[Mark_Fine]

Good question Pat. 

I was thinking about #18 at Bay Hill during the tournament.  Where would one put the tees if you made that hole a par three?  There are interesting angles of play approaching that green from both the left and the right.  I just played down there in Feburary and played both shots for fun.  I'd be curious how others would answer the question Jim keeps raising with me - which tees make the hole as interesting as possible? 

Jim,
Are you familar with that #7 hole at Pocono Manor?  Where would you suggest we build the tees?  Though Flynnn's original line of play was directly over the stream, it is also a very interesting shot when played on a diagonal.  In addition, we can add a little bit of yardage (its now only about 80 yards due to the road), if we add the tee on the diagonal.  Remember teeing space, especially on a very short par three, is critical as tees on a short hole like this take a beating.
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

I do not know Pocono Manor.


Re: Bay Hill #18...that's the whole point of my one tee (per set of tees) position...from the starting point the player chooses which approach shot they want and then they try to get it into position.

When I said earlier that all of the strategery and optionality should happen in the middle of a par four (as opposed to alternative tee angles) it was because I think the green end should dictate where you want to approach from and fairway hazards should put up the challenge to getting to that ideal approach spot.

Which is why I do not like your use of turning par 4's into par 3's as an argument in favor of your position of multi-angle tee boxes...that is an argument in favor of good green end strategy on par 4's if you ask me.

[Mark_Fine]

But Jim, explain one thing to me - why is a par three shot so different "design-wise" than the second shot (such as on #18 at Bay Hill)?  Are you suggesting that the second shots on #18 are not as interesting as the first shot on #17? 

[Tim Nugent]

Mark Fine, are approaches/ ground game obsolete.  Maybe, but I'm going to Scotland next week and I'm sure to be using alot of ground game.  Then again, they tend to use grass types that don't require constant watering.  So, I think it goes to the grass type being used.  I do think that there is a tremendous amount of $$$ being spent on maintaining approaches in light of how much they are played in the manner reflecting that level of maintenance.  In fact, I think I'm going to instruct my super to maintain fairway all the way to the green this year and see if anyone complains.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
The ground game is not at all obsolete over here.  For one, I'm sure you have watched higher handicappers, seniors, young kids, the nine-holers,... play the game.  Also from a recovery shot standpoint, the ground game/approach areas can be very important for these kind of shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

When I saw how the water came into play and how they narrowed the fairway on # 18, they were dictating the area where play for the approach should occur, thus eliminating variety with the tee shot.

That hole presents a good number of options, one of which should be to take the driver down the left side leaving a prefered angle into the green, with a shorter club.

While that shot invites the risk associated with the water, with the fairway narrowed so dramatically, it's not the percentage shot the Pros specialize in.

I too am anxious to hear Jim's answer to your question.

[Tim Nugent]

Mark, let's consider bent approaches.  Currently most fairways are mowed 7/16-1/2".  Approaches at 1/4-3/8".  Fairways with a 5-mower unit and approaches with a tri-plex (or walkers by some with way to much $$$ and too picky members).  This is just another operation with another dedicated piece of equipment at around $20k. I've even seen 'off the deep-end' irrigation consultants putting in  1/4-circle heads for approach watering.  At $1,000/head and four per approach - that's $72k.
Now you mention jrs., seniors, high handicappers etc.  Do they really need or appreciate the extra maintenance?  Or is it just an unnecessary expense that needlessly raises the cost of golf? On most courses I visit, the approaches are too soft and spongy and inconsistent to consider bump & run as the first option of choice.  Not when I have my choice of 4 wedges to get it close with.
Although I never show a specific approach area, after it's turned over to the super, one always appears.  Why?

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the last 8-9 posts are a lot of what we think we'd like to discuss on here and try to discuss on here but never really seem to do or be able to. It's some fascinating stuff, and I too will be glad to see how it plays out. Some old saws and cliches regarding architectural techniques and principles might go by the boards and others might be brought to bear if some of the subjects and points in the last 8-9 posts are even remotely run to ground in a logical way.

Patrick:

I agree with you that some greens are capable of being reused and iterated in various ways and NGLA's #6 and #7 are definitely two of them, but as I have said to you in the past I do not agree that either of them would work well in any iteration (par 3,4,5) from 360 degrees. I cannot see that in any iteration on any type par hole of any distance that either green would work well strategically or even challenge or interest-wise if it was approached from the rear. I believe that either of them could work well in various iterations (par and distance) if approached from app 270 degrees but not 360 degrees.

If you think you can make a decent architectural argument on how either #6 or #7 could work well if approached from a direction of behind in any par or distance iteration then give it a shot but I, for one, just don't think either would work at all with any iteration of par or distance if approached from behind.

And, by the way, I think the effective interesting angle of attack on Shinnecock's #11 green is probably less than 10 degrees on a circle. Any angle other than that on that green just wouldn't work at all, in my opinion.

[JESII]

But Jim, explain one thing to me - why is a par three shot so different "design-wise" than the second shot (such as on #18 at Bay Hill)?  Are you suggesting that the second shots on #18 are not as interesting as the first shot on #17? 

Mark,

I look at par 3's as the architects opportunity to ask something more specific from the player. Whether it fits into the template school or not, par 3's should more clearly dictate the shot(s) and strategies available for the players to play.

If the architect thinks the ground is so good that two widely different tee angles will benefit the hole (still waiting to hear a nomination of a current hole that would benefit from an alternative tee) I would question their determination to make the green as interesting as possible from either one of the tee locations...hence my earlier crude analysis of 70% of 2 is greater than 100% of 1...

As I've said, I think par 4's offer a much different opportunity for the architect...the whole idea of risk / reward in trying to position your ball for an angle to make the next shot as easy as possible seems to me what a par 4 should be about. I think the green, and specifically that days hole location, should dictate the best approach position...which in turn should carry certain risks to the tee shot to get into that position...

Using #18 at Bay Hill as you have I'd be curious, are there any hole locations which would be best approached from the right side of the fairway?

And in that light...positioning your tee ball for the best approach...nobody that I saw mentioned Tiger being the only guy that took it down the left side of the 18th fairway in that final round. Hate to say it on a different thread, but that guy is really good.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Good points about par three strategies.  I do, however, believe that the best par fours and par fives often ask something specific of the player as well for their various approach shots.  Don't you think that can be the case? 

You must have missed my nomination of a current hole that would benefit from an alternative tee - I mentioned #7 at Pocono Manor as one example.  Playing directly across a hazard vs. diagonally offers varying challenges and this will add interest to the golf hole. 

Regarding your question about "Using #18 at Bay Hill as you have I'd be curious, are there any hole locations which would be best approached from the right side of the fairway?"  - For a pin on the left side of the green, it would appear to me that attacking from the right side would be best as you are playing away from the water and into the backslope of that green which tends to go from left to right. 

[JESII]

You're right, you did mention Pocono Manor, I just don't know the hole. About adding interest by adding a different angle...I would never deny that a new angle adds interest because I think it's just a different hole so the variety is undeniable...BETTER is where I would begin my objection. Again, not specific to Pocono, just the concept.

...I do, however, believe that the best par fours and par fives often ask something specific of the player as well for their various approach shots.  Don't you think that can be the case? 

Let's talk about this a bit...maybe with an example...

I think your "various approach shots" implies that the player, in theory, gets to pick his poison...wouldn't you agree? Or is there something else you mean by that?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
A well placed tee shot (Tiger's on #18 at Bay Hill) is one example of the player "picking his poison" as you say.  If the fairway was very narrow, there would not be much to think about as the hole would be one dimensional down the middle.  That is why I am a advocate of width (where it makes sense).  I think earlier I mentioned #17 at The National and #10 at Riviera as examples.  Players must think all the way to the hole and "pick their poison" for their approach shots.  From there, they are faced with the challenge that the architect has left them which varies from each angle/location of attack.

Finally, the word "better" is a subjective term.  I prefer to use the word "different" and sometimes (not always) they can mean the same thing. 
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

In your previous post you indicated that there was some sort of specific demand on the various approach shots a player faces on "the best" par fours and fives. You said this as a way to justify multiple tee angles on par threes. I argued against that line of reasoning on the basis that par threes should be there for the architect to ask something specific from the player and par fours (and fives) should offer some degree of optionality that is, in theory, determined at the tee.

There is no question that every shot on a golf course has risks and rewards and challenges and on and on and on...but you are using the various approach angles available on par fours as reasoning for providing the same on par threes. I think par threes are there to ask the player to do something specific...I think par fours should be designed to let me avoid something specific if I really want to...but there may be a cost.

What specific approach shot demands do #'s 17 at NGLA and #10 at Riviera place on the player? Specific meaning...what approach shot do those holes require me to hit successfully if I want to be successful on that hole?
.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
Multiple angles of attack is about width.  Maybe this article I co-authored on width will be useful?  Let me know what you think?
Mark

http://finegolfdesign.com/articles/golf_tips_7_05.pdf

I just found another one that might be even better regarding this point. 

http://finegolfdesign.com/articles/golf_tips_4_06.pdf

[JESII]

Mark,

Nice articles.

You seemed to miss the point of my post though.

If there is a certain shot I really want to avoid, I can do that on a par 4 or 5. And if there is a certain shot I really like, I can try to get it.

On a par 3, the value of one tee is that the architect can ask for a certain shot and should be able to create a green complex that asks for different variations on that theme.

Back to #18 at Bay Hill as the example...if you were to have a tee at 175 on the right edge of the fairway and an alternate at 175 on the left edge (call it 30 yards apart), what factors would be included in your decision on tee and hole location combinations?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
My first reaction to your question about those two 175 yard tees is that both will offer different challenges to the golfer.  I can't say one is better than the other.  The pin could go where ever you'd like on the green regardless of which tee is being used.  It is then up to the golfer to deal with it.  From a "design" standpoint, the green would be just fine the way it is.  I wouldn't necessarily do anything different. 
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

It sounds like you are saying:

more options on any shot = more variety = more interest and value to the golfer [/color]

Fair analysis?

[Phil Benedict]

Mark,

It sounds like you are saying:

more options on any shot = more variety = more interest and value to the golfer [/color]

Fair analysis?

Are you staking a claim to sky blue as your color since green is already spoken for?

[JESII]

I want them all!

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
You read those two articles so that should give you some idea where I stand on options and variety   

You make some good points.  Maybe one day we'll catch up for a round of golf and talk about some of this stuff on a golf course.  Come on up to Lehigh or we'll play down your way.  Maybe Kennett Square would be fun as we are doing some work there. 
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

You said that the options presented on #10 at Riviera or #14 and #17 at TOC are what make those holes great. No news there...I'll try to give you a lay up here since you said earlier that options and variety and all that can only be a net positive...

Where would you build your alternate tee for #10 at Riviera? Please do not mention the alternate green hiding over in the trees that the blimp shows...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I agree with you that some greens are capable of being reused and iterated in various ways and NGLA's #6 and #7 are definitely two of them, but as I have said to you in the past I do not agree that either of them would work well in any iteration (par 3,4,5) from 360 degrees.

I cannot see that in any iteration on any type par hole of any distance that either green would work well strategically or even challenge or interest-wise if it was approached from the rear.

I believe that either of them could work well in various iterations (par and distance) if approached from app 270 degrees but not 360 degrees.

If you think you can make a decent architectural argument on how either #6 or #7 could work well if approached from a direction of behind in any par or distance iteration then give it a shot but I, for one, just don't think either would work at all with any iteration of par or distance if approached from behind.

TEPaul,

If you'll take a glimpse of # 6 and # 7 at NGLA on Google Earth, you may change your mind.

While the green in the aerial of # 7 is somewhat difficult to discern, the # 6 green is clear as a bell.

Look at that green from any one of 360 degrees and tell me that it couldn't accept any shot from any direction ? 

You added the caveat or criterion of  "from any distance."

You have to remember that the 6th green was intended to take a relatively short shot, however, its size would allow it to accept shots from much further away.

# 7 green was meant to accept long, intermediate and short shots, and, I believe it can from any one of 360 degrees.
Especially short and intermediate shots

Give Google Earth a look, or better yet, look at the 1938 aerial which is much clearer, then tell me what you think.[/color]

[jkinney]

6 & 13 at The National could be quite interesting from varying tee locations. 7 I wouldn't touch. I also consider 11 at Shinny sacred as is. In general the concept of multiple angle differences in tee locations should be built into the original design, IMO, as it then factors into hole layout and green complex design. I'd love to see it happen sometime. Could be way cool.

[JESII]

jk,


Sounds like Tom Doak did it for two holes at Pacific Dunes. Two greens on #9 and then two tees on #10...

I have to agree with your thought that any planning like this (dual tees) really should be on the front end because of the implications at the green. As yet, the only nomination of a hole that would be improved by adding an alternative tee is an 80 yard par 3 which I have not seen...so that seems to support as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()