A simple feature with GREAT playability

[Patrick_Mucci]

They're at NGLA, The Creek and many old courses.

A green that tilts back to front, with a back upper tier, with a sheer drop off, with a vast bunker behind the green.

Hole locations on the upper tier challenge the golfer, exponentially.

Shots hit short of the upper tier are faced with a difficult two putt.

Shots hit over the green are faced with a near impossible recovery to a smaller tier on a green that slopes away from the golfer.

Knowing that disaster waits, behind the green, makes good golfers timid, erring on the conservative side, resulting in careless bogies.

Even recovery shots from in front of the green are difficult,

It seems that the "classic" or "Golden Age" architects used this technique, this feature, in great abundance, yet, its effect on playability is undeniable.

Even if it is used repetitively, it seems to work marvelously, since, sooner or later, a golfer will come up short or overshoot his mark, resulting in a bogey or worse.

Why don't we see more of this feature in modern designs, especially since earthmoving is so widely employed ?

# 16 at The Creek is a perfect example, amongst many.

[Adam Clayman]

Pat,

 Pete Dye uses sharp drop offs, sectioned greens and has for many years. Even the mostly subtle "Teeth of The Dog" had these great situations where the simplicity was highlighted.

A high School drafting class designed nine holes in Moab, Ut. I was floored by how basic their use of pushed up earth made the challenge of a deft touch "all it ever needs to be".

Just to clarify. would the back of the tenth at Shinnecock, be similar(although not subtle) to what you are describing?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

I think so, although, that green is relatively small, so if you hit it below the cup, the putt is fairly benign.

One of the critical elements of the green I described is its size, the size of the upper back tier and the difficulty in putting from the lower section of the green, uphill to the upper tier.

In addition, as a par 4 or par 5 I think the feature works better since pitch shots to the green are likely, whereas on a 157 yard par 3, I doubt you'll be hitting a 50 or 100 yard approach shot to the green from in front of the green.

The 11th at SH would seem to call for a Lob-Wedge for all recoveries.

[corey miller]

I don't have the answer to your question Pat but I do know at my club the feature WAS there on one of our par 3 holes.

It is a 170 par 3 with steep fall-off right and monster bunker long with a fall-off deep protecting a smallish puttable area above a pretty steep grade in the green It is ~180-185 to this back area.

Anyway, over the course of time too many trees encroached on the hole combined with soft greens and rough encroaching from the back which not only prevents balls from rolling into the bunker but also shrinks the green area to a portion that is so small that itself becomes unpinnable.  That combined with the unpinnable slope leading up to this area and now 30% of the green is now unpinnable.  

The next step is removal of the back bunker because "nobody goes in it".  

Maybe it is hard to propose features such as this on newer designs because they have a history of having been removed or not maintained properly on older designs?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Sounds similar to our first hole, which works well because of the terrain, a roller coaster fairway and an uphill approach.

Granted, you could move the earth to get the desired effect,  but doesn't this type of hole work better with a fairway that rises up to the green itself, or one that runs along a plateau or ridge, and then drops off just past the chosen greensite?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Yes, when the terrain presents the feature, but, sometimes it doesn't.

CBM, SR and CB used this feature over and over again, successfully.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
It sure is easier to move dirt today, but wouldn't it add cost, especially if you didn't want the greensite to 'stick out' from it's surrounds.  

I also think Corey's remark about "....removal of the back bunker because "nobody goes in it"." is true.  

[Rick Shefchik]

I really enjoy greens of this type when I get a chance to play them, but I don't know that the back bunker is necessary.

"Shots hit over the green are faced with a near impossible recovery to a smaller tier on a green that slopes away from the golfer."

On a green like this, that's true whether you've got a bunker behind the green or not. If anything, a bunker might make it a little easier for the skilled player to stop a recovery shot somewhere on the top tier of the green.

I'm not arguing against the bunker, but I think this green type works great either way.

[SPDB]

Patrick - I agree with you. As you note, Seth Raynor used this style in abundance, which seems logical given how manufactured his green complexes were. The finest example I know of is the 13th at Piping Rock (Knoll)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I agree its a great feature and have done similar green recently when confronted with fallaway green sites. I have shaped them like the "Liberty Bell" - patriot that I am - but also because the wider front and narrower back serve to heighten the dilema of going for the back pin even more.  I have even added kick in banks, like Fox Chapels "Dust Pan" green, making the back the narrow handle to make hitting the fat part easy and the narrow part really hard.  

I heard Jack Nicklaus say he thinks these are particularly good on downwind shots, giving the golfer the option of a lower spin shot to run it up the tier to be a bit safer.  The dilema on a downwind shot would certainly increase.

One objection to tierd greens is that the punishment for missing can be disproportionate - spinning back off the bank puts a shot that on a normal green might end up ten feet from the hole as far back as, well, off the front of the green!

Another is that the tiers look unnatural in many cases.  

I know one well respected gca who has reduced the number of tiers per course simply because he has found that his courses are too tough.  

I asked players like Lanny Wadkins about it, and he is adamant that four per course (at a variety of angles) is plenty - preferring gentle rolls on the edges of greens that he can use to work shots in.

We'll see if golfers like my greens or if they think they should have more free reign to go at even the Sunday pin.

[Dave Bourgeois]

I agree that what you describe is a wonderful feature because it forces the player to make a real decision on how to play the approach.  

Good design to me requires thought, and not just an aim and fire approach.  Green contours, kicker mounds, center line hazards are all things I love in a course.  In addition the feature here adds doubt, where one needs to consider the consequences of a poor swing.  

I'm sure this feature is found more on the private side where members can continually unravel the mysteries of a course over time.  If a public course annoys too many people with tough holes than that could hurt business in the long run.

[Mark_Fine]

Sometimes the simplest looking holes can be the most complex.  Lehigh's #5 hole is a great example.  The hole doglegs slightly uphill to the right with a bunker on the inside corner.  The green sits seemingly unprotected almost as an extention of the fairway with a bunker wrapping around the right side.  It looks simple and harmless but it might very well be the most dangerous greensite on the golf course.  

You can easily over complicate a golf hole with too many design features.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
It sure is easier to move dirt today, but wouldn't it add cost, especially if you didn't want the greensite to 'stick out' from it's surrounds.  

I also think Corey's remark about "....removal of the back bunker because "nobody goes in it"." is true.  

Jim,

Then, unfortunately, those clubs don't get it.

It's the fear of going long, over and into the bunker that makes everyone more cautious.  That's what intimidates the golfer from 200 to 10 yards out.

It alters their thinking and their play, and that's the beauty of the feature, it functions because of its presence, not because of the frequency by which golfers find themselves in it.

Getting to the upper back tier is a real challenge, mentally and physically.

And, the golfer pays a price for being both too conservative and too aggressive.

The impact on the golfer, when faced with this challenge on a repetitive basis is significant.

Similarly, on the 7th at The Creek, even with a little 40-80 yard approach, the skyline green, coupled with a back pin position, and the knowledge that the green falls off sharply intimidates most golfers.

The same applies to many holes at NGLA.

The 7th, 12th, 15th and the 18th holes at NGLA, with back pin positions, are fiightening to approach from a mere 10 to 20 yards from the green.

Imagine that, being only 10 yards from the green and frightened at the prospect of the next shot and the consequences that befall an errant shot.

That's genius in design.