The Jekyll & Hide potion - The Wind

[Patrick_Mucci]

JNC Lyon,

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

Not on WINDY sites.
Windy sites, especially those near the ocean usually enjoy sandy soil, which when combined with the wind, keeps them dry, firm and fast, unless the club overwaters.

Seminole is rather consistent in that regard.
And, most importantly, the club strives for firm, fast conditions.
Day in and day out, Seminole is pretty firm and fast.

Good to hear, I think firm and fast conditions, while unchanging give the player the most options if presented in moderation.  A golfer can choose to fly it in or run on it under the same conditions on different days.  But you already know that.

I think it's one of the great member oriented golf courses in the U.S.

"Without changing the hole location" is key. 
Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations. 
However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location. 
The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin. 

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
One might hit a 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, or you might gamble with your driver in terms of distance and direction.  There's plenty of strategy off the tee, just ask the guys who've driven it into the lake on the left off the tee.

Yes, but how much does this strategy change based on hole location? 
Because the hole is a shorter four, golfers have multiple club selection options.  However, these usually change, at least in my experience, based on no more than the golfer's comfort level with a certain club on a given day.  For the hole layout, I can see gambling to the right when the pin is left to gain a better angle. Yet would the line change with a lay-up from day to day?

Strategy changes are somewhat dependent upon the golfers powers of observation.
As you play # 1, a glance to the right will tell you what you need to know about hole location on # 10.  Thus, when you come to the 10th tee you can decide upon a strategy based on the wind direction, velocity and the hole location you've observed.

Here's the insidious part.
I feel most comfortable attacking hole locations from the far left side of the fairway.
However, the danger in that thinking is the water looming on the left side of the fairway, which, under many wind conditions is well within your driver's range.  Wind direction and velocity can defeat my desire to approach the green from the left.  If the wind is from the east or southeast, it's prevailing direction, I really don't like approaching that green from the right, especially when the hole is cut left to far left.

So, the hole can present a strategic dilema, in planning and execution.

From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds. 

I can't comment on the Kingsley Club as I"ve never played it

Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety. 
The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of the 7th at Pebble Beach and the 8th at Troon ?

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of any hole with a small green, say 2,500 sq/ft and under ?  Let's take the 15th at Pine Tree as an example.

In the case of 7 at Pebble or 8 at Troon, I would surmise that both gain their fame/greatness from:

1) Presence on a well-known championship course.
2) WINDY locales.
3) Great hazards surrounding the green.


I think you forgot the most important factor, and, I think # 1 is a non-factor.
The small size of the green is what makes them so difficult


What variety is there without changing wind.  How much strategy is really thought out from the tee.  A 'hit the small green or else proposition' doesn't lend itself to much variety.  This is especially true when the holes hazards are readily apparent.


You can't ignore wind velocity and gusting as critical elements, even if wind direction remained constant.


Personally, I am more partial to short par threes like 2 at Garden City, where variety is created from an angled green that changes the club and shot selection every day. 
[/color]

I also like # 2 at GCGC, but, you can't ignore how the prevailing wind, and any other wind enhance that hole.

It usually plays into the prevailing wind, which shrinks your margins of error and accentuates your mis-hits, a great combination.  The green is also quite large, front to back.  The angled nature of the green, combined with it being surrounded by bunkers make it a classic pass/fail type of approach.


My favorite type of short three is something like 3 at Yeamans Hall or 4 at Oak Hill (West).  On both holes, the golfer is presented with a large green with several small areas on which to cut pins.  The golfer has a bailout option that will make a three tough but will make a four reasonable.  Ultimately, the golfer is given a false sense of security over the shot, because hitting the large green won't necessarily result in par.  Furthermore, the strategy of the hole changes every day with different pins.  4 at Oak Hill (West) contains tremendous variety without the effects of wind.

For me, a par three with a large green that creates different options is more of an architectural achievement than a hole like 8 at Troon or 7 at Pebble.  I think, with all things being equal, a hole like 3 at Yeamans would be more fun on a day-to-day basis because of its variety.

As for a tiny green, I think they are great for variety within a round.  A golfer is best tested if he is forced to look at different sizes of targets.  This can easily throw off one's mental focus.  However, large greens are archiecturally better for creating variety within the hole.  It also makes it easier to maintain good conditions around a given hole location.

Then you should be a huge fan of "short" holes with their large greens broken into segments, a greens within green configuration.

Westhampton, NGLA,  The Knoll and many others present this combination.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC Lyon,

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

Not on WINDY sites.
Windy sites, especially those near the ocean usually enjoy sandy soil, which when combined with the wind, keeps them dry, firm and fast, unless the club overwaters.

Seminole is rather consistent in that regard.
And, most importantly, the club strives for firm, fast conditions.
Day in and day out, Seminole is pretty firm and fast.

Good to hear, I think firm and fast conditions, while unchanging give the player the most options if presented in moderation.  A golfer can choose to fly it in or run on it under the same conditions on different days.  But you already know that.

I think it's one of the great member oriented golf courses in the U.S.

"Without changing the hole location" is key. 
Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations. 
However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location. 
The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin. 

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
One might hit a 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, or you might gamble with your driver in terms of distance and direction.  There's plenty of strategy off the tee, just ask the guys who've driven it into the lake on the left off the tee.

Yes, but how much does this strategy change based on hole location? 
Because the hole is a shorter four, golfers have multiple club selection options.  However, these usually change, at least in my experience, based on no more than the golfer's comfort level with a certain club on a given day.  For the hole layout, I can see gambling to the right when the pin is left to gain a better angle. Yet would the line change with a lay-up from day to day?

Strategy changes are somewhat dependent upon the golfers powers of observation.
As you play # 1, a glance to the right will tell you what you need to know about hole location on # 10.  Thus, when you come to the 10th tee you can decide upon a strategy based on the wind direction, velocity and the hole location you've observed.

Here's the insidious part.
I feel most comfortable attacking hole locations from the far left side of the fairway.
However, the danger in that thinking is the water looming on the left side of the fairway, which, under many wind conditions is well within your driver's range.  Wind direction and velocity can defeat my desire to approach the green from the left.  If the wind is from the east or southeast, it's prevailing direction, I really don't like approaching that green from the right, especially when the hole is cut left to far left.

So, the hole can present a strategic dilema, in planning and execution.

I guess I underestimated the multi-dimensional nature of the hole.  I can see how approaching from the right could give the feeling of hitting 'at the water,' something that is particularly unnerving with a wedge.  Even so, if the pin is cut far left, do you have to work the ball to get it close, especially with a wedge?

From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds. 

I can't comment on the Kingsley Club as I"ve never played it

Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety. 
The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of the 7th at Pebble Beach and the 8th at Troon ?

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of any hole with a small green, say 2,500 sq/ft and under ?  Let's take the 15th at Pine Tree as an example.

In the case of 7 at Pebble or 8 at Troon, I would surmise that both gain their fame/greatness from:

1) Presence on a well-known championship course.
2) WINDY locales.
3) Great hazards surrounding the green.


I think you forgot the most important factor, and, I think # 1 is a non-factor.
The small size of the green is what makes them so difficult

I did indeed forget that factor, but that is part of my reason why those types of holes are limited in variety.


What variety is there without changing wind.  How much strategy is really thought out from the tee?  A 'hit the small green or else proposition' doesn't lend itself to much variety.  This is especially true when the holes hazards are readily apparent.


You can't ignore wind velocity and gusting as critical elements, even if wind direction remained constant.


Personally, I am more partial to short par threes like 2 at Garden City, where variety is created from an angled green that changes the club and shot selection every day. 
[/color]

I also like # 2 at GCGC, but, you can't ignore how the prevailing wind, and any other wind enhance that hole.

It usually plays into the prevailing wind, which shrinks your margins of error and accentuates your mis-hits, a great combination.  The green is also quite large, front to back.  The angled nature of the green, combined with it being surrounded by bunkers make it a classic pass/fail type of approach.

I think the pass-fail nature is there when the pin is in the right and there is no real bailout.  However, when the pin is left, the golfer can definitely wimp out to the right side of green.  Thus, the strategy changes as the hole locations change. 

When I played the hole the wind was a huge factor.  The pin was short right.  I saw my buddy have a wedge knocked down left into the pit.  I then aimed right.  The wind died and my 8-iron flew into the right bunker.  Needless to say neither of us made par.  The wind is definitely a major part of the hole.  However, I think the hole has a core strategy that exists without wind that 8 Troon or 7 PB do not possess.


My favorite type of short three is something like 3 at Yeamans Hall or 4 at Oak Hill (West).  On both holes, the golfer is presented with a large green with several small areas on which to cut pins.  The golfer has a bailout option that will make a three tough but will make a four reasonable.  Ultimately, the golfer is given a false sense of security over the shot, because hitting the large green won't necessarily result in par.  Furthermore, the strategy of the hole changes every day with different pins.  4 at Oak Hill (West) contains tremendous variety without the effects of wind.

For me, a par three with a large green that creates different options is more of an architectural achievement than a hole like 8 at Troon or 7 at Pebble.  I think, with all things being equal, a hole like 3 at Yeamans would be more fun on a day-to-day basis because of its variety.

As for a tiny green, I think they are great for variety within a round.  A golfer is best tested if he is forced to look at different sizes of targets.  This can easily throw off one's mental focus.  However, large greens are archiecturally better for creating variety within the hole.  It also makes it easier to maintain good conditions around a given hole location.

Then you should be a huge fan of "short" holes with their large greens broken into segments, a greens within green configuration.

Westhampton, NGLA,  The Knoll and many others present this combination.

Indeed, this is my favorite type of short three.  NGLA was the first one that came to mind but I used examples from courses that I have played.  MacDonald/Raynor were the ultimate architects for building these types of holes

[Patrick_Mucci]

JNC Lyon,

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

Not on WINDY sites.
Windy sites, especially those near the ocean usually enjoy sandy soil, which when combined with the wind, keeps them dry, firm and fast, unless the club overwaters.

Seminole is rather consistent in that regard.
And, most importantly, the club strives for firm, fast conditions.
Day in and day out, Seminole is pretty firm and fast.

Good to hear, I think firm and fast conditions, while unchanging give the player the most options if presented in moderation.  A golfer can choose to fly it in or run on it under the same conditions on different days.  But you already know that.

I think it's one of the great member oriented golf courses in the U.S.

"Without changing the hole location" is key. 
Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations. 
However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location. 
The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin. 

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
One might hit a 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, or you might gamble with your driver in terms of distance and direction.  There's plenty of strategy off the tee, just ask the guys who've driven it into the lake on the left off the tee.

Yes, but how much does this strategy change based on hole location? 
Because the hole is a shorter four, golfers have multiple club selection options.  However, these usually change, at least in my experience, based on no more than the golfer's comfort level with a certain club on a given day.  For the hole layout, I can see gambling to the right when the pin is left to gain a better angle. Yet would the line change with a lay-up from day to day?

Strategy changes are somewhat dependent upon the golfers powers of observation.
As you play # 1, a glance to the right will tell you what you need to know about hole location on # 10.  Thus, when you come to the 10th tee you can decide upon a strategy based on the wind direction, velocity and the hole location you've observed.

Here's the insidious part.
I feel most comfortable attacking hole locations from the far left side of the fairway.
However, the danger in that thinking is the water looming on the left side of the fairway, which, under many wind conditions is well within your driver's range.  Wind direction and velocity can defeat my desire to approach the green from the left.  If the wind is from the east or southeast, it's prevailing direction, I really don't like approaching that green from the right, especially when the hole is cut left to far left.

So, the hole can present a strategic dilema, in planning and execution.

I guess I underestimated the multi-dimensional nature of the hole.  I can see how approaching from the right could give the feeling of hitting 'at the water,' something that is particularly unnerving with a wedge.  Even so, if the pin is cut far left, do you have to work the ball to get it close, especially with a wedge?

I don't know about working the ball, but, you'd better evaluate your shot in the context of adverse consequences for failure to judge and/or execute.  If you overcook or pull the shot the results are disastrous.  The center of the green has great appeal as a target, and plenty of margin for error.  However, that leaves a very dicey putt/s

From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds. 

I can't comment on the Kingsley Club as I"ve never played it

Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety. 
The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of the 7th at Pebble Beach and the 8th at Troon ?

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of any hole with a small green, say 2,500 sq/ft and under ?  Let's take the 15th at Pine Tree as an example.

In the case of 7 at Pebble or 8 at Troon, I would surmise that both gain their fame/greatness from:

1) Presence on a well-known championship course.
2) WINDY locales.
3) Great hazards surrounding the green.


I think you forgot the most important factor, and, I think # 1 is a non-factor.
The small size of the green is what makes them so difficult

I did indeed forget that factor, but that is part of my reason why those types of holes are limited in variety.

I'm not so sure that # 10 is limited in variety.
Of course, you could say that about every par 3.
I think some holes confront and test the golfer, demanding a certain shot, and I see nothing wrong with that.  It's part of the "examination" of the golfer's skills that the architect has crafted.


What variety is there without changing wind.  How much strategy is really thought out from the tee?  A 'hit the small green or else proposition' doesn't lend itself to much variety.  This is especially true when the holes hazards are readily apparent.


You can't ignore wind velocity and gusting as critical elements, even if wind direction remained constant.


Personally, I am more partial to short par threes like 2 at Garden City, where variety is created from an angled green that changes the club and shot selection every day. 
[/color]

I also like # 2 at GCGC, but, you can't ignore how the prevailing wind, and any other wind enhance that hole.

It usually plays into the prevailing wind, which shrinks your margins of error and accentuates your mis-hits, a great combination.  The green is also quite large, front to back.  The angled nature of the green, combined with it being surrounded by bunkers make it a classic pass/fail type of approach.

I think the pass-fail nature is there when the pin is in the right and there is no real bailout.  However, when the pin is left, the golfer can definitely wimp out to the right side of green.  Thus, the strategy changes as the hole locations change. 

When I played the hole the wind was a huge factor.  The pin was short right.  I saw my buddy have a wedge knocked down left into the pit.  I then aimed right.  The wind died and my 8-iron flew into the right bunker.  Needless to say neither of us made par.  The wind is definitely a major part of the hole.  However, I think the hole has a core strategy that exists without wind that 8 Troon or 7 PB do not possess.

I think it may be slightly more variety due to the size of the 2nd green at GCGC.
Absent wind, the green can probably require a three club length seperation between the front and back hole locations.

For me, # 2 is more about club selection and how best to use the wind to my advantage.
I try to stay away from perimeter hole locations, choosing the center of the green instead.
If I execute properly, I leave myself a reasonable putt for birdie and more importantly, avoid a big number that can ruin your round early.


My favorite type of short three is something like 3 at Yeamans Hall or 4 at Oak Hill (West).  On both holes, the golfer is presented with a large green with several small areas on which to cut pins.  The golfer has a bailout option that will make a three tough but will make a four reasonable.  Ultimately, the golfer is given a false sense of security over the shot, because hitting the large green won't necessarily result in par.  Furthermore, the strategy of the hole changes every day with different pins.  4 at Oak Hill (West) contains tremendous variety without the effects of wind.

For me, a par three with a large green that creates different options is more of an architectural achievement than a hole like 8 at Troon or 7 at Pebble.  I think, with all things being equal, a hole like 3 at Yeamans would be more fun on a day-to-day basis because of its variety.

As for a tiny green, I think they are great for variety within a round.  A golfer is best tested if he is forced to look at different sizes of targets.  This can easily throw off one's mental focus.  However, large greens are archiecturally better for creating variety within the hole.  It also makes it easier to maintain good conditions around a given hole location.

Then you should be a huge fan of "short" holes with their large greens broken into segments, a greens within green configuration.

Westhampton, NGLA,  The Knoll and many others present this combination.

Indeed, this is my favorite type of short three.  NGLA was the first one that came to mind but I used examples from courses that I have played.  MacDonald/Raynor were the ultimate architects for building these types of holes

Don't let Wayne Morrisson hear you say that.

They're amongst my favorite as well.
NGLA may be the ultimate short, but, I also love # 11 at Westhampton where the wind is a major factor..

Shorts present a demand challenge.
Good to great shorts demand a higher level of challenge due to the significant internal contouring of the putting surface.
With holes cut in specific sections, wimp out and you're in three putt range.
Miss the pass/fail approach, and recovery remains difficult.

It's unfortunate that over the years there seems to have been an emphasis on 200-250 yard par 3's with bland putting surfaces

The only long par 3 that really defied that mold was the old 17th at Hollywood.
That was a spectacular par 3.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC Lyon,

Conditions vary from firm to soft on every course, meaning an architect should make the course playable in both conditions.

Not on WINDY sites.
Windy sites, especially those near the ocean usually enjoy sandy soil, which when combined with the wind, keeps them dry, firm and fast, unless the club overwaters.

Seminole is rather consistent in that regard.
And, most importantly, the club strives for firm, fast conditions.
Day in and day out, Seminole is pretty firm and fast.

Good to hear, I think firm and fast conditions, while unchanging give the player the most options if presented in moderation.  A golfer can choose to fly it in or run on it under the same conditions on different days.  But you already know that.

I think it's one of the great member oriented golf courses in the U.S.

"Without changing the hole location" is key. 
Most windless, day-to-day variety comes from changing hole locations. 
However, there are many, many holes where the basic strategy doesn't change based on the hole location. 
The ideal position in the fairway is absolute, even if there is a sucker pin. 

How much would 10 at Seminole change if the hole was moved? 

Dramatically

Certainly you would be more cautious with the approach, but the basic strategy off the tee won't change. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.
One might hit a 3-wood or 2-iron off the tee, or you might gamble with your driver in terms of distance and direction.  There's plenty of strategy off the tee, just ask the guys who've driven it into the lake on the left off the tee.

Yes, but how much does this strategy change based on hole location? 
Because the hole is a shorter four, golfers have multiple club selection options.  However, these usually change, at least in my experience, based on no more than the golfer's comfort level with a certain club on a given day.  For the hole layout, I can see gambling to the right when the pin is left to gain a better angle. Yet would the line change with a lay-up from day to day?

Strategy changes are somewhat dependent upon the golfers powers of observation.
As you play # 1, a glance to the right will tell you what you need to know about hole location on # 10.  Thus, when you come to the 10th tee you can decide upon a strategy based on the wind direction, velocity and the hole location you've observed.

Here's the insidious part.
I feel most comfortable attacking hole locations from the far left side of the fairway.
However, the danger in that thinking is the water looming on the left side of the fairway, which, under many wind conditions is well within your driver's range.  Wind direction and velocity can defeat my desire to approach the green from the left.  If the wind is from the east or southeast, it's prevailing direction, I really don't like approaching that green from the right, especially when the hole is cut left to far left.

So, the hole can present a strategic dilema, in planning and execution.

I guess I underestimated the multi-dimensional nature of the hole.  I can see how approaching from the right could give the feeling of hitting 'at the water,' something that is particularly unnerving with a wedge.  Even so, if the pin is cut far left, do you have to work the ball to get it close, especially with a wedge?

I don't know about working the ball, but, you'd better evaluate your shot in the context of adverse consequences for failure to judge and/or execute.  If you overcook or pull the shot the results are disastrous.  The center of the green has great appeal as a target, and plenty of margin for error.  However, that leaves a very dicey putt/s

Sure, but wouldn't these decisions become more relevant and challenging from the left side of the fairway?

From the Kingsley Club thread, 4 at Kingsley (though I haven't played it) would seem to be a hole that can vary strategically without changing winds. 

I can't comment on the Kingsley Club as I"ve never played it

Ultimately, I think hole location variety is critical to variety. 
The ability of a hole's strategy to change based on different hole locations is the true mark of a great variety in design.

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of the 7th at Pebble Beach and the 8th at Troon ?

How do you reconcile that statement in the context of any hole with a small green, say 2,500 sq/ft and under ?  Let's take the 15th at Pine Tree as an example.

In the case of 7 at Pebble or 8 at Troon, I would surmise that both gain their fame/greatness from:

1) Presence on a well-known championship course.
2) WINDY locales.
3) Great hazards surrounding the green.


I think you forgot the most important factor, and, I think # 1 is a non-factor.
The small size of the green is what makes them so difficult

I did indeed forget that factor, but that is part of my reason why those types of holes are limited in variety.

I'm not so sure that # 10 is limited in variety.
Of course, you could say that about every par 3.
I think some holes confront and test the golfer, demanding a certain shot, and I see nothing wrong with that.  It's part of the "examination" of the golfer's skills that the architect has crafted.

You can certainly say that about every par three, but some are more limited than others, no?  A small green on a three is fine too if there is a bailout to the left.  I often enjoy an all-or-nothing shot (17 at the Ocean Course comes to mind, its artificiality not withstanding), but I think 1-2 a round is plenty.


What variety is there without changing wind.  How much strategy is really thought out from the tee?  A 'hit the small green or else proposition' doesn't lend itself to much variety.  This is especially true when the holes hazards are readily apparent.


You can't ignore wind velocity and gusting as critical elements, even if wind direction remained constant.


Personally, I am more partial to short par threes like 2 at Garden City, where variety is created from an angled green that changes the club and shot selection every day. 


I also like # 2 at GCGC, but, you can't ignore how the prevailing wind, and any other wind enhance that hole.

It usually plays into the prevailing wind, which shrinks your margins of error and accentuates your mis-hits, a great combination.  The green is also quite large, front to back.  The angled nature of the green, combined with it being surrounded by bunkers make it a classic pass/fail type of approach.

I think the pass-fail nature is there when the pin is in the right and there is no real bailout.  However, when the pin is left, the golfer can definitely wimp out to the right side of green.  Thus, the strategy changes as the hole locations change. 

When I played the hole the wind was a huge factor.  The pin was short right.  I saw my buddy have a wedge knocked down left into the pit.  I then aimed right.  The wind died and my 8-iron flew into the right bunker.  Needless to say neither of us made par.  The wind is definitely a major part of the hole.  However, I think the hole has a core strategy that exists without wind that 8 Troon or 7 PB do not possess.

I think it may be slightly more variety due to the size of the 2nd green at GCGC.
Absent wind, the green can probably require a three club length seperation between the front and back hole locations.

For me, # 2 is more about club selection and how best to use the wind to my advantage.
I try to stay away from perimeter hole locations, choosing the center of the green instead.
If I execute properly, I leave myself a reasonable putt for birdie and more importantly, avoid a big number that can ruin your round early.

Agreed, but I think the reality of a bailout option changes.  There is more bailout available to a back left pin than to a front right pin.  Bailing long left of a front right pin is not really viable because the wind is prone to knock shots into the quarry.  Of course, the large green is what gives the hole its bailout options.  However, the angled nature of the green is its biggest creator of variety.  A green 50 yards long and 10 paces wide is large, but it has no bailout option.  Shape and size must be considered at the same time.


My favorite type of short three is something like 3 at Yeamans Hall or 4 at Oak Hill (West).  On both holes, the golfer is presented with a large green with several small areas on which to cut pins.  The golfer has a bailout option that will make a three tough but will make a four reasonable.  Ultimately, the golfer is given a false sense of security over the shot, because hitting the large green won't necessarily result in par.  Furthermore, the strategy of the hole changes every day with different pins.  4 at Oak Hill (West) contains tremendous variety without the effects of wind.

For me, a par three with a large green that creates different options is more of an architectural achievement than a hole like 8 at Troon or 7 at Pebble.  I think, with all things being equal, a hole like 3 at Yeamans would be more fun on a day-to-day basis because of its variety.

As for a tiny green, I think they are great for variety within a round.  A golfer is best tested if he is forced to look at different sizes of targets.  This can easily throw off one's mental focus.  However, large greens are archiecturally better for creating variety within the hole.  It also makes it easier to maintain good conditions around a given hole location.

Then you should be a huge fan of "short" holes with their large greens broken into segments, a greens within green configuration.

Westhampton, NGLA,  The Knoll and many others present this combination.

Indeed, this is my favorite type of short three.  NGLA was the first one that came to mind but I used examples from courses that I have played.  MacDonald/Raynor were the ultimate architects for building these types of holes

Don't let Wayne Morrisson hear you say that.

They're amongst my favorite as well.
NGLA may be the ultimate short, but, I also love # 11 at Westhampton where the wind is a major factor..

Shorts present a demand challenge.
Good to great shorts demand a higher level of challenge due to the significant internal contouring of the putting surface.
With holes cut in specific sections, wimp out and you're in three putt range.
Miss the pass/fail approach, and recovery remains difficult.

It's unfortunate that over the years there seems to have been an emphasis on 200-250 yard par 3's with bland putting surfaces

The only long par 3 that really defied that mold was the old 17th at Hollywood.
That was a spectacular par 3.

The 6th at CC of Buffalo is another of my favorites of these types of holes.  The green is pushed up 10-20 feet from the floor of an old quarry.  However, the green complex is massive, meaning golfers can bail away from perimeter hole locations and avoid plunging into the quarry floor.  The rub is that the green is tilted severely back to front, meaning that any putt not from directly below the hole is very slippery.  I agree with the disturbing trend of long par threes.  Ultimately, this is so because long par threes are the only remaining test of the long iron game with modern technology. A 460 par four is now a driver and a wedge for a big hitter.

Unfortunately, many people have no respect for tradition of charm.  4 at Oak Hill West has tipped out at 145 for years.  Now, the club is putting in a new back tee to make the hole 175.  The green is wild, maybe my favorite green in my golf world.  It is designed for short irons because all hole locations have only 200 square feet around them where a two putt is easy.  The new tee is also elevated, changing the hole from a slight uphill par three to a downhill one.  Why are these changes being made?  Many claim it is to restore Ross' original playing characteristics, but do you think they are taking out trees and restoring his bunkering?  Of course not.  It is only being done to get yardage on a scorecard.  Very sad.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know about working the ball, but, you'd better evaluate your shot in the context of adverse consequences for failure to judge and/or execute.  If you overcook or pull the shot the results are disastrous.  The center of the green has great appeal as a target, and plenty of margin for error.  However, that leaves a very dicey putt/s

Sure, but wouldn't these decisions become more relevant and challenging from the left side of the fairway?

Therein lies the dilema..... the water that flanks the left side of the fairway.

The closer you go to the water the more ideal your angle of attack, but, who wants to risk that with or without the wind ?

I think it may be slightly more variety due to the size of the 2nd green at GCGC.
Absent wind, the green can probably require a three club length seperation between the front and back hole locations.

For me, # 2 is more about club selection and how best to use the wind to my advantage.
I try to stay away from perimeter hole locations, choosing the center of the green instead.
If I execute properly, I leave myself a reasonable putt for birdie and more importantly, avoid a big number that can ruin your round early.

Agreed, but I think the reality of a bailout option changes.  There is more bailout available to a back left pin than to a front right pin.  Bailing long left of a front right pin is not really viable because the wind is prone to knock shots into the quarry.  Of course, the large green is what gives the hole its bailout options.  However, the angled nature of the green is its biggest creator of variety.  A green 50 yards long and 10 paces wide is large, but it has no bailout option.  Shape and size must be considered at the same time.


That's why I don't believe that the hole has any "bailout" area and why I feel that a prudent strategy is to hit to the center of the green, especially when the hole is cut close to the perimeter of the green.

One of the interesting facets of # 2 is it's position in the routing.
Here's a little 137 yard par 3 that can ruin your round just as it's starting.
While a birdie is nice, making par is a good score.
I've seen many a golfer make 5, 6 and more, ruining their round from the get go.

If I did that, I might consider playing # 18 in, and then starting all over again.

I should have employed that strategy a few years ago when I started 2, 2, 3.
I should have gone to # 17, ala Woody Platt, and played # 17 and # 18.
I'm fairly sure that I would have made birdie par, for a 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, five hole total of five under par.  Unfortunately, I continued the round and was even par as I stood on the 10th tee.

It's unfortunate that over the years there seems to have been an emphasis on 200-250 yard par 3's with bland putting surfaces

The only long par 3 that really defied that mold was the old 17th at Hollywood.
That was a spectacular par 3.

The 6th at CC of Buffalo is another of my favorites of these types of holes.  The green is pushed up 10-20 feet from the floor of an old quarry.  However, the green complex is massive, meaning golfers can bail away from perimeter hole locations and avoid plunging into the quarry floor.  The rub is that the green is tilted severely back to front, meaning that any putt not from directly below the hole is very slippery.  I agree with the disturbing trend of long par threes.  Ultimately, this is so because long par threes are the only remaining test of the long iron game with modern technology. A 460 par four is now a driver and a wedge for a big hitter.

Unfortunately, many people have no respect for tradition of charm.  4 at Oak Hill West has tipped out at 145 for years.  Now, the club is putting in a new back tee to make the hole 175.  The green is wild, maybe my favorite green in my golf world.  It is designed for short irons because all hole locations have only 200 square feet around them where a two putt is easy.  The new tee is also elevated, changing the hole from a slight uphill par three to a downhill one.  Why are these changes being made?  Many claim it is to restore Ross' original playing characteristics, but do you think they are taking out trees and restoring his bunkering?  Of course not.  It is only being done to get yardage on a scorecard.  Very sad.

I think the trend to craft 230-250 par 3's may be partly due to increased green speeds over the years, leading to bland putting surfaces that would seem to need length in order to give the hole some semblance of challenge.

Westhampton made the same mistake you cited on their 11th hole, a wonderful short, with a spectucularly contoured putting surface.  A back tee was created making the hole read out at about 180+.  With a wind in your face it played longer than 200, with OB left and long, water and bunkers all around.

It took a wonderfully sporty hole and made it a nightmare to play.

[Joe Hancock]

"Greens aren't static."

Joseph The Nose:

Is that right? Have you actually seen a green physically move? 

I have but I already admitted I was halucinating.


Patrick:

If you asked the simple question "Why?" on here and someone answered you with "Because" I believe you would actually try to argue with them!  I've noticed judging from your numerous threads on here about the wind that you seem to be unusually fixated on that subject. Consequently, would it be save to say you are a "Wind Bag?"

Ask Mike Moss if we know anything about greens physically moving....for that matter, we moved a shitter as well....

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags: