[Kyle Harris]

How deep is the green on Streamsong Red Number 8? I remember a deep one on Black as well. Was that part of the brief from the developers?


Ira

Not as deep as Blue #5, but with flexibility ranging from the Pat Mucci Ace setup of approx. 75 yards to 165 yards depending on the tee location (left or right).

[Stewart Abramson]

  I think the 7th at Glen Mills (outside Philadelphia) by Bobby Weed fits this thread.  The green is probably 80 yards front to back with 4 levels and lots of movement.  It plays uphill, probably as little as 160 and as much as 230.  It’s sort of the 5th at Pine Valley on steroids. Even has a big drop off on the right and a left to right bounce on the left.

Glen  Mills #7 uphill par 3 from front tee



Glen  Mills #7  left side of green   The entire green didn't fit in this frame

[Stewart Abramson]

Four at Wilshire is almost exactly like this. So is four at Paa-Ko Ridge where I think the green is over 100 yards deep. I love these holes as long as there isn’t a “best” hole location where you’re kind of bummed if it’s cut somewhere else that day (i.e. front on a Biarritz!).

Paa-Ko Ridge #4 par 3 180 yards to middle from tips - tiered green is almost 100 yards deep



Paa-Ko Ridge #4 view back over very deep green

[Jeff_Brauer]

For whatever reason, I woke up this morning thinking about this one.  While not the sole criteria for selecting one design over another, it occurred to me that par 3 holes back up play, and in general, a design that might create confusion, extremely long putts, lots of chip shots, etc., might back play up even more.


For at least many courses, as exciting as that design might be for the 3% (or 0.03%) interested in architecture, would it be appreciated by course managers and/or the 99.97% of golfers who find the worst part of golf is slow play?  In considering everything that must be considered in most designs, is it worth it overall, given the extra maintenance AND reduced revenues it might cause?


Of course, thinking even more broadly about par 3 holes and back ups, I wonder if we would have to (gasp!!) rethink Ross's dictum that will the ball on a tee, and distance controlled, it is feasible/desirable to make par 3 holes harder shots that you would otherwise?  On at least the modern public course, from the middle tees forward at least, should all par 3 holes be shorter than 170 yards and with greens slightly (but not overly) larger than what we would expect most bogey golfers to hit, with few hazards, and gentle putting contours, so they can get a move on, finish the hole, and not back up play?

[Jason Thurman]

My objection to the hole at The Prairie Club was that it looked like there were situations where there was no golf shot from the wrong part of the green to the right part, and further, that it wouldn't be easy to take that miss out of play.  [ex. You can get stymied on the boomerang green at Crystal Downs, but you can also take that out of play by playing left, so if you're stymied it's a bad miss.]

To be fair, I haven't even played the hole once - the course was ckosed for the season, and I was in the midst of seeing 55 holes in one day.  It just felt like they got carried away with it and hadn't considered all of the combinations, and it was too much for the golfer to simplify.

I'd like to tell you that 4 at PC(D) provides routes to any pin from anywhere on the green, but it's now been almost 10 years since the one day I played it and I honestly can't claim that in good faith.


But like you say, someone who gets stymied on 7 at Crystal Downs has hit a really bad shot. And to get stymied on 4 at PC(D), you also have to hit a really bad shot. I know you can get close to a front left pin OR a back right pin from the center of the green. I can't vouch that you can putt from front left to back right and have a realistic chance to get reasonably close, for example. But I do know that if you're facing that shot, you've missed the target by about 60-80 yards. I think that constitutes a pretty terrible miss, and if your best chance of two-putting in that situation is to either make a 20 footer or pull a Woodland, I'm okay with that. How much better am I supposed to think you'd have fared getting down in two with a wedge from 70 yards away on fairway instead?


Jeff, I think you make a fair point for the majority of courses. But while the logic around designing to keep golfers moving makes a lot of sense, it doesn't always hold up in practice. If I think of the courses in my area with the most user-friendly design - the places that architecturally seem like they'd be easiest to play quickly due to lack of length, hazards, and other slowdown-causing features - I think of a couple city-owned munis that attract a crowd of beginners and hacks that leads to some of the most abhorrently slow play I've ever experienced. That's anecdotal, but it does seem to me like there's a threshold level of architectural interest that draws a savvier clientele, and leaning too much into designing to keep people moving might sometimes backfire by failing to meet it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,


Generally, I agree with you.  Golfers may not understand architecture, but they do recognize courses they like, probably due to some combo of beauty and design interest.  And, a few like the unusual, as the described green would be, for certain.  I do think a creative architect can come up with all the desirable attributes without it being drop dead dull, however, and it doesn't have to be muni level or US Open tough.  So, the question still stands, for any given course, would the green in the OP - described as a template, which suggests an architect would use it every course - be able to provide design interest, "fair play" (as TD describes it, being able to putt anywhere on the green) and keep play moving.


As I mentioned, I have used a 90 yard long green on both par 4 holes and once on a par 5.  Thinking again only about speed of play, maybe using this kind of green, which might slow down play, on the hole preceding a par 3 might be the best use.  Just a thought.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()