News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Green Width and Depth
« on: July 05, 2006, 01:07:46 PM »
Piggy-backing off Tom Doak's current thread, should green width and depth be more formulaic than severety?

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2006, 01:40:20 PM »
Mike:  I'm not quite sure I understand the post, but my green sizes are built to fit the eye.

One thing of which I am not a fan is shallow greens with trouble front and rear -- whether they are built by Nicklaus or Cupp or Mike Strantz or anybody else.  These just don't make sense when the course is firm and fast, when you're playing downwind, or just when you have to play out of a divot (which no architect can control).

However, if there is fairway in the approach or behind the green, then it doesn't really matter how deep the green is because you have a side to miss on.  (That little fifth green at Sebonack is an example.)

Still, in a general sense, I favor the long and narrow green, so that the player who misses to either side is punished more than the player who has hit a straight shot and just couldn't quite get home.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2006, 01:45:55 PM »
Tom,
   What is your take on the axis of the green? What factors do you consider that will prompt you to set the green on a diagonal to the approach?
   I agree about the shallow green concept. One of my favorite local courses is Stevinson Ranch. However,the worst hole at Stevinson Ranch IMO is #4. The hole plays downwind, over water all the way to the green, with bunkering behind the green. It just feels completely out of character with the rest of the course. This is the course that George Kelley did with John Harbottle.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2006, 01:50:45 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Scott Witter

Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2006, 02:07:19 PM »
Bogey:

I believe I do understand your question....and to some degree I think many architects and designers tend to follow some fundamental assemblance, sensibility, programming thought, or an inherent application of a "formula" even if it is at least conceptual, a 'feel' or an aesthetic in nature as Tom D. may be elluding to.

I believe with much of art and design, there are no "real" formulas that we actually follow and, form and function do have an influence to a degree, but along with that are aesthetics, proportion in my opinion is essential to get right, and yes, strategy, and of course all the things that go along with the shot at hand, the lay of the land, axis, depth, width, etc. that provide guidance to design and build the appropriate putting surface to fit the setting and meet the parameters involved in any given situation.  Not a direct answer I know, but I don't think it has a direct, cut and dry answer...nor should it IMO.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2006, 02:08:04 PM »
Ed:  I think a diagonal green is nearly always fair game, although it is extremely awkward when the diagonal is set to one quarter when the prevailing wind tends to come from the opposite quarter [i.e. a "fade" green with a "hook" wind].

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2006, 02:09:52 PM »
Mike,

There are rules of thumb for green size, if you follow the USGA slope rating guide, although they do present problems.  The general gist is that "proper" green size is a width 15% of approach shot distance.  Depth for average players is about 22.5%, for scratch players, its about 15%, because they have better distance control.  Thus, if you anticipate a 160 yard approach (which is problematic in itself) then the green should be approximately 24 wide X 36 yards deep to accomodate most players.

That statistically argues for greens longer than wide, as Tom suggests.  It also suggests side bunkering, since that affects all players about equally, rather than front bunkering which kills most average players, as a general rule of design.

However, nothing is wrong with greens smaller, larger or anywhere really, since variety is key. My only complaint on a course would be if too many consecutive greens were "too small" to hold an approach shot.

As someone mentioned on the other thread, wind, uphill and downhill lies and shots, and perhaps severity of surrounding hazards should all be considered in basic green dimensions.

Tom's ideas about fairway behind the green sort of mirror those of George Thomas, who advocated more fair green behind the target to make an overplay an easier recovery than a short shot would have.  Thomas also sized greens according to wind - figuring they could be narrower downwind, which tends to straighten shots, and presumably wider in headwinds.

Unlike Tom, I don't fit - at least initially - to my eye.  I have found my eye tends to make greens to small, and I also know we are all creatures of habit, so eye size greens can tend to be too similar, at least in my case.  So, I rely on at least starting dimensions off a plan to get things the way I want.

Some may say its formula, but actually, I find that having some kind of formula for variety - like long par 4's with small, medium, medium large and large greens - has improved my designs, not hurt them.  While many of us remember greens by features - "the one with no bunkers" for example, I find better players tend to remember things like "the hole with the long iron to a postage stamp."
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2006, 02:16:34 PM »
Tom,

I was thinking of the design philosophy that pairs shallow greens with short approaches and deep greens with longer ones.  

Your last sentence reflects a surprising kinship with Donald Ross as from my experience, the only place to miss on many of his holes is short AND directly on line.  

As for trouble short and long of shallow greens, I agree that a false front or fallaway rear is preferrable to other hazards (the 5th at Cuscowilla comes to mind), but the 12th at Augusta and 9th at Cypress Point Clubs are two of the better holes anywhere, no?

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2006, 02:24:38 PM »
Some may say its formula, but actually, I find that having some kind of formula for variety - like long par 4's with small, medium, medium large and large greens - has improved my designs, not hurt them.  

Jeff,

Thanks for that reply.  I highlighted this quote because it reminded me of your article I ran across while thinking about wind as a strategic element:

http://www.cybergolf.com/brauersbook/index.asp?newsID=1648

I was struck by your formulaic approach to wind.  This leads me to a bigger issue that is perhaps a new thread topic:  Are some architects left-brained and right-brained.  Worth asking and discussing?

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Width and Depth
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2006, 03:40:54 PM »
Mike,

Ron Whitten did a GD or GW article on that very subject, that covered it very well.  I don't recall when it was, but I am sure you could look it up.

I also don't recall (perhaps I am getting "no-brained") which side is artistic and which side is rigid thought, but I have always suspected that the best gca's are a blend of both, perhaps leaning to the artistic side ever so slightly, or if more, then making sure to have back up in the office for the engineering side of things.  My mother came from an English family with at least a few landscape painters, and my German surname tells you where the engineering side of my skills come from! I think I am fairly well set skill wise.

As to formula in design, while its fashionable to say I follow no formula - and architects from Doak to Fazio say the same thing with very different results - as I stated, I found myself doing the same things over and over when going by the seat of my pants.  For me, it helps to have a hip pocket list of neat and new ideas and hole types I would like to work in somehow, and I usually have far more than 18 of those, with the list expanding every day, so I don't have to force them on the ground on every course.

I also have to say that most gca types never really understand how some decisions affect play, and designing soley artistically can lead to big problems.  I examine the wind, et al formulaically as a starting point and double check to be sure I haven't unintentionally designed some barely playable hole.  Then, of course, I can always intentionally design one that is unplayable if I so choose, but that would be my choice.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2006, 03:50:59 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach