[paul cowley]

Are raised greens with umbrella like perimeters the most efficient architectural method for dealing with marginal shots ?

What's a marginal shot, a shot that hits the edge of the green? Why should that be penalized more than the shot that is 20 feet wide of the green?

....now Cary, I might disagree.

Missing the green slightly would suggest a player of a better caliber [hypothetically of course], than a player who misses the green wide by 20'.
That person already is penalized in that he missed the green by 20' because of a lesser skill level than the player who misses it by a closer margin....hell, he will probably skank his next one over the green and end up with a double, while the more accomplished player will be either up and down for par or at least make bogey.

Paul,
In an effort to play devil's advocate here, what happens when the weaker player hits a really good shot (for him/her)...and still gets stuck in the same dang place they would have otherwise!  

Andy...well I would suggest that the weaker player keeps hitting to that same spot to improve his consistency and ability to score....or just go back to missing it 20' wide and be happy with whatever.

High handicaps and women are really just fillers that help to pay for a course, and don't deserve that much consideration when it comes to design.....its really all about "low scorers and Pros, everybody knows"........not trying to offend Andy, hope you are not one of them .

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't believe that you can give even a general rule for such things.

Why not ?[/color]

I think so much depends on the individual circumstances of a hole and how it fits into the flow of the rest of the course.

The majority of courses built by the ODG's employed push up greens, elevated above the surrounding terrain.
If elevated greens were good enough for them, why wouldn't they continue to be functional, drainage wise and architecturally ?[/color]

Even on a long par 4 or 3 a raised green might be appropriate if there have been a series of easy holes leading up to it.

Why the need to present a series of easy holes leading up to a long par 4 or par 3 with a raised green ?

Isn't that intstituting a general rule ?
Weren't you opposed to general rules ?[/color]

The 17th at TOC is a good example of this. It shouldn't however be used too much as Jeff says or it will become boring and stale.  

TOC enjoys sandy soil, hence, good drainage.
That's a luxury, not a standard.
Elevated greens serve a valuable function when it comes to drainage.  And, they heighten the consequences for marginal shots hit into them.[/color]

I also don't believe that a marginal shot should be unduly punished. I don't understand this for me perverse idea that only the perfect shot should be rewarded.

Why did you insert the word "unduly"
I never referenced or suggested an "unduly" penalty for marginal shots, only that they not be rewarded.[/color]

There isn't a single golfer on the planet that hits more than a handful of perfect shots in even a good round or do people think that a 9 iron to 20 ft is perfect for Tiger?

What does that have to do with anything ?[/color]

IMHO part of the art of the game is to be able to score even if you are not playing so good. In the UK we call this scrambling. A good GCA will design most holes giving the golfer a series of choices and bailout places. Only on occasion will he force the golfer to play a particular shot with no bailout zone.

Elevated greens don't prevent golfers from scoring/scrambling.

Who said anything about not having a bail out zone ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary L. raises an interesting point.

At places like Royal Dornoch or Pinehurst, a shot can land on the green, barely trickle off the edge of an "umbrella" green and roll down a slope, winding up 20ft. or 30ft. or more from the green, right next to a ball that never even came close to landing on the green at all.

The "almost good" shot winds up in the same spot as the "no chance" shot.  

What's wrong with that ?

That's what the architect intended.

One look at Seminole would provide an abundant number of examples of that possibility.

Should mis-hit shots be punished in a strict, formulaic but linear manner ?

The 8th hole at NGLA is a perfect example.
A ball hit 20 yards short of the green, into the fronting bunker, equates to a pretty good shot, hit to the front of the green, with a little spin, that rolls back, down into the same bunker.

Does that mean that # 8 is a poorly designed hole ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

Wasn't Dornoch the golf course that inspired Donald Ross in terms of his design philosophy.

Could that be why many of his greens were elevated umbrella like greens ?

[Andy Troeger]

High handicaps and women are really just fillers that help to pay for a course, and don't deserve that much consideration when it comes to design.....its really all about "low scorers and Pros, everybody knows"........not trying to offend Andy, hope you are not one of them .

Paul,
No worries, I'm usually about a 3-5 hcp    Just wanted to see what you'd say!

[Andy Troeger]

Cary L. raises an interesting point.

At places like Royal Dornoch or Pinehurst, a shot can land on the green, barely trickle off the edge of an "umbrella" green and roll down a slope, winding up 20ft. or 30ft. or more from the green, right next to a ball that never even came close to landing on the green at all.

The "almost good" shot winds up in the same spot as the "no chance" shot.  

What's wrong with that ?

[/color]

Patrick,
While I'm being nitpicky about things...what's good about that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

You can't look at architectural features in the context of just one class of golfer.

Most high handicaps won't be hitting greens in regulation.

Even the best golfers in the world only hit greens about 75 % of the time.

So, the shot missed by the mid to high handicap will probably be well off the mark, but, the marginal hit by they better player will probably come close to the mark.

Allowing the "mis-hit" of the better player to end up with little of no consequence is to remove the inherent challenge of the game for that player.

That's the good.

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
Fair enough, I just wanted to understand where you were coming from.

I think the best use of that type of situation might be for specific pin placements to put a particular challenge in for players trying to hit the bold shot. I'm not sure I favor such a situation around the entire green very often unless you truly are designing a course for the benefit of championship play.

I still think the risk is that it makes the game even more difficult for the mid-to-high handicap. I'm not sure what you mean in terms of handicap range, but if I think of an 18 hcp, not every shot they hit is 20 yards off line, and their idea of a good shot might still not be good enough to end up on the green. Most 18 hcps I know actually hit a fair amount of quality shots, the reason they are an 18 is because 2-3 times around they put together a series of really bad shots and end up with triple/quad bogies.

In the end, a lot of it comes down to what kind of recovery options are presented. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the situation if the recovery option is doable even for the higher handicap. I'm also more sympathetic to the design if its done a couple times per round than if its repeated endlessly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fair enough, I just wanted to understand where you were coming from.

I think the best use of that type of situation might be for specific pin placements to put a particular challenge in for players trying to hit the bold shot.

Bold shots are in the eye of the beholder, and the observer, and related to ones ability (handicap)[/color]

I'm not sure I favor such a situation around the entire green very often unless you truly are designing a course for the benefit of championship play.

I don't see the logic in your request[/color]

I still think the risk is that it makes the game even more difficult for the mid-to-high handicap.

Why ?  Or, How ?

The game should be difficult for the mid to high handicap golfer, that's part of the inherent challenge and lure, and the desire to improve.[/color]

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of handicap range, but if I think of an 18 hcp, not every shot they hit is 20 yards off line,

I would think they'd be lucky if every shot they hit was only 20 yards off line.

18 handicaps aren't hitting many greens in regulation.
Thus, their approach to most greens is a recovery/approach from a short to intermediate distance.[/color]

and their idea of a good shot might still not be good enough to end up on the green.

It depends upon whether its an approach or a recovery.
Most 18 handicaps don't hit many greens in regulation.

Much of the evaluation of the play of an 18 handicap depends upon which tees they're playing from

How many greens in regulation do you believe that an 18 handicapper hits ?[/color]

Most 18 hcps I know actually hit a fair amount of quality shots, the reason they are an 18 is because 2-3 times around they put together a series of really bad shots and end up with triple/quad bogies.

Nonsense, stroke control mutes that effect.
To state that they play well, save for 2 or 3 holes where they take telephone numbers is unrealistic.

Remember, handicap is determined by taking the LOWEST 10 out of the MOST RECENT 20 scores.[/color]

In the end, a lot of it comes down to what kind of recovery options are presented. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the situation if the recovery option is doable even for the higher handicap.

If that was the case, they wouldn't be 18 handicaps.

And, who says that an elevated green (non-defined) prevents them from making reasonable recoveries ?[/color]

I'm also more sympathetic to the design if its done a couple times per round than if its repeated endlessly.

Would it then be fair to state that you don't like Donald Ross, MacDonald, Raynor or Banks courses ?[/color]

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
If the architect wants to build a green that repels shots to defend the green or make it more difficult I have no issue with that. However, its the claim that these slopes penalize low hcps and not higher hcps is bizarre to me. What if the high hcp hits their third to a par four from 70 yards out and catches the slope with that shot?

If the average 18 hcp hits 3 greens per round and 2 of those are repelled by this type of green, does that not still affect them?

I'm just trying to address the issue brought up on this thread that these slopes penalize the better player without penalizing the weaker one. It penalizes anyone who hits a marginal shot, no matter how many it took them to get to that point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the architect wants to build a green that repels shots to defend the green or make it more difficult I have no issue with that.

However, its the claim that these slopes penalize low hcps and not higher hcps is bizarre to me.

It tends to penalize the lower handicapper more because they interface with the feature more.  
It's a numerical factor.[/color]

What if the high hcp hits their third to a par four from 70 yards out and catches the slope with that shot?

Then they deserve to have it penalized[/color]

If the average 18 hcp hits 3 greens per round and 2 of those are repelled by this type of green, does that not still affect them?

Then, they're not hitting 3 greens per round.

And, why do you automatically imply that they will only hit the outer margins of the green and not anywhere near the heart of the green ?

That doesn't sound like an 18 handicapper to me.[/color]

I'm just trying to address the issue brought up on this thread that these slopes penalize the better player without penalizing the weaker one.

I never said it didn't penalize the weaker player, only that the better player will interface with the feature more, especially if they fire at perimeter hole locations.[/color]

It penalizes anyone who hits a marginal shot, no matter how many it took them to get to that point.

I stated that already.
However, the ability to avoid the feature is easier done from 30-70 yards for the 18 handicap than it is from 180-220 for the low handicap.[/color]

[David_Tepper]

Pat Mucci -

The answers to your questions are yes and yes.

I have never been to Pinehurst. I cannot recall playing a course where shots that just roll off the edge of a green are as severely punished as at Royal Dornoch. On a number of holes, such a ball can wind up in a position where simply getting your next shot ANYWHERE on the green becomes quite a challenge.

At Royal Dornoch, it is widely acknowledged that the hardest shot on the course is the 2nd shot from off the green on the par-3 2nd hole.

DT

[paul cowley]

Andy....you're on firm ground compared to Patricks thin ice....IMO.

....it can be tough getting flamed, but the green doesnt hurt as much as the red used to.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy....you're on firm ground compared to Patricks thin ice....IMO.

....it can be tough getting flamed, but the green doesnt hurt as much as the red used to.

Paul,
Would have been clever had you said that I'm on the green and Patrick's rolling down the slope!  

Granted I imagine others think its the other way around!  

[TEPaul]

I think one thing should be cleared up once and for all about Pinehurst #2 and it's now seemingly famous Ross CROWNED greens.

I don't believe Ross designed or built those Pinehurst greens that way. I don't believe they were ever that way in his lifetime---at least not much like the way they are now.

Somebody should clear this up once and for all. That notion has been going around on here for too many years

For ten years now I've heard a number of times from a couple of reliable sources that the degree of crowning or fall-off around those Pinehurst greens was actually a form of a fix for a mistake made during a green rebuilding process (to USGA spec greens).

If that's the case it's pretty ironic that Ross is given design credit not only for the crowned greens of Pinehurst but that some people think this was his general green design style.

I'm familiar with more courses from Ross than I am from any other architect and I've never seen Ross greens like that.

The only real "fall-off" feature I've seen Ross actually design somewhat frequently was his fairly common "false fronts". He generally did that on his greens that played uphill. And the reason he did that was apparently not just so balls hit short would fall back off the greens but so players approaching those uphill green could see the width of the front of the green better.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of balls rolling off false fronts and such is probably five times greater today than in Ross's time for fairly obvious reasons!

[Chris Cupit]

One last thought on this for me.  When constructing several greens we built these umbrella like features.  One of the thoughts was that from these fairly closely mown areas (we don't mow them so tight that even the scratch golfers feel like they have to putt) the 18 handicapper or anyone not confident with a wedge or bumped 7-iron could putt and get their ball about 15-20 feet away.  Thus, they still take three to get down and that is pretty normal.

For the scratch player he too can putt or hit a a safer bump and run and we were thinking 10 feet was about the best he could do in that case.  Safer but how many scratch players want a 10 footer for par?

If the player wants to try a more heroic flop shot or try and land it on that very small spot to get it close, he of course runs the risk of having the ball come back to him and it's a double pretty quick.

If things can work out that way around the green, then I think that is ideal and subtle efficiency

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I thought you had played Seminole.

Was I mistaken ?

Having played Pinehurst # 2 in the early 60's, before they were USGA spec greens, I can tell you that they were elevated and crowned like the perimeter of an umbrella.

The question might be, when were they converted from Sand Greens to Grass Greens ?

[TEPaul]

"The question might be, when were they converted from Sand Greens to Grass Greens?"

In the 1930s.

I have played Seminole. For years. Why do you ask?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The question might be, when were they converted from Sand Greens to Grass Greens?"

In the 1930s.

I have played Seminole. For years. Why do you ask?


Because Seminole is loaded with elevated greens with umbrella like perimeters, starting with # 1, and Ross designed them that way.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Because Seminole is loaded with elevated greens with umbrella like perimeters, starting with # 1, and Ross designed them that way."

Pat:

You can call Seminole's greens anything you want to---that's fine by me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()