[Dan_Callahan]

Here's a crazy one at Shelter Harbor. Hard to tell in the photo, but there's got to be about 8-10 feet of alevation change:

[JESII]

A couple of questions about these greens pictured;

1) Assuming we are looking at the Stilwell Park green from 6 o'clock, from what direction is the approach going to come from?
2) Can the slopes on that green really hold more than about 6 feet on the stimpmeter before all balls filter off?

3) If the Barnbougle green really is "made of a series of bowls" where does the water go? Doesn't the "series of bowls" idea reduce the effect of misplaying the prior shot....is the penalty element partially negated as compared to Stilwell?

[Andy Levett]

Maybe this scan from the Grant Books reprint of Colt and Alison’s Some Essays On Golf Course Architecture can clear up the Sitwell Park numbering confusion.
In both this one and the Classics Of Golf reprint of the other 1920 book, MacKenzie’s Golf Architecture, the captions for the  par 3 12th and the par 4 18th (435 yards today) are transposed (by a printer? by MacKenzie?). Subsequent users of the images have naturally perpetuated the mix-up. (Can anyone with originals of either or both of these books confirm the captions are the same as in the reprints?)


I want to go back and get  better modern snaps – the ones I posted on here before were taken with the still setting of a  video camera because it was  the only camera I  had at the time.
I hadn’t seen either of the 1920 books then, so didn’t realise how the 12th fitted into the puzzle. We had just gone through a four-ball  match on the 11th so I left the camera in the bag and can’t find any modern pix of the 12th on the web now.
I do have a truly terrible snap of the 7th which was mentioned further up the thread. It is a par 3 but is otherwise a red herring. The flag is the tiny yellow dot in the centre of the image.


Most new UK courses seem to have at least one double or triple tier green  like the one mentioned at The Belfry but they're crude bland things compared to that Sitwell homage at Barnbougle. Great stuff!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Andy,
Both books are the same as the originals. This is further leading to the confusion and may have been a typogrpahical error. Hard to really know without some very good images.

Why can't England have some better weather to afford a trip out there, NOW!  

[Jim_Coleman]

       #7 at Glen Mills  -  Bobby Weed.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
I couldn't agree more about the strategy of figuring for the approach for tackling a green like this. The problem is that most people dont like the thrill of being challenged. Neither did the millionaire of this course, as well as the people that advised him to destroy all of those great features back in 1914. Most people only want to conquor and be victorious at all times. To me, there is nothing wrong with getting your butt kicked by a hole once in a while, knowing you were being challenged while doing it!

But honestly, I do see a parallel between this and Garden City Golf Club's 12th. Why Tom doesn't rebuild that green, after seeing him build greens like MacKenzie's at Barnboogle, why not the 12th? What is the problem here? Just get it done. Your at the top of your game, the pinnacle of being able to influence. REBUILD THE DAMN THING!

[Ian Andrew]

The 7th at Friar's head is the closest thing I have seen to that green.

Putted from the back fringe (10 footer downhill for birdie) and watched the ball continue all the way accross the green and in behind the bunker 140 feet away.

Now is that the upside or downside of a green like that, since we all tried to lag that putt and they finished within a few feet of each other ?

[Tyler Kearns]

A couple of questions about these greens pictured;
3) If the Barnbougle green really is "made of a series of bowls" where does the water go?

JES,

I believe Barnbougle is situated on a sandy site, thus enabling bowls to be created in the putting surface. The water drains downward rather than across the green in heavier soils. Further, they do not get very cold conditions, therefore the need to have adequate surface drainage is negated, because drainlines & soils do not freeze in Australia.

TK

[JESII]

Thanks Tyler, makes sense.

[Tom Huckaby]

I love wild greens as much as the next man.

And no way would I agree with an expectation that every green needs to be reasonably easily two-puttable.

BUT...

make a lot of these greens pictured over say 9 stimp and it seems to me they get absurd.  If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times (and I'd guess I am way closer to the latter):  if a ball won't stay near a hole due to gravity, it's absurdity, not golf.

So while I've never been to Friar's Head, and this will be seen as blasphemy and so someone please do set me straight, well... from these descriptions the 7th green there seems more absurd to me than anything else.  Please tell me that an uphill putt will stay by that pin location Ian describes.  Because as long as that's true, than I have no problem with it and in fact will join you in its celebration.  But absent that, well houston, we have a problem.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

make a lot of these greens pictured over say 9 stimp and it seems to me they get absurd.  

That's only because you have a narrow view on the function of the green, and a lack of understanding with respect to pace.   9 on a stimp is fast.  Why would you want to go above that pace for ANY membership or general play ?

That's the absurd part of the situation, that people want green speeds off the wall when it's totally unnecessary.[/color]

If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times (and I'd guess I am way closer to the latter):  if a ball won't stay near a hole due to gravity, it's absurdity, not golf.

Take a closer look at the tiers.  Study them.
There's no reason for a ball to go from one tier to  another strictly influenced by the pull of gravity.[/color]

Have you ever played NGLA ?

How did you find the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 15th greens ?[/b][/color]

So while I've never been to Friar's Head, and this will be seen as blasphemy and so someone please do set me straight, well... from these descriptions the 7th green there seems more absurd to me than anything else.  Please tell me that an uphill putt will stay by that pin location Ian describes.

That would depend upon the golfers touch.
If he hits it through the tier or leaves it short of the tier he'll have a problem, but, well struck putts will be rewarded.[/color]

Because as long as that's true, than I have no problem with it and in fact will join you in its celebration.  But absent that, well houston, we have a problem.

WHY ?

You never complained about it at ANGC in these last 5 years.[/color]

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Have putting speeds and USGA specs conspired to render this type of green obsolete? - Pat Mucci

Pat,
You're not mowing that green with a tri-plex.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I"ve never been an advocate of tri-plexes on ANY green.

[Paul_Turner]

Not a new one.  But a good one, 1st on The Eden:

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

A rare occassion has occurred:  you completely miss my point.  I'll blame myself, I must have not presented it correctly.  Let's try again.

The only thing that bothers me about severely contoured greens is when they get so fast that most pin placements cannot be used, because it's absurd to do so due to the effect of gravity.  That is, no ball will stay anywhere near the hole - gravity combined with green speed will not allow it to sit at rest anywhere near - so only the truly sadistic would put a pin there.  The effect then becomes that vast otherwise useable parts of the greens go unused.  This has been the case at Pasatiempo FAR too often in recent times - given they refuse to decrease the speed, the choice is goofy golf or boring pin placements.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And so I ask for education about #7 Friars Head - having never been there.  Would Ian's same putt taken from below the hole stay near the hole if missed, or would it roll back to his feet or farther away?

TH

ps - easy on the assumptions re my knowledge of pace and narrow view of a green function, OK?  You read a lot into my post that I not only didn't mean, but surely don't believe.  I really think we're on the same page here.  Just confirm what I think about #7 FH - that it isn't absurd - that's all I was asking for.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Paul,
Do you have any images of the current 6th, 7th & 11th of the Eden course?

Tom,
Keep yourself rest assured, the 7th at Friar's Head maybe one of the greatest greens ever built both strategically and in the funnest sense of the game. It works from every angle in the fairway as well as every position on the green for every pin.

[Tom Huckaby]

Fellow Thomas:

Many thanks.  Of course Mr. Mucci could have answered similarly.  But I still love him so.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The only thing that bothers me about severely contoured greens is when they get so fast that most pin placements cannot be used, because it's absurd to do so due to the effect of gravity.  

That's the fault of the leadership of the club, not the architecture.[/color]

That is, no ball will stay anywhere near the hole - gravity combined with green speed will not allow it to sit at rest anywhere near - so only the truly sadistic would put a pin there.  The effect then becomes that vast otherwise useable parts of the greens go unused.  This has been the case at Pasatiempo FAR too often in recent times - given they refuse to decrease the speed, the choice is goofy golf or boring pin placements.

AGAIN, that's the fault of management, not the architecture.[/color]

And so I ask for education about #7 Friars Head - having never been there.  Would Ian's same putt taken from below the hole stay near the hole if missed, or would it roll back to his feet or farther away?

You can't make the comparison because the scale is so vastly different as is the approach shot.

Friar's Head has miniature tiers, not the kind pictured at Sitwell which are larger in scale.

As to Ian's putt, it depends upon how hard he hits it.
It's no different then some of the putts at NGLA.
Hit them too soft and you don't make the next tier, hit them too hard and you go well past the hole, perhaps to another tier.

I can onlly tell you that I found # 7 green at Friar's Head appealing, fun, yet challenging, and a perfect fit for the approach shot.

The 10th green and its relationship to the approach shot are in perfect harmony despite the greens being vastly different.

But, let's go to a hole and green we're both familiar with, the second at Sand Hills.

Do you find anything objectionable about that green ?

A green you can hit with a wedge to a 3-wood.

Putt it too soft and you're back down a tier.
Putt it too hard and you're through the tier.

That's appealing, fun and challenging.
Golf as it should be.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

You must be in a bad mood today.  All I asked was an answer to a very simple question - Tommy handled it well.  All this other stuff to me is bizarre and coming out of left field.

1.  I am not trying to assess blame re green speeds, just making a statement.  But I agree, it's the fault of management.

2. Re FH#7, all I asked is if gravity would cause a ball otherwise at rest to roll back to one's feet.  Tommy seems to have answered that, so I have no issues and assume you guys are correct in your praise for the green.

3. All of the rest, we are very much on the same page.  I have zero objections with any green at Sand Hills, and in fact believe #2 has to be in the upper pantheon of the greatest greens I have seen and played.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You must be in a bad mood today.  All I asked was an answer to a very simple question - Tommy handled it well.  All this other stuff to me is bizarre and coming out of left field.

Actually, I'm in a great mood.
But, why should that get in the way of my posts ?[/color]

1.  I am not trying to assess blame re green speeds, just making a statement.  But I agree, it's the fault of management.

2. Re FH#7, all I asked is if gravity would cause a ball otherwise at rest to roll back to one's feet.  Tommy seems to have answered that, so I have no issues and assume you guys are correct in your praise for the green.

The answer is, a ball at rest, remains at rest.
But, a ball in motion, usually continues in motion......
until it comes to rest, where it remains.[/color]

3. All of the rest, we are very much on the same page.  I have zero objections with any green at Sand Hills, and in fact believe #2 has to be in the upper pantheon of the greatest greens I have seen and played.

And, it's a SKYLINE green too.[/color]

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Gotcha.  Many thanks.  And yes, good point re #2 Sand Hills.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
You asked: "Have putting speeds and USGA specs conspired to render this type of green obsolete ?"

I think it's due in part to the common usage of triplex mowers. How large a part I don't know but I do feel it's right up there with the two reasons you gave.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I'd agree.

I'd also expand their impact to include the shrinkage of the perimeters of putting surfaces, thus condensing available hole locations which when combined with contours exacerbates the situation.

Good call on the Tri-Plexes.

[Tom Huckaby]

Aiming for more education here - as when it comes to maintenance of golf courses I know a lot about Irish folk dancing - but WHY do triplex mowers make this difference?  What do they do that other mowers don't?

Thanks.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Weigh a lot, have wider fields of cut and have wider turning radii.  Operators tend to be leary of fall offs, hence err on the conservative side, thus reducing the size of a green.

They also don't handle contouring as well as walk mowers.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()