[Patrick_Mucci]

Recently I played in a competiton at NGLA.

The hole locations were spectacular.
Frightening, but, spectacular.

In many cases, the visual created a psychological factor, the perspective of the golfer, which overwhelmed the physical factor.

As an example, the hole on # 18 was cut precariously close to the right edge of the green, which falls precipitously down to the Bay.  

In addition, the wind was cool and howling from the North, or NNW.

The proximity of the hole location forced many golfers to play away from the pin, toward the center of the green.

The wind pushed those balls further from the hole.

Now, the golfer was faced with a "skyline" chip, pitch or putt, back toward what looked like the end of the earth.

Even though there was room past the hole, to the right edge of the green, and some additional room before a ball would roll into tall rough below the level of the green, most, if not all golfers could get the ball to the hole, resulting in an overwhelming abundance of three putts, or failures to up and down it for shots that missed the green.

The visual, combined with the direction and velocity of the wind was frightening.

One should view Google Earth to get a feel of the area and play of the hole from just off, left or on the green.

Other holes presented commensurate challenges.
# 4 ,the Redan hole had the hole located as far left as possible, deep into the back left corner.  It presented a frightening looking approach.

Balls hit long had it easier than balls hit short.
Balls hit long had it easier than balls on the green, but, a good distance from the hole.  However, few could visualize and plan on playing long of the hole.

First, the carry to the pin is the longest on the hole, probably in the 190 to 200 range, without factoring in any wind.

In both instances, noone could remember seeing either pin in those locations, EVER.

Have most golf courses fallen into hole location routines ?

At some courses, depending upon the day of the week, I can accurately predict the hole locations.

At another course that I'm familiar with, the hole locations for the last 5 or more years have been extreme, resulting in NEW positions and challenges.

At the begining, some members didn't like it, but now, knowing that the practice is here to stay, few complain and many love it.

It's certainly more challenging, but, it's also a hell of a lot more fun.  It makes you think and execute in accordance with your abilities ..... at both.

Has the concept of "fairness" stifled diversity in hole locations at many clubs ?

Has modern day green speeds killed the practice ?

Why don't more clubs take to employing, what some may consider, extreme hole locations ?

Note: Stimps are in harmony with the locations, thus avoiding goofy golf.

[David Stamm]

Pat, I'm all for trying bold new holes locations on greens provided the speeds, as you noted, are in line with those locations. I do think clubs do get into "ruts" and don't try to push the envelope and try different ones. Perhaps for fear of what the members reactions may be, if that course is a private club. I think by progressively pushing a little further each time, the memebers would get used to the "tougher" locations in time.

I do know of one public course that has a certain pin location that drives a few members of this site nuts. I'll refrain from naming this course and hole and see if anyone knows which one I'm talking about. It is virtually impossible to get near this pin, and if your drive is well placed, you usually have some sort of wedge coming in.

[CHrisB]

Patrick,

I'm working on my answer, but first a question: how much higher are the scores than usual when these so-called extreme hole locations are used?

If scores are even a shot or two higher than usual across the board, then I could see some golfers being concerned about the impact this would have on handicaps (theirs and other members).

Since USGA Course Ratings and Slope Ratings are static, setting up the course with difficult/spectacular hole locations would make it harder to play to one's handicap, which might be a problem for some club/handicap golfers (though it shouldn't be for the reasons you stated).

[SPDB]

Pat - Would it be scarier if the wind were out of the South?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I'm working on my answer, but first a question: how much higher are the scores than usual when these so-called extreme hole locations are used?

Chris, it's a good question.

There hasn't been any noticable change in handicap.
Perhaps it's due to stroke control, but, the membership seems to have embraced the practice.

Key to that is that the leadership of the club let it be known that the practice was going to continue in spite of early complaints.

Once the membership understood that, the complaining is minimimal if not occassional and the membership appears to enjoy the challenge, which would appear to be greater for the lower handicap player.[/color]

If scores are even a shot or two higher than usual across the board, then I could see some golfers being concerned about the impact this would have on handicaps (theirs and other members).

Why ?

If EVERYONE'S handicap went up 1 or 2 strokes, the entire membership would still be on an equal footing AND, tough as nails when they travel.[/color]

Since USGA Course Ratings and Slope Ratings are static, setting up the course with difficult/spectacular hole locations would make it harder to play to one's handicap, which might be a problem for some club/handicap golfers (though it shouldn't be for the reasons you stated).

That's true, handicaps might go up, but, they wouldn't go up selectively as much as they'd go up universally, which means that the competitive relationship amongst the members wouldn't change.

I think it's helped me in many ways, and, I'm having more fun..... sometimes[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - Would it be scarier if the wind were out of the South?

Sean,

I thought about that.

I don't think so, because shots played well wide of the target would be helped in getting closer to the hole on the approach and recovery.

Overcooking a putt, recovery or approach could be disastrous, but, fighting into the wind to get closer to the hole was a difficult psychological challenge.

A prevailing wind is out of the South or SouthEast so most are used to it.

[Pete_Pittock]

David,
Would that be front and center at Rustic Canyon #12 on top of the nose?

[David Stamm]

David,
Would that be front and center at Rustic Canyon #12 on top of the nose?

Bingo! We have a winner. I have to admit, that pin placement is just crazy. I know it doesn't say anywhere that "thou shalt have the right to get near the pin", but that is one tough nut to crack.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

Sometime setting hole locations in new places can cost people their jobs.

[Evan_Smith]

Pat
 
Neat thread.  I'm sure it's something that most people wouldn't think about too much.

In regards to Kyle's thought about people losing their jobs, if the hole setter is smart about it, there should never be a problem.  This is where I think that hole setters should be golfers, and more than that, smart golfers.  I worked on the greens staff at my home course, Cataraqui, during the summers when I was going to College.  Cataraqui is an old Stanley Thompson course that has relatively small greens and not too many that have a lot of undulation in them.  They're still great, but nothing like Augusta or TOC!  Being a good golfer (at the time) I wanted to give the members a challenge without causing them grief and complaining to the Super.   I was at my own discretion to place the pins, but for the most part it would be 6 Front, 6 Middle and 6 Back.  I would also try to make it 6 Easy, 6 Medium and 6 Hard.  I also tried to put pins where they usually weren't because it's something I would like to see as a member because I think that it's kind of like playing a new hole.

On my 6 hard pins, I would usually place them over, or near a bunker, or near the edge of a gentle slope so that a shot missed by 5 or 10 feet would roll a little further away.  I also based my selection on the course conditions and the days weather forecast regarding wind etc.  I don't recall ever having any complaints, and I usually got a lot of compliments for putting pins in new spots.  I think the main point here is to not have 14 difficult pin positions, that's just going to make everyone upset.  But by putting a few out there, it gives the members something to think about (being in the correct part of the fairway to attack the pin) and it also lets the other parts of the greens rest.

Golf is not supposed to be easy, but it's also not supposed to be unfair.  I hate when I go to another course and they've put the pin on a slope where the ball won't stop unless you hit the hole.  It's really dumb when it happens on a public fee course as it just slows up play.  New and interesting pins should be used, but the hole setter needs to be smart about it.

[SPDB]

Patrick,
For some reason, it seems to me that given the hole location you describe, a northerly wind would strike more fear, at least for me. Couldn't you make a more aggressive play at the pin if you could hold a fade against the wind with the wind offering some protection against going right of the green while still allowing an agressive play?

Also, doesn't the green fall precipitously into a bunker before falling precipitously down the the bay?

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: Unfortunately, I think that other than for special events most courses ignore the significance of pin placements.  A member of the grounds crew goes out early and knows that the pin should be rotated on the green and tries to move it around the best he can to minimize wear; same thing for tee markers.  I would imagine that the only way to really do an effective job in locating pins is to figure them out the day before, and at the same time consider where the tee markers should be placed.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat
 
Neat thread.  I'm sure it's something that most people wouldn't think about too much.

In regards to Kyle's thought about people losing their jobs, if the hole setter is smart about it there should never be a problem.  This is where I think that hole setters should be golfers, and more than that, smart golfers.  I worked on the greens staff at my home course, Cataraqui, during the summers when I was going to College.  Cataraqui is an old Stanley Thompson course that has relatively small greens and not too many that have a lot of undulation in them.  They're still great, but nothing like Augusta or TOC!  Being a good golfer (at the time) I wanted to give the members a challenge without causing them grief and complaining to the Super.   I was at my own discretion to place the pins, but for the most part it would be 6 Front, 6 Middle and 6 Back.  I would also try to make it 6 Easy, 6 Medium and 6 Hard.  I also tried to put pins where they usually weren't because it's something I would like to see as a member because I think that it's kind of like playing a new hole.

On my 6 hard pins, I would usually place them over, or near a bunker, or near the edge of a gentle slope so that a shot missed by 5 or 10 feet would roll a little further away.  I also based my selection on the course conditions and the days weather forecast regarding wind etc.  I don't recall ever having any complaints, and I usually got a lot of compliments for putting pins in new spots.  I think the main point here is to not have 14 difficult pin positions, that's just going to make everyone upset.  But by putting a few out there, it gives the members something to think about (being in the correct part of the fairway to attack the pin) and it also lets the other parts of the greens rest.

Golf is not supposed to be easy, but it's also not supposed to be unfair.  I hate when I go to another course and they've put the pin on a slope where the ball won't stop unless you hit the hole.  It's really dumb when it happens on a public fee course as it just slows up play.  New and interesting pins should be used, but the hole setter needs to be smart about it.

Evan,

I can assure you it is more than a thought. But what you are suggesting is, of course, what is taught. However, Pat's post seems to urge golfers to accept pushing the envelope in terms of acceptance of new and more daring hole locations for a day...

...but their can be consequences for such a thought. It's all about that ethic that got superintendents painted into the corner of having course setups being formulaic. Course setup is one of my favorite jobs for a number of reasons, not the least of which being to try something new.

Pat,

How much fun would NGLA be to play day in and day out if the course followed a set rotation of hole locations?

I ask not to necessarily disagree with you but moreso to point out that certain courses are so well designed as to allow things like rigid formulas of setup not dictate enjoyability on repeat plays. Having only peered through the gates of NGLA and studying aerials I can only guess that National would fit into that category and one may not even notice if things were set up to a schedule.

[Justin Gale]

Going back to the talk of the effect on handicaps...

In Australia, apart from the Course Rating, we have a CCR (calculated course rating) that changes for every club competition round. So if a course plays hard or easy, the rating for the day may be under or over par, depending on the courses official rating. From memory, the CCR may be as much as 2 shots over par, or one under. Handicap adjustments are then made by the difference to the CCR rather than officila rating.

Is this the case in other parts if the world?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Sometime setting hole locations in new places can cost people their jobs.

That's true.

That's why the club's leadership has to be firmly behind the practice.

[JESII]

Pat,

Sometime setting hole locations in new places can cost people their jobs.

That's true.

That's why the club's leadership has to be firmly behind the practice.

Dicey turf here guys...I think it's fair to say the vast majority of players agree with the sentiment of this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For some reason, it seems to me that given the hole location you describe, a northerly wind would strike more fear, at least for me.

That's where they were coming from, N and NNW[/color]

Couldn't you make a more aggressive play at the pin if you could hold a fade against the wind with the wind offering some protection against going right of the green while still allowing an agressive play ?

With a wind of 30 mph, I'm unqualified to "hold a fade" against that type of wind.

I don't know that today's equipment would allow you to produce a fade, or rather, a slice, sufficient enough to hold up against the wind, without a wildly exaggerated swing, which is difficult to do when it's not windy.

I thought about hitting a high shot out over the abyss and letting the wind blow it back onto the green, but, I had a great medal score going and didn't have the confidence to risk it all on that one shot.

It was really a great setting.

I thought of Neil Regan and his famous putts from 100 to 150 yards.

I thought of punching 2, 4, and 6 irons.

I thought of playing at the pin, right of the pin, left of the pin, short of the pin.

In the end, I punched a low club almost perfectly.
It was the almost that did me in.
Rather than drive the back of my left hand toward the target, I let it roll a little.  I don't have to tell you what a 30 mph right to left wind does to that shot.

It was the kind of hole/day that 60 guys could have stood around from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm inventing various ways to play shots from 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, 200 and 250 yards out, and having a great time doing it.  My money would have been on Neil Regan[/color]  

Also, doesn't the green fall precipitously into a bunker before falling precipitously down the the bay?

It would depend upon where your ball exits the green.
There is a flanking bunker, but, it doesn't flank the entire green, it sits toward the middle, leaving the front and rear of the green to the steep bank[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much fun would NGLA be to play day in and day out if the course followed a set rotation of hole locations?

Why do you reference a "set rotation" ?

There's a tremendous variety in hole locations on that green and on all of the others.

There's no need to have a set rotation.
I believe that there is a need to have varied locations.
And, that's what I'm endorsing.[/color]

I ask not to necessarily disagree with you but moreso to point out that certain courses are so well designed as to allow things like rigid formulas of setup not dictate enjoyability on repeat plays.

I think you're missing the point.
There's no need for a rigid formula or "typical" set ups.
There is a need for variety and I see most golf course shunning away from the variety intended by the architect in the name of fairness and excessive green speeds.[/color]

Having only peered through the gates of NGLA and studying aerials I can only guess that National would fit into that category and one may not even notice if things were set up to a schedule.

There's no need for either.
NGLA has enormous flexibility and variety in selecting hole locations.

The beauty of the situation was the newness of some of the hole locations, locations that NOONE had ever seen before.
They were exciting, challenging and FUN.

Why not use all of your architectural assets instead of limiting them to convenient, "fair" locations ?[/color]

[CHrisB]

Going back to the talk of the effect on handicaps...

In Australia, apart from the Course Rating, we have a CCR (calculated course rating) that changes for every club competition round. So if a course plays hard or easy, the rating for the day may be under or over par, depending on the courses official rating. From memory, the CCR may be as much as 2 shots over par, or one under. Handicap adjustments are then made by the difference to the CCR rather than officila rating.

Is this the case in other parts if the world?

Justin,

It is indeed the case in other parts of the world but not in the United States. It is a weakness of the USGA handicapping system in my opinion.

[Tommy Williamsen]

My club has a new superintendent.  I have been playing there for fifteen years.  He has some very "unholy" pin positions.  It is as if I have never played the greens before.  Some of the pins, however, have been cut on some severe slopes.  It makes for fun but scoring is much more difficult.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think some really tough hole locations every now and again is an excellent idea, although I will admit, at first, some members don't understand it and don't like it initially.

It's an excellent way to show off a golf course's latitude.

So is the use of alternative scorecards that allow golfers to play holes in different ways from normal or usual.

I believe putting long players off shorter tees sometimes yields some pretty interesting strategies and of course one of the best ways to tell if a golf course has truly accomodating architecture is to put short players off the tips and watch what strategies they use.

All these things can highlight a golf course's architectural latitude.

[Jeff Doerr]

A number of years ago I played in a publinks qualifier at a local Portland, OR muni. To set the course up the rough was grown up around the greens and every green (not 6, 6, 6) had a REALLY tough, but playable pin. The only hole location more than two paces from the shaggy greenside rough were the ones set 2 to 3 feet from a shelf or the other most challenging green feature. It made for a VERY LONG round and every approach/pitch/putt required some really defensive plays. All day long it seemed like the best you could do was settle for a 20 footer.

The other "Unholy Hole Locations" story I think of is an April 1st tourney I played in at Ghost Creek/Pumpkin Ridge. It was a 2 man scramble, but the locations were so hard that they had a few signs posted indicating a max number of putts allowed for a hole. For those who have played there, the one I remember most was 13. The hole was cut on the very top of the sharp ridge that divides the right 1/3 of the green from the left 2/3. My partner hammered in a 10 footer (it would have gone 20 feet by) to get us a 3. The other twosome with us picked up after hitting their approach to about 20 feet and exceeding the 4 putt rule.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

You asked in your first post if most courses have fallen into a pattern for hole locations. What exactly constitutes most courses I don't know, but there are a number of courses that have day-to-day hole locations (1, 2, 3, etc.) or that divide the greens into 9ths and rotate them in a preset order each day.

I'm asking if playing NGLA day-to-day with a set rotations of holes per green (say... 12 different locations, or perhaps moving the holes between 3-4 zones) would be any more of less interesting?

Hole location is but one part of the course-golfer integration. Given a set rotation for holes, do the features of NGLA combined with the variety of weather and day-to-day condition provide enough stimulation and variance to make it not matter as much.

I am presenting the idea that a course with sufficient rigid variety in terms of green contour, hazard placement and weather/conditioning would not suffer too much from having a hole location rotation, unless you were playing 4-5 times per week such that the routine became old.

I endorse variety and randomness in setup, and pushing the envelope in terms of hole locations and have flown that flag for years. However, I think you may not realize that sometimes having a set rotation of hole locations allows smaller staffs to ensure that a "good but not great" setup occurs and allows the super to focus on other more important areas of day to day maintenance... like... greens. A lot of staffs may only have 3-4 people trained to do setup, and 2 are usually the Superintendent and Assistant.

Course setup is by far my favorite task in the maintenance, and it is usually the most important. But the importance is more in the presentation of the setup (circular, well cut holes, clean tees) than in the challenge presented 80% of the time. I think you may find your answer as to the true "need" for rotation in setup by spending a week or so working on a maintenance staff.

A short answer to your last question may full well be that the superintendent doesn't know the architectural assets of his course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think some really tough hole locations every now and again is an excellent idea, although I will admit, at first, some members don't understand it and don't like it initially.

TE, the architect created the green, the putting surface for a reason, unfortunately, many clubs confine hole locations, catering to the element of "fairness" or just dumbing down the golf course.  In the long run, those members are deprived of the total experience as presented by the architect.[/color]

It's an excellent way to show off a golf course's latitude.

So is the use of alternative scorecards that allow golfers to play holes in different ways from normal or usual.

Some courses have the flexibility to do that.
Newport is an excellent example, where the 1st and 12th holes can play as par 4's or par 5's.  The second issue relates to maintaining the integrity of the handicap system when you dramatically alter the course, as rated for handicap posting.[/color]

I believe putting long players off shorter tees sometimes yields some pretty interesting strategies and of course one of the best ways to tell if a golf course has truly accomodating architecture is to put short players off the tips and watch what strategies they use.

I think the only problem with that relates to the handicap issue.[/color]

All these things can highlight a golf course's architectural latitude.

Agreed[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You asked in your first post if most courses have fallen into a pattern for hole locations. What exactly constitutes most courses I don't know, but there are a number of courses that have day-to-day hole locations (1, 2, 3, etc.) or that divide the greens into 9ths and rotate them in a preset order each day.

I wasn't referencing formulas as much as I was referencing repetitive hole locations dependent upon play for the day.
ie.  I could predict, within 5 feet where the pin would be on tuesdays (ladies day) and Sundays (couples day), week in and week out, year in and year out.[/color]

I'm asking if playing NGLA day-to-day with a set rotations of holes per green (say... 12 different locations, or perhaps moving the holes between 3-4 zones) would be any more of less interesting?

The more diversity, the more interesting day to day play becomes.

Certainly, with the variety in the wind, temperature and weather, 12 hole locations could play to a significantly higher variable, with the golf course maintaining its interest, day in and day out.

However, I like the creative effort put into the hole locations at NGLA, it shows a harmony between the maintainance staff, the golf staff and the membership.[/color=green]

Hole location is but one part of the course-golfer integration. Given a set rotation for holes, do the features of NGLA combined with the variety of weather and day-to-day condition provide enough stimulation and variance to make it not matter as much.

It depends on how much you appreciate heightening the playing experience.

NGLA with the holes cut in the middle of every green is great.
NGLA with the holes cut in creative positions is spectacular.[/color]

I am presenting the idea that a course with sufficient rigid variety in terms of green contour, hazard placement and weather/conditioning would not suffer too much from having a hole location rotation, unless you were playing 4-5 times per week such that the routine became old.

The words, "rigid variety" seem to conflict with one another.

There's certainly enormous variety at NGLA even when the pins are in the center of every green, but, the subtleties and nuances which result from some, of not all of the various hole locations make the experience exponentially more exciting, fun and challenging [/color]

I endorse variety and randomness in setup, and pushing the envelope in terms of hole locations and have flown that flag for years. However, I think you may not realize that sometimes having a set rotation of hole locations allows smaller staffs to ensure that a "good but not great" setup occurs and allows the super to focus on other more important areas of day to day maintenance... like... greens. A lot of staffs may only have 3-4 people trained to do setup, and 2 are usually the Superintendent and Assistant.

I don't buy that.

A staff member still has to cut the hole on the green.
Cutting it in one location versus the other is of no consequence to manpower and budget.
The only mitigating concerns should be agronomic and conditions related.
Yet, cutting the hole within 3-4 paces of the perimeter and on areas without an appreciable change in slope within 3 or so feet of the hole, can produce wonderful results.

The critical factor is that the clubs leadership has to unwaiveringly support the practice, and tolerate the occassional mistake.[/color]

Course setup is by far my favorite task in the maintenance, and it is usually the most important. But the importance is more in the presentation of the setup (circular, well cut holes, clean tees) than in the challenge presented 80% of the time. I think you may find your answer as to the true "need" for rotation in setup by spending a week or so working on a maintenance staff.

I was intimately involved with working with the maintainance staff, including, but not limited to selecting hole locations, so I have some experience with the application side of the issue.

Like anything else, having an understanding of the play of the hole can be a great benefit to those selecting daily hole locations.[/color]

A short answer to your last question may full well be that the superintendent doesn't know the architectural assets of his course.

I think that's true in some cases.
That's where having a "golfer" as a Superintendent can be an asset.
Where the situation you reference exists, knowledgeable members can be a great asset in assisting the Superintendent in this area.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()