #7 at Shinnecock, I would say yes.

While I personally enjoy blind, or obstructed, shots the required topography does not make the architecture better. It does not necessarily make it worse either.

Green complexes similar to #7 inherently place a higher level of quality requirment on the shot or recovery to the green. Some players simply can't play the 9th, while all players can find a way to finish the 7th.

I would call the 9th an elevated green, while I would call the 7th a built (or punched) up green. Does your question pertain only to the style of the 9th?

[Mark Brown]

I prefer greens built at grade which lets the lay of the land determine the heighth.

[ed_getka]

I would say no for the average golfer. For the reasons SL pointed out. They are more challenging in my view, so if you are trying to test the better golfer, then the elevated green can be a good choice. However, I think a variety of looks is preferable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow & Ed Getka,

Doesn't the non-elvevated green offer fewer dimensions ?

Mark Brown,

Ditto ?

JES II,

How would you classify the 10th and 11th greens at Shinnecock, in the category you put # 9 in, or the category you put # 7 in ?

Cary Lichtenstein,

Then I take it that you're not a fan of any redans.

Doesn't the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th at Seminole unravel your theory regarding Ross ?

I could go through a hole by hole at Plainfield and
Pinehurst # 2 if you'd like additional examples.

Why must one be entitled to a view of the green if they hit errant shots.

# 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, and # 8 would be examples of greens where the putting surface would not be visible, or even the flagstick, if you missed the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

I appologize for bringing up a subject which actually deals with golf course architecture rather then ratings, access, rules or a myriad of OT subjects.

I did notice, in a review of the last eight pages of threads that you only managed to post one thread,
"Tawk about fun", which received a whopping three post response.

Please feel free to create your own interesting threads which deal with golf course archtecture.

And, if you don't want to participate on a given thread, keep your fingers off the keyboard and click on to another.

[paul cowley]

Patrick...I have eliminated all the posts that, although pertinant, weren't serious enough by your standards.

 As one who is immersed 7 days a week in GCArch, I find a little levity relaxing and it is one of the reasons I come here.
....it also helps to keep from taking oneself to seriously  

[Paul_Turner]

How much elevation?  Just a small plateau or rise?  Or more substantial?

[Kyle Harris]

Paul,

I've been thinking along similar lines. To me an elevated green can mean something like those at Pinehurst #2 or just a green that sits above the approach shot.

I am guessing Pat meant the former, but some clarification would help.

I know of many downhill approaches to elevated greens in the game.

[ed_getka]

Yes, the vertical dimension. But wouldn't you say that you can make a hole just as intimidating and tough by use of internal contour? Or have a ground level green but you only view the green if properly positioned on the fairway. The elevated green doesn't have those attributes. Of course, it could have internal contouring, and by being elevated is already blind, but I think of elevated greens as being more one dimensional in general. Those greens are particularly tough for me given my generally low ball flight.

[Paul_Turner]

Kyle

Yes small elevations like many greens at Dornoch or St Andrews surely offer more options than grand elevated greens like the 2nd at Pine Valley or 8th at NGLA.

PS
Patrick mentions Plainfield.  But for me, maybe the most interesting approach on that course is at the 7th, which has a kind of shallow, saucer green.

[JESII]

JES II,

How would you classify the 10th and 11th greens at Shinnecock, in the category you put # 9 in, or the category you put # 7 in ?

Pat

It seems any architecture topic is going to drown amongst the rules and ratings threads going on, but I am very interested in your initial question. Hopefully you are on board at the present time.

I would put #11 in the same category as #9, and would put #10 in it as well when at the bottom of the hill. If however you are approaching #10 from the top of the hill I put it in the category with #7.

Is your initial question intended about greens that are elevated above the approach position? Or are you thinking of greens elevated above their immediate surroundings?

Look forward to your answer.

[Kyle Harris]

JES II,

Two of my favorite approaches in the game go in the "Above the approach" category. The ninth of the Toomey Nine at HVCC and the second on the C Nine, yet, while those greens are interesting, I wouldn't call them elevated above their immediate surroundings like the fifth on the C Nine at HVCC, around which there are many interesting pitch and chip shots to be had.

I think both are viable to discuss in the context of this thread, but don't want to steal Pat's thunder, as it were.

[JESII]

Kyle

agree with regards to the HVCC holes you mention. I guess the natural terrain at HVCC leaves no room or cause for the architect to build up a green from its immediate surrounds, as they are mostly set into some sort of hill. It also does not benefit from the occasional small hillock that might be used for a green complex to give the same characteristics as a "built up" green.

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

I greatly prefer when elevated greens are elevated naturally by using a hilltop as a greensite, as opposed to a simple pushup created above the natural land using fill.  It fits the eye much better.  If you can't do it completely naturally, I'd prefer at least part of it be natural (typically the front or part of the front and one side)  Just plopping down a 5' high mound of dirt 50' across and growing bent grass on it is really no different from the artificial mounding created around greens and course perimeters to hide cartpaths and busy roadways.

Its not that it can't be done right when it is done artifically, but not everyone is Donald Ross, and 99% of such elevated greens created fail miserably in my opinion in an aesthetic sense.  And watching a hacker try to chip onto a small pushup is like watching a 4 year old try to get the ball in the clown's mouth of the 18th hole at a putt putt course.  Hit it up, miss, watch it roll back down again...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

I've too have been immersed, 7 days a week with challenges, especially for the last year and a half, in addition to working, family pursuits, playing golf and other activities, so I come to this site for fun and education.  And, I've been fortunate enough to enjoy both.

If you'll look at the same 8 pages I referenced, you'll notice that the five (5) threads I began dealt with golf course architecture, not sleazy topics or discussions as you stated in your deleted post.

One thing I don't do, is take myself too seriously.
But, that doesn't mean I'm not passionate about my interests. I enjoy playing The Devil's advocate, but most of all, I relish arguing with TEPaul....... and Tommy Naccarato ........ and Tom MacWood, all well versed participants who share the interest and the passion.

Perhaps you took yourself too seriously when you attempted to divert the thread and disparage me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner, et. al.,

How much elevation?  Just a small plateau or rise?  Or more substantial?

My initial thoughts were elevation created by man, irrespective of the degree.

Then I thought of other greens that sat on plateau's, but, for purposes of this discussion, let's confine it to man made elevations of any height.

I'll start another thread on greens that sit on natural, elevated sites.

A great study might be the old and new green at # 18 at Seminole.[/color]

[JESII]

Pat

I would need a little education on this, but wasn't the old 18th green at Seminole down below the current greenside bunker, in the neighborhood of that near side of the driving range? The present site appears to be a natural extension of the dunes with some filling in to level off, is that not the case? Can I intelligently compare the two when I and so few (I assume) others actually saw the old green? When was the change made?

Would the 15th or 16th greens at Seminole be better at fairway level (they are what, 4 or 5 feet above?)? I think the challenges inherent in placing the ball at a point above the standard grade (ie: pitching onto the 15th) answer your question. More difficult is not synonymous with better, so allowances must be made for the high handicapper, but simply elevating a green a few feet above grade adds a certain element to any shot aimed at it that the answer to your initial question is yes.

[Paul_Turner]

Paul Turner, et. al.,

How much elevation?  Just a small plateau or rise?  Or more substantial?

My initial thoughts were elevation created by man, irrespective of the degree.

Then I thought of other greens that sat on plateau's, but, for purposes of this discussion, let's confine it to man made elevations of any height.

I'll start another thread on greens that sit on natural, elevated sites.

A great study might be the old and new green at # 18 at Seminole.[/color]

Patrick

So if we limit to man made elevations.  I think that above perhaps 10-15 feet of elevation for the green there are likely to be less options available.  Of course the shot demanded can still be exciting and more demanding than a level or downhill shot.

I suppose the opposite of a sharply elevated green is a pure punchbowl green.  By pure puchbowl, I mean the kind of greens that always gather to the centre.  The kind that B Darwin and others became critical of when writing about some of the earliest links holes.  With a pure punchbowl, you have almost infinite options from lob to putter, but it's an easy shot... the ball always gathers.  Which is why these holes were often redone.  (9th at Hoylake is a relic that survived).

Or how about a comparison of the 9th greens at Pine Valley?  Maxwell's slightly raised green is certainly more challenging than Alison's gathering lower green.  

Do you find the 11th at Hidden Creek to be inherently better than the 14th?

[JNC Lyon]

Wasn't it the 18th at Manufacturers which had a problem with a severely elevated green, one that was too difficult for shorter hitting members. I recall seeing in an aerial that a lower green was built to correct this problem. If this is the case, how do these greens compare interms of playability, strategy, fun, interest, and unique qualities?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: