[DMoriarty]

What's the point of  "interesting green complexes" without the width of approach to adequately explore them?  

Can a green complex truly be "interesting" without a wide approach?

A Redan comes to mind, but aren't golfers playing a Redan expected to create their own width by working the ball left or right, thus changing the angle of approach?

In this day of the straight ball, isn't a wide approach even more important than it used to be?  

[cary lichtenstein]

Cog Hill...4th green...long narrow and wonderful bunkering

[Mike Hendren]

David,

The typical Raynor /Macdonald "Short" green and "Biarritz" green came to mind immediately, but in fairness to both men they were limited to one-shotters.  That begs the question,  should the one-shotter provide width?  Don't both greens cited above insist upon a straight line approach?

Regards,

Mike  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

DMoriarty:

I believe what you say.  Width in the approach can contribute more intersting shots to an interesting green complex, however the approach area should be equally interesting, dramatic, and sometimes bold, likewise the sides of the greens if clipped tight can have the same interesting complexities for when the ball is carried away to the side.  It seems one shotters often rely more upon trajectory, or a narrow width to one side or the other of the direct line between the tee and the green.  In any course though, width in the approach does not have to be the design for all 18 greens, which I know you are not implying.  Certainly a tightly bunkered green with no opening in front can be interesting, so in such a case maybe the interesting width is to either side of the green, again where a careless shot can be carried away by a tightly clipped slope.

You make a good point, because I am certain that my most favorite green complexes have width in the front in common, but a width that has osme interesting forms to it.

[DMoriarty]

Good points regarding par 3s.  I can certainly think of some interesting par 3s where the interest comes from options/demands on trajectory and spin.  

One might view this as the same principle on a different axis.  Different options and angles on the y axis instead of X.

[RJ_Daley]

I also like the views KBM expresses about width.  My question is;  with Doak and KBM posting this afternoon, in prime construction season, what's up with that?  Is it just slow out there, or are they indoors - glued to the Annika show?

[Bill_McBride]

I really enjoy a hole with a green surface which is pinched in on both sides by bunkers so that it looks really narrow but there is a lot more green behind it than appears from the fairway or tee of a par 3.  One example that comes to mind is #12 Cog Hill No. 4.  You can still run a shot up between the bunkers but not to a pin cut behind either bunker.  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

RJ Daley

That is a darn good question...I think Tom has some explaining to do.  I for one have completed my assignments for the week.

[A_Clay_Man]

Some of the other great other than par 3 holes with narrowness, #9 CPC, #4 Spy, #4 Pebble.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Can a green complex truly be "interesting" without a wide approach?

In a word, yes.  In two, hell, yes.

While a wide approach gives options on the approach, in reality, it reduces challenge of the approach in most cases, and doesn't require thinking about options off the tee.  Wide front greens can usually be approached from all angles from the fairway, and usually more easily.  Isn't that less interesting?

If a wide green has a narrow front opening to one side, then the tee shot must be correctly placed.  And a narrow green facing the tee encourages a shot down the middle of the fairway without the use of flanking bunkers, as is typical.  In fact, the fairway could be quite wide, perhaps tempting the golfer to go for distance without looking ahead to the next shot.

Thomas said there was a spot for narrow greens, usually on downwind holes where the need for length wasn't as great, so he could better demand accuracy from players on those holes.

I generally - but not always - reserve wide front greens for the long fours, where I think the golfer should have a bit for freewheeling swing on the tee shot.

I think a great course, or even a good one, should have a few narrow greens, if for nothing else than for variety, and they work on par 4 and 5's well.

[Mark_Fine]

Check out #15 at Lehigh.  Wish I knew how to post pictures on this site!

[DMoriarty]

I guess I wasnt that clear.  When I ask about a wide approach, I am talking about a wide fairway, and a wide arc of options for approaching the green.  I am definitely not talking about a wide opening to the front of the green.

Looking back at my original post, I can easily see why some of you understood it this way.  Sorry for the confusion.

Again, what I am getting at is the interrelationship between width (as in wide fairways) and interesting green complexes and contours; as well as whether on necessitates the other.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Ok Now I'm thinking about Wild Horse and how playing those contours make for interesting golf. So maybe the key word is interesting. What do different people find interesting? For me it would have to be a combo of challenge (both physical and mental) aesthetics and then throw in some illusion and you probably have a greensite with some serious soul.

[Forrest Richardson]

On the other hand, on a narrow bottlenecked approach can be extremely interesting if multiple routes (angles) are offered by virtue of the position of the previous shot — or an extremely wide teeing ground at par-3s.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Green openings are inconsequential on golf courses that do not promote the bump and run shot in their designs and maintenance practices. Wide open greens in the front require much thought in their designs, and much attention during construction and as a consequence I think they are much more satisfying.  Contouring the approach and the side approaches to blend into the contouring of the green is infinitely satisfying and strategic and I have seen it done its best by the architects favored on this website, C&C and Doak.  This is especially effective when the mowing heights make the approaches almost indistinguishable from the mowing height on the greens. Again, narrow openings are exciting as well, but I would not want that to be the dominant design on a course.  If a green is wide in the front even a bunker covering a portion of the front still qualifies the green as being wide open in the front.  In that case the player must position himself or herself to play to the open angle to the pin position particularly if the pin area is not always receptive to a trajectory shot.  A wide open green can still have contour that carries the approach shot away from the pin area leaving a monster putt or recovery shot.  Also, big greens with big openings do not always have to be on long par fours.  Big greens can be interesting on short holes, small greens can be interesting on long holes, particularly if the proper attention is given to the surrounding terrain.

By the way now that I have Jeff’s attention, I do not see the big deal about a girl trying to play in a man’s league in Ft. Worth, when 5 girls are trying to play basketball in a man’s league in Dallas!  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

SORRY I ONLY PASTED APORTION OF MY POST ABOVE.  HERE IS THE REST.  ROOKIE!


I disagree about a wide open green front not providing options and not requiring thought as to tee shot placement.  Again, interesting, bold movement in front, particularly movement set at a diagonal can require considerable thought to the tee shot placement.  In particular if there is a smooth pad leading into a particular portion of the green that would favor a certain angle approach from the fairway.  Especially if the pin area is not easily accessible by air.  A green with a narrow opening probably requires a trajectory shot.  A good player likely will not take any chances on the tee shot to favor one side of the fairway or the other because it is likely the player will hit a high shot into the green so the narrow opening is inconsequential. Green openings are inconsequential on golf courses that do not promote the bump and run shot in their designs and maintenance practices. Wide open greens in the front require much thought in their designs, and much attention during construction and as a consequence I think they are much more satisfying.  Contouring the approach and the side approaches to blend into the contouring of the green is infinitely satisfying and strategic and I have seen it done its best by the architects favored on this website, C&C and Doak.  This is especially effective when the mowing heights make the approaches almost indistinguishable from the mowing height on the greens. Again, narrow openings are exciting as well, but I would not want that to be the dominant design on a course.  If a green is wide in the front even a bunker covering a portion of the front still qualifies the green as being wide open in the front.  In that case the player must position himself or herself to play to the open angle to the pin position particularly if the pin area is not always receptive to a trajectory shot.  A wide open green can still have contour that carries the approach shot away from the pin area leaving a monster putt or recovery shot.  Also, big greens with big openings do not always have to be on long par fours.  Big greens can be interesting on short holes, small greens can be interesting on long holes, particularly if the proper attention is given to the surrounding terrain.

By the way now that I have Jeff’s attention, I do not see the big deal about a girl trying to play in a man’s league in Ft. Worth, when 5 girls are trying to play basketball in a man’s league in Dallas!  

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty said;

"Again, what I am getting at is the interrelationship between width (as in wide fairways) and interesting green complexes and contours; as well as whether one necessitates the other."

David;

I thought you were talking about narrow greens simply because that's what the title of the thread says. But if you're talking about the width of approach in relationship to any kind of green shape, wide, narrow, whatever, that's a different matter. And when you say one 'necessitates' the other I would say, no, not necessarily because in architecture any combination can theoretically work as long as the problems and the solutions are interesting and good somehow. All I'm talking about is the vast potential of architectural arrangements, and examples can prove that the spectrum of diverse arrangements can be huge. That's why a guy like Coore keeps saying that formulaics don't really apply and good architecture can be in very diverse arrangements.

Two good examples of width of approach vs narrowness or width of green would be a comparison of say Riviera's #10 (amazing how that hole keeps coming back for discussion) and NGLA's #17.  

Both holes have incredibly wide fairways (in fact though perhaps not really in function), both are very short holes--consequently creating even wider angles of approach--but one has a remarkably narrow and oriented green and the other is enormous and technically approachable in almost the same manner from an extremely wide arc.

So then what is it that makes NGLA's huge and basically round green so interesting from that huge angle of approach? The answers are interesting and vastly different and diverse from the problems and solutions of Riviera's #10. So whatever "necessitates" anything else is all in the architectural arrangements.

BTW, in much of Jeff Brauer's post above it sounds like he's describing Riviera's #10.

[Forrest Richardson]

"Accuracy, carry and length..." — Flynn [on the order of the most essential elements of golf design.]

Variety rules! All of the above, according to Flynn, are what makes a golf course interesting. I have found the comments here very thoughtful, and it has been interteresting to apply them against Flynn's simple quote. I hold Flynn high regard for giving us this directive: Three simple requirements which I believe answer so many questions when it comes to asking whether a holde, shot, hazard, strategy, etc. is of character relative to the heart of the game.

Kelly commented: "A green with a narrow opening probably requires a trajectory shot" — I suppose in some cases, but at par-4 and 5s this requirements is only when the opportunity to accurately place the preceding shot has been lost or missed — assuming, of course, the fairway is relatively wide. I believe the failure to execute accuracy which results in carry is a good order of demands. It is indicative of why a narrow opening can be fascionating.

[TEPaul]

Forrest:

I think in post #17 you started to touch on something which may be slowly becoming misunderstood these days by even good and competent golf architecture analysts.

You said;

"Variety rules! All of the above (accuracy, carry and distance), according to Flynn, are what makes a golf course interesting."

I believe the important distinction that should be made here is between a golf course and not just a golf hole--or at least every and any golf hole.

It seems to me that some even good analysts on here are beginning to evaluate any and every golf hole to see if it possesses a plethora of available options, and worse, they're evaluating all holes in that light for everyone--and even worse yet sometimes even in the context of actually acheiving the same end (number) just through the use of the most correct or clever option for them (any golfer). This, some seem to assume is what's necessary to constitute a strategic and quality hole and architecture. They seem to look upon this as the "ideal".

You seem to be fascinated by Flynn's remark of "accuracy, carry and length" and you should be--it's a very fine quote in regard to the demand, strategy and architecture of any course but certainly not necessarily every hole. Flynn believed so much more in variety in a whole course context rather than in variety in the context of any single hole. Not that Flynn didn't design and build some golf holes that had a plethora of variety and options for everyone to acheive the same end (number) but by no means always.

Flynn looked at variety and even various available strategies very much more in the context of "shot testing" than many of us seem to realize. If one couldn't take on that challenge or didn't take it on the options and consequences were expected to be quite different than what some of us may assume today.

Flynn had another quote that you should also like that puts this in context, in an architectural sense. That was his idea of par. Some of us, too many actually, look at par as something that should be ideally acheivable by too many golfers--too many differing levels of golfers, in other words. That of course being that number that happens to be the hole's par. Flynn didn't exactly look at par that way. He actually didn't alway use it and his remark was "par is whatever anyone's personal best on a hole is."

It could also be why he may have put accuracy first as the top priority of what's demanded of a golfer by architecture. Since carry and length are not requirements where all golfers are on a potentially equal footing then to him they probably shouldn't come first. But given a certain minimum distance requirement accuracy is a requirement where all golfers are on an equal footing--at least potentially.

But when I see good analysts criticize any hole as not being good enough because it may not have a run-up option, for instance, or it may be just a high demand hole, without a plethora of other options, it makes my wonder if they're really thinking through the subject of golf architecture thoroughly, particularly "variety" in a whole course context only, not just every single hole.

[A_Clay_Man]

Can Variety be over used, when it's used for varieties sake? I might think yes, but then it wouldn't necesary imply a golf course, more a collection of holes. Similar to DK's definition of "cart-ball", ayuh?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I don't know how this GREAT thread got by me, and the entire time I'm reading it, I'm like Tom Paul, thinking of Riv #10 and the greatness of the hole itself.

Bob Cupp, was even creative at the 16th at Sherwood, the par 5 with the bisecting creek and the really narrow sliver of a putting surface. It's the green with most interest on the course.

I think of the length, yet the narrowness of the short par 3, 15th at LACC, which Thomas had slated a bunker in the center, which may have really spiced up things even more on this really challenging hole, but the angle of the green and the fact that it was at one time, before John Harbottle, guarded by some pretty harrowing bunkering on both sides, made it far from a push-over, and perfectly placed in the round to get things going to make a comeback in a match, where you were down. But forget it, that was all before stroke-play mentality set itself firmly in the minds of the majority of golfers throughout America, including many here on GCA, and shall remain nameless in the quest for discussion group harmony.

But before I go, I want to remind everybody of one of the best, most narrow greens I know, that works from every angle in both defense, offense & "attack and be destroyed".......Alan Robertson's finest, The Road Hole green.

[Forrest Richardson]

As the eleven of you who have purchased my book — and the four of you have read it — will know, I make a plea for the notion that there is even a place in good golf architecture for "Open Design", that being a hole or two with virtually no strategy other than to knock far and reach the green with nary a hazard. Do I wish this always on every shot? No. But it contrasts the opposite conditions: tightness (accuracy), finesse (perhaps carry) and obstacles popping up which might be well bypassed with might (length). Can variety be to excess for the sake of variety? Yes. The trick is to dish out variety as if it was happenstance. A product of the architect giving up and simply leaving well enough alone on a few holes and then "wham" making a totally illogical decision on another, and then back to prediction, then etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I don't disagree with anything you say, including the snipe at the Mavericks!  BTW, I am not interested in the NBA until they introduce skating and a puck,,,,,,,

Your point on wide greens and contouring is well taken.  In my post, I noted that wide greens are usually, ie without proper contouring of the approach, not strategic, just very accessible.  Proper contouring of a wide front, bunkerless green, perhaps using a valley of sin, a single bump near the middle front, or kick in banks on one or both sides can all be better than bunkered holes.

A huge ridge in the green, at a diagonal also raises interesting possibilities in negating an aerial approach, at least to some pins, from some angles.  I would be more likely to be able to attempt that down here in Bermuda country than in the bent grass regions, and just may try!

Forrest -

I agree some holes should have little challenge!  If you saw me at Oakmont, you know I was looking for one on that course!  Apparently, Fownes is not one of the 11.  For the record, I bought your book, and have read it!  Each time I read, I find something new I hadn't found before.  Nicely Done.

[Tom_Doak]

I played a hole with a great narrow green today -- the 16th at Belvedere.  There's a diagram of it in George Thomas' book.  The bunkers near the green are gone, but there's a nasty slope to that side so it doesn't much matter.

However the most interesting green I saw today was Belvedere's 18th, a long par 4.  No bunkers next to the green, but there was a low diagonal ridge in front of the front right pin, and then a drop-off to the rest of the green behind it.  If you missed it short or long you had little chance of getting down in two putts ... but if you played the approach the right distance you had something of a trough to play through.

None of us knew the green that well ... luckily for me John McMillan missed it in the trough, and we won our match one-up.

[John_McMillan]

Tom -

That sure was a fun match, and the 18'th was a great conclusion to a fourball where neither side was up by more than 1 hole, and only 3 of the 18 holes were halved.

Looking back, I think that two factors - neither planned - worked together to let me take advantage of the "putting trough" to the right of the green.

 (i)  The hole is a dogleg-right, with bunkers on the right side of the fairway.  Not having a good left to right tee-ball working that day, I played a slight draw which placed me on the left side of the fairway.  Because of this, my approach was slightly left to right across the green, which gave a better  possibility of catching that funneling area on the right side.  Don played a fade on his tee-ball, and from the center of the fairway was shooting directly down the green, while both you and George caught the bunkers on the right side, and played your second shots down the right side of the fairway.  Both of your 3rd shots were from the right side of the green to the left, and you ended up long and George went left.

 (ii)  Because the hole was playing downwind, I decided to play a knock-down 4-iron for my approach.  I felt that if I got the ball up in the air, I risked it running away from me too much, so I wanted something lower and more controlled.  Because of that, my ball was running from the front of the green and into that putting trough.  From about 10/15 yards closer, Don elected to play a high approach, and it did to an extent what I was afraid my approach would do - sail on the wind to the back of the green.  With the high approach, Don's approach also hit very close to the pin, and ran back from that point - which was not going to catch that trough.

Looking back, neither of my shot choices were deliberately planned to take advantage of the green contours - but in retrospect I'm certain that is the proper way to play the hole.  One of the pleasures of being a member at Belvedere must be learning many other instances like that on the course, where a particular pin position on a certain green sets up shot choices which provide better plays than other choices.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()