[Mike_Cirba]

Brad Miller's post about the 9th at Quaker Ridge has me wondering if there isn't an architectural feature that is often missing in modern design that might do quite a bit to restore challenge to the game for the best players.

The 9th green at QR features a diagonal tongue of green that is situated "front right", and which is protected by deep bunkers fore and aft.  I'm not sure exactly how many paces it is across, but it's quite narrow and any hole located in that area is exceptionally demanding.

Interestingly, when the pin is placed there, the bailout area becomes the back left portion of the green, which is wider and more accommodating.  Still, getting down in two putts from there is a challenge, but rather doable.

Is this an example of the type of hole that is eminently playable for the average golfer, but can be quickly "turned up" in terms of challenge for the best players?

What other holes do we know that have those type of demanding green tongues?  One that comes to mind is the original 8th green at Pine Valley, which was lost over the years.

Why don't we see more of this feature in modern design?  It certainly seems to be the type of thing that would tempt the better players, yet provide an "out" for others less aggressive or talented.  

It seems to me that greens could be created with all sorts of "extended" features, that could provide almost unlimited options.  Yet, almost universally, greens tend to be shaped in some type of generally circular fashion, when there are so many other possibilities that don't seem all that challenging from a maintenance or "wear" perspective.  For instance, what's wrong with a green with tentacles, or fingers reaching in different directions?  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

There's a very real reason for not having greenspace of that sort and I'm surely not saying that it's right!

That kind of greenspace, if a pin can be placed within it is not something that a good player executing even his optimum shot feels he could go for (and of course a good player thinks he should be able to go directly at any pin)!

That kind of thing is certainly something that the aerial experts of today very much resist (because they can't shoot right at the pin) and it wasn't just them that invented that sentiment. Some architectural experts of the Golden Age resisted it too, and for the same reason!

William Fownes (Oakmont & Pine Valley) very much resisted that sort of architectural idea!

Fownes even advocated that the 1st green of Pine Valley was ill-conceived (and should have been changed) as the narrowness towards the rear penalized a good player from attempted to get a ball back there!

Strange but very true!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

It has to be the right distance to tempt. Put a short iron or wedge in the good golfer's hand and a number will likely give it a go. A slight variation, MacKenzie created a few of these green tongues in the fronts of some of his greens - narrow false fronts.

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

I share your feeling that this feature could be employed more than it is today, even if that means disagreeing with Crump, Fownes & Co.  Sure one could get carried away and create something goofy, but I think enough architectural talent exists today to do it right. Overall, there are far too many greens where different pin positions don't really require a much different shot. Tongues would seem to offer more variety and challenge.

Unlike Tom MacWood, I don't just have short irons in mind. Rather I'd like to see tongues deployed for mid iron approach shots and  require a certain flight pattern to set up a good birdie opportunity. I think if one got creative tying in the slope on the green you could create some cool shots.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

It seems to me you might be talking about super sucker pins! There might even be a number around that are almost impossible to get directly at! We were looking today at the very back left of #11 Merion--looks to be almost impossible to go directly at only because it's so shallow (from head-on at the golfer) and there's nothing about the contour of the green that could filter a ball to it!

Possibly the far left side of #14 Overbrook is impossible to get directly at.  The most difficult are the shallow tongues but some interesting ones that aren't shallow but are extremely narrow (side to side) are the very front of #6 & #16 Lehigh--both less than 9 steps across!

I'm interested in this because we might be about to do this with an expansion area on the little #4 at GMGC. I was looking at it just the other day with your thought in mind. If we can get a pin in this very shallow space (tongue), I can't see how any golfer could go right at it unless the green was very receptive!

Ironically, Crump did a good deal of this originally at Pine Valley, either extremely shallow or extremely narrow pin placement areas. Examples, all of which are gone now, are #8, #9, #11 & #17!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
George Bahto and the Super at Essex created one on the front of the par 3 sixth? hole. It would not be a pinsite that even a very good player would try to get at in stroke play. It does have some great bank shot possibilities due to the undulations of the green to the rear.
I think it's very hard to lure accomplished players to ever attack pins that are placed in the kinds of areas you are describing. One way to get them to take the chance is to limit the severity of the surrounds, i.e., I miss the green I have a chip, not an explosion from a bunker 10' below the green.  

TEPaul,
I don't think the "aerial experts" of today resent not being able to go right at a pin. They have no problem at Augusta
shooting to the proper side of the greens. If they played a long Redan hole with the pin down left they would try to manuever the ball close, and that type of set-up is similar to shooting toward a "finger" of green. What they might resent more would be a pin set out on a "finger" that was nearly impossible to get to and because of its being in that position left little chance for birdie.

[Joe Hancock]

Kingsley Club, 9th hole from the left-most tees presents a "super sucker" pin placement on the right side of the green. It's a dangerously shallow green at that angle, and I would say the shot is intended to be brought in low and left to let it feed to the right side of the green.

Joe

[brad miller]

Mike, what do you think of Prairie Dunes: #1 BL, #2 BL/FR, #4 BL/FR, #8 Fand B, #10 FR, #11, BR, #13 FR/BL,#15 BR, #16 FL/BR, #17 BR and #18 BL.  Maybe we need to see more diagonal shapes and orientations.

[Slag_Bandoon]

  So when we play these holes our golf clubs become "awww sticks"?  

  I  like the idea,  if the pin isn't targeted, it still makes a player think of where to place the ball for next shot.  Actually, this is more interesting.  Sort of like making that extra pass in basketball.  Besides, the best lag can be a lag chip.

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad;

I'm all for the diagonal type of greens one finds all over the place at PD, especially when coupled with the type of internal contours and green fallaways that are found there.

I'm just not sure that any of those examples fall into the category of green "extension" or tongue I'm thinking about, sort of like the front right on QR #9 that you mentioned, or back left on Merion's 11th, as well as some other examples brought up to date.  Perhaps front left on 17 is the closest example, if only because it is so exacting and protected and because the bail out is to go long middle, but not because it is an area that is sort of "unto itself", if I'm describing it correctly.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

TEPaul might have left off the left rear of # 10 at Merion and the back left of # 9, which I would consider modified tongues.

I think they are neat, yet demanding features, usually guarded by bunkers.  If one feels that their bunker play is exceptional, the temptation to go for them is increased.

Match versus Medal play is also a consideration.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I would not include either the back left section of Merion's #9 (closely guarded by bunkers) or the back left section of Merion's #10 either, as opposed to say the back left section of #11!

Here's why:

Merion's back left #9 can be shot right at and you saw it yesterday from Mike Moffatt as he hit a towering 5 iron to the left of the pin (into the tongue) on the back left (effectively about 200yds) and stopped it! So that means that section can be gotten at although clearly a demanding shot.

And I wouldn't include the back left of #10 either and the reason I wouldn't is much of what makes #10 such a strategic hole. It's true if you lay back in the fairway with something other than a driver you'd need to hit something at a back left pin into a very shallow angle and that might not be doable!

But if the pin is back left on #10 the strategy from the tee would be to hit something much farther down the fairway (opening up the green totally from that angle) and then you'd be coming directly down the length of the green and then the approach is no tongue at all but only distance control down the green to the left (or back from that angle).

On #11 there is no strategic opportunity whatsoever to open up the back left section to an approach shot--the green is head-on with that back left tongue completely guarded by the left bunker and the shallowness back there offers no real opportunity to go directly at that pine if the greens were of the firmness they were yesterday (or a little firmer). There is no way to filter the ball back to that section either because there's no internal green contour back there to allow for that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

From an iron lay up on # 10, that back left portion of the green operates as a tongue, and is a very intimidating shot, one that I would doubt that many would attempt at medal play.  The prudent shot would seem to be the center of the green, and two putt from 30-40 feet.

As we discussed, critical to the play of that hole is the ascertainment of the pin location as you walk to the 2nd tee.
AND, I still feel, that a tee shot into the far rough might be the shot of preference for every pin location, save back, back left, where the rear bunker would guard any attempt at direct assault.

This is a neat hole that reminds me of # 1 at GCGC, and # 12 at PV.

[John Lyon]

Joe, I agree that Kingsley #9 is a good example of this concept from either the west (your example) and the south tee with the pin on the left tongue.    My favorite is actually Kingsley #2 with the pin up front.  #2 is a T shaped green with the narrow base (5 yds of useable landing width) playing only about 120-130 yds.  Hitting the ball to the back of the green is the sensible way to play.

[Steve Lang]

Have right-handed players forgotten how to draw the ball to roll it to a back left pin and fade the ball to a front pin to stop it, ala the Hogan approach?  We used to have a very pronounced tongue, almost finger portion, left rear of a large par-5 on the WCC Pines course, guarded right and short-left by bunkers.  It seemed easier to get to with a low drawn mid-iron than a high short iron.  I would imagine that architects thought of this more in the past than in the present when greens were slower and finesse was more appreaciated...

  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TXSTEVE,

It only works if TEPaul's "Maintainance Meld" exists.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Indeed, Merion's #10 is almost the exact same concept as PVGC's #12! The choice of clubs on the tee well struck determines the type of approach, wide and shallow or narrow and long! A really excellent type of hole that Tillinghast would call a short delayed elbow hole. But just imagine how much more interesting a hole like that is when the green surfaces are on the firm side!!

[Steve Lang]

Agreed,  I read that the other day, the M2 concept is great, but how can a supt. acheive such day-in day-out?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()