[Jeff_Brauer]

There is a supposed dearth of good topics, so here is one.

How do you feel about tiered, multi level greens?  Do they have a place?  If so,

What type of holes?

How many (approximately) per course can you stand?

How severe can you tolerate:

1 foot vertical rise?
2 foot vertical rise?
3 plus vertical rise?

Again, I know that there would be exceptions to any rule, but your thoughts would be interesting.  Thanks in advance,

Yours for more civil posting.....

Jeff

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,

I liked about 16 of the 18 greens at Pinon Hills and just about every dang one of them had tiers so that's my final answer  

I don't mind the 3 footers either, however, I would not want 16 greens with 3 foot tiers  

Variety makes things better IMO, so having a few distinctly tiered greens of differing severity is probably the best "rule" I could give.

[Bill_McBride]

I agree with Andy - a couple a round is great.  Of course it all depends on the size of the greens, and also on how long rounds will take on a public course!

[Jim Thompson]

I for one love ridges, divides, deflects and tiers provided the tiers in and of their own composition are not just a series of level steps.  3 foot doesn't scare me a bit either.  The only thing I think should be avoided is green designs that require a 3 wheel drive kit on a triplex mower.

[Steve Kline]

I'm not a big fan of well defined tiers. I love ridges, humps, hollows, spines, etc. I don't mind if certain sections of the green are perched or lower than others. But when I think of a tier I think of a green that has at least a 1 foot rise in a very short length that spans the width of the green. That's how they seemed to be carried out at most places I play. That too me doesn't take any thought. However, a corner or section of the green that is raised with other slopes impacting that raised portion is quite interesting. I don't know if that made any sense. A picture would probably help.

[Jim Adkisson]

I agree with Steve that the overly-defined tier that runs completely through the green and is fairly uniform is less interesting than the green with various valleys, ridges, and plateaus...the green I have in my mind is the wildly "tiered" Bandon Trails #5...I also think that the more severe green should be at the end of a hole that should be approached with a shorter iron, such as BT5 or a par 5.

[Scott Szabo]

We have three holes at my home club that are two-tiered, with two of them having a 3 foot plus rise with a very shallow top shelf, making it very difficult to get a ball to the back without going long.  One of them comes at the end of a short part four, while the other is at the end of a long par three.  

Any more than three or four per 18 to me would get repetitive.

[Rich Goodale]

Tiered greens are called "MacKenzie" greens in the UK.  The one Dr. MacK I play fairly frequently (Pitreavie) has one 3-tier green, 6 2-tier greens (two of which have 5-10ft. elevation change between the tiers), and several other greens with false fronts, front-back slopes, etc.

They sort of work at Pitreavie, to the extent that they put some pressure on distance control on what is a fairly short course.  I'd not really want to play there regularly, however.

[Matt MacIver]

Severe greens is golf near it's best, for me.  There's a 1/2 shot penalty for missing the wrong tier - maybe more if the greens are fast or your putting game isn't sharp.  

My ideal is wildly undulating greens cut slow enough to be "fair", in the classic definition and puttable for the avg Joe.  Higher green cuts probably create less wear and tear and you won't lose them in the heat of the summer.  

[John Foley]

Jeff,

I love the boldness of the tiers. I like the small 1ft tiers, but the larger bold ones tied into a large green really gets me going. For me they work on all holes, short 3's to a tough pin, long 5's they would let you run up to a back tier. I could handle all 18 if thats what was presented.

Hurdzan and Criag Schriener have done some very good ones here in Rochester. Greystone  (by Schreiner) has them on 8 holes and it really makes the course. The second hole at must have a 6 foot difference in the small front & larger rear tiers.

I love the concept and wish we would see more of it. I love the Double Plateau that Booth & Faxon built at the Bay Club in MA. They also built a very cool hourglass shped green with a lower back tier.

There is a very nice newer course in the area called Resivoir Creek. It's an old family farm which the owners turned into a golf gourse. They hired a shaper by the name of Blaine Harrison to help. I don't know if anyone knows of him but he did some great work. There is alot of containment mounding which is needed, but he did a great job on some of the tiered greens.

We need more of this and the bolder the better.

[Chris_Clouser]

Rich makes the point about the Mackenzie green.  

Has the tiered green been in existence in America since the inception of GCA.  I'm curious if there was a period where it wasn't used, perhaps the 50s and 60s, and what inspired it to come back and be such a popular tool in the last 20 years or so.  

I was at a course this past weekend that featured this on over half of their greens.  It was a real test on distance control for the short irons.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm not a big fan of well defined tiers. I love ridges, humps, hollows, spines, etc. I don't mind if certain sections of the green are perched or lower than others. But when I think of a tier I think of a green that has at least a 1 foot rise in a very short length that spans the width of the green. That's how they seemed to be carried out at most places I play. That too me doesn't take any thought. However, a corner or section of the green that is raised with other slopes impacting that raised portion is quite interesting. I don't know if that made any sense. A picture would probably help.

Steve,

It made sense.  I think the reasons that the simple, nearly straight across tier is so common are:

Plans vs. field work - when drawing contour lines, its easy to get in the habit of two nearly parallel lines.

Practical Maintenance - the wobbly tiers take up more useable cup space not only in their slope, but by creating more flat areas near the slope which are too close to it to cup.  Also, the more undulation in the green, the more chance of scalping.  Net result, on budget courses, where tiers are used, they go straight across (or nearly so) to minimize green size and maximize cup space.

For what its worth, most good players I know sort of agree with the three or four tiers tops on a course.  They seem to like the idea of gentle contours allowing them to work a ball down to the hole.  They seem to hate the idea that a small miss might be redirected far away from the hole.

Tiers do present a test of golf, and average golfers must also be considered. Certainly, there can be too much of a good thing......

I might consider using up to six of them, but I think they should vary in height and location, with some side to side, front to back, and in various other arrangements, like raising the back corner, etc. to avoid monotony.

[jim_lewis]

I'm all far multitiered greens. They tend to level the playing field for guys like me (short-knocker who can putt) against my usual opponents (long-knockers who can't). Tiered greens should be firm enough and have enough opening in front to  allow the player to run/bounce the approach shot up to the next tier, instead of accepting only a lofted shot to the top tier. I see no problem with a shot to a tier above the hole creating as much difficulty as one short into a bunker. It can create a situation where the better thinker realizes that a shot off the green at the proper level is better that hitting the green on the wrong level. That also favors the thinker (me!) over the guys who think GIR is important. At the same time it rewards the talented (and smart player) who can fly the ball to the proper tier and stop it. I usually avoid playing with those guys. It takes too much thinking to overcome that talent differential.

Jim Lewis

[Patrick_Mucci]

How do you feel about tiered, multi level greens?  Do they have a place?  If so,

Absolutely[/color]

What type of holes?

Every type, par 3's. 4's and 5's.[/color]

How many (approximately) per course can you stand?

More than a few, but, I'd be hoping to see variety in their application.[/color]

How severe can you tolerate:

1 foot vertical rise?
2 foot vertical rise?
3 plus vertical rise?

All of the above.
The steeper the better.
Tiers place a premium on the approach and recovery shots and pressure on putting should either of the above two miss their mark.[/color]

Again, I know that there would be exceptions to any rule, but your thoughts would be interesting.  Thanks in advance,


Jeff,

I was about to create a thread on the absence of a certain type of tiered green.  I'll probably do so.

With respect to tiered greens, I view them as a hybrid green within green feature/concept.

The raised tier presents a defense that I like.
Shots marginally missing the mark are deflected or fed to another location making the next shot more difficult.

I like the risk/reward associated with gunning for the flag.

Unfortunately, with higher green speeds the trend is toward watered down tiers, whereas, I prefer the more severe versions.

The left side tier on # 11 at NGLA is one of the most difficult to approach and recover to, especially in a down wind, which is quite often.

Balls hit left and right have a difficult recovery, balls hit short and long have a difficult recovery.

The elevated nature of that tier and the fairly severe drop off in all four directions make that plateau a real challenge.

Approaching the green allows for great variety in shot selection as does recovery

The rear tier presents a different and perhaps easier challenge since the rise isn't as severe and high as the left side rise and it's easier to feed balls to the back tier, especially in a down wind.

The hole plays so uniquely different in a variety of winds and I think that's one of the inherent strong suits of the design of the double plateau in the reverse "L" or "L" shaped configuration.

I'm and advocate of contour, so tiered/multilevel greens are high on my list of desirable architectural features, ones that present an enjoyable challenge.[/color]

[Dan Moore]

Jeff maybe this one looks familiar to you.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff
I think Sean's post says it for me, except that I'd add this:

as an average player (who's not playing much these days, and getting more average all the time) I tend to prefer them on Par 3s.

While I may only be imagining this, it feels to me that on Par 3s I have a more sporting chance to pull of the right shot for the given pin position/tier than I do on Par 4s or 5s.  

Peter

[Andy Ryall]

As someone who has taken advantage of the inexpensive RTJ Golf Trail over the last 10 years, my affinity for the large, multi-tier greens has waned as a design staple.  I would much rather see greens with modest slope versus the constant diet of large greens that are in effect subdivided into 3 distinct greens at many RTJ sites.   I think smaller greens with subtle slopes and collection areas (which some of the newer RTJ offerings do contain) are a better test and offer greater variety.  

[Brent Hutto]

Another excellent and most harrowing example is Huntercombe's 8th and 16th.  Those back levels are oh so difficult to access.

I hit a pitching wedge third from about 85-90 yards to the eighth green and thought I'd hit a cracking shot to get it up on the tier and keep it short of the back fringe. My eyes got really big when I hit the putt too hard and came within inches of running it back down onto the front of the green.

I love that green, wish there were one just like it at my club so I could play it every week.

[Mark Buzminski]

My home course, Timber Ridge, in Brighton On., is loaded with large, tiered and multilevel greens - on par 3's, 4's and 5's. They are the primary defense of the course.  When I first played the course when it opened 6 or 7 years ago, I thought it was ludicrously difficult.  But you learn to play to the correct spots, know where not to hit it, etc.  Its funny because just this week I played and there were pin positions I still had not played before, cut near the edges, etc.  It was like I was playing a new course again.  Speaking of 3 footers, as an earlier poster did, on the 17th, I had an uphill putt for birdie, maybe 16 feet, that stopped 3 inches right of the hole.  It proceeded to roll back 3 feet.  I said to my playing partners, "if that happened on the PGA tour, there would be howling and outrage".   These type of greens are ok for people who play a course regularly - but anyone who comes to my course for the first time ends up with a whack of 3 putts.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

How many tiered greens would you say Crystal Downs had?  

There isn't anything close to a flat green on the course, even though only holes 1, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 16 have clearly identified "tiers".

[RJ_Daley]

I've seen multi tiered greens that were these across the green rises from one flatish tier to another.  That is generally humdrum in my view.  

I like tiers and contours withing tiers, in whatever variety the architect chooses to present to me.  That is one of the real interests in GCA for me.  I like to see what the designer throws at us in their final shaping and arrangement of greens.  I can't say any one pattern or formula can be described for an archie to present tiers or contours.  What the designer comes up with either is exciting, fun and makes sense or it doesn't.  It is sort of like, "I know it when I see it" but I can't really say hard and fast which is a good multi tiered and which isn't.  The tiers,contours and their arrangments as designed in harmony to their approach shots, surrounds and hazards is one of the strongest factors in whether I like an architect or not.

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean - I agree Huntercombe's 8th is a fearful slope and we proved the back pin is tough to hit from 60 yards let alone 190 yards!

A couple of tiered greens on a course is enough, however gentle shelves and ripple rises or falls in the putting surface require a more subtle ability from the player rather than a hard rap up the slope.

[cary lichtenstein]

I like em a whole bunch.

Several of Jim Engh's greens take multi tiered to the "next level", like the 17th at Lakota Canyon, a par 5 at Redlands Mesa and a few others at Sanctuary, Blackrock and others.

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff--

If you've been paying rapt attention to every word I've written here (emoticon omitted),
you will remember that I oppose all formulas -- so don't want to answer any of your questions,
other than to say:

I found myself nodding in agreement with Dick Daley and Patrick Mucci.

However:

How many tiered greens per course would I enjoy?

Answer: More than none; fewer than Pinon Hills. I thought that the tripartite tiered
greens at Pinon Hills, green after green after green, bordered on ridiculous and
got less and less fun as the round progressed.

Is this a formula? A pinnable tier should be large enough to accept excellent shots
from the various spots where shots will be made to it.

Yes, that's a formula.

Does it make sense? You tell me.

Dan

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan Moore,

After three days of looking, I can't quite put my finger on that picture.  Any help will be appreciated.....

RJ,

I hear what you are saying, but are you a good enough putter to conquer the challenge?  My earlier comments from Tour pros were obviously from people who care about score more than interesting architecture.  Its the age old question - do designers cater to the 3500 architecture junkies, or the 35Million others who care about score even as much as fun, interest, etc.  (see quirk threads.....)

Dan Kelly,

If you agree with Pat M, why didn't you use colored type? (smilley omitted.....)

Your post makes sense.  As to tier size, I once heard Nicklaus say he wouldn't aim for any tier under 40' diameter.  Now, other guys analyze things more than me, but that kind of settled the "minimum tier size" for me.

There was a period of time (including Pinion Hills) where Ken Dye used tiers on green after green.  I think he realized at some point it was too much, and has altered his designs somewhat, IMHO to the better.  He is a heck of a player, and they do represent a test of golf, but may be too much for the average player, and as noted, even tour pros don't seem to like them that much.

Tom D,

First, keep on mentioning that I played at CD with you.  Tommyknockers will then be forced to kick me off the board for my "access mongering" and save me some much needed time........

Second, I thought CD had the "right" amount of tiers, and had great variety in contour challenges, including the relatively flat 16th, although you did say there was more contour there than met the eye.  

That said, the 11th at CD got me thinking about tiers, and the numerous ones the next day at Kingsley (OMG, I am a gca access whore!) got me to thinking more.  They were great, and varied in height, angle, location, etc., but sometimes, I think a flat green in the midst of all of those might have been the most difficult of all!

If I had based the thread soley on CD, I would have asked if a green should be designed lik 11, where getting from one tier to the other requires playing over 90 degrees away from the straight line to the hole.  I liked it, but the scorecard types would probably complain about that green sometimes, no?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()