[Jason Topp]

I pulled this excerpt from a Jeff Brauer piece on Golfdom.  It suggests to me that narrow deep greens would be the best way to challenge good players while giving higher handicap players a chance.  It also suggests that wide shallow greens would exacerbate the difference between a good and poor player.


"In fact, good players miss wide more often than short or long. Dave Pelz, in his excellent book, "The Short Game Bible" graphed approach shot dispersion patterns for tour players and it resembled a "bra strap." (I'll give you a moment to fixate on that image) with concentrations of missed approaches left and right of the hole, but great with distance control, because they usually make pure ball contact, and get lots of spin.

He found that Tour pros miss, on average, by 7% either side of the target. On 200 yard shots, left to right dispersion is about 28 yards. On 100 yard shots, it's 14 yards. Shallow greens work great high approach shots players, even when approaching with long irons.

. . .

For average players, it's a completely different story! Because they don't hit as high, get as much backspin, or make consistently clean contact, long and short misses are common. They need greater green depth.

 
According to the USGA Slope Rating Guide, greens must be about 50% deeper than wide for 2/3's of 20-handicappers hold a shot. At 100 yards, golfers need a green about 14 wide by 21 yards deep. At 200 yards, they need 27 yards wide and 40 yards deep to hold a shot. As you see, the green needs the same width as for the good players, but must be much longer, especially at 200 yards!"

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/now_for_our_first_question



What courses fit the narrow, deep suggestion best?  Which ones are more of the wide, shallow variety?  Are the narrow deep ones better in your experience?

I really liked the greens on Ballybunion Old and it seems they fit this description pretty well.

[Tom_Doak]

Pete Dye had me break down the USGA's Slope Rating System when it first came out, and it implied the very same thing ... that wide and shallow greens favored the good players, who fairly consistently hit the ball the right distance on approaches of any length, but whose accuracy went down steadily the longer the approach.  So, if you're looking for the way to challenge the pros while trying to minimize the pain for 18-handicaps, that's one thing to look at.

But it still doesn't trump the desire for variety.

As for who builds what, from the beginning of his career I think Jack Nicklaus (and Bob Cupp among his associates) have tended to build a lot more wide-and-shallow greens than most architects do.  At Sebonack Jack suggested that our tenth green only needed to be 40 feet deep! -- I had never built one under 60 feet for the reasons discused above.

[Sean_A]

I think there should be some wide/shallow greens on courses, but I think they work best when the green is in full view and perhaps even a downhill shot.  Its fine to chuck in the odd uphill wide/shallow green and its even ok to make the recovery brutal for missing - but probably only once a round at most. 

I know Tobacco Road has a few of these sorts of greens, maybe a few too many, but I really like the 14th and the 6th.  Though to be honest the best part of #6 is the mega wide teeing areas.  I spose the 13th is quite interesting because of its natural position.  However, and its a shame because there is nothing inherently wrong with these greens other than over-use, the 17th and 15th probably carry things too far down the wide/shallow path. One could also argue that the 11th is wide/shallow, but at least the player can layup left and go for a long/narrow approach instead. 

I just played Governors Club and I would say goes ott with uphill wide/shallow greens.

Ciao

[Jamie Barber]

Aren't two of the most famous holes in golf in the "shallow and wide" category (Road Hole at TOC and 12th at ANGC)?

[Tim Gavrich]

I think the Arnold Palmer design people may have taken the data too much to heart when they built this green, the 4th at Gillette Ridge GC in Bloomfield, CT:

(from the tee)

(from behind the green, which is about 52 yards deep and about 6 yards wide)

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think you could probably only have 1 per course. Narrow greens dont yield lots of pinning areas, basically (the one in the pic) is just a set down the middle, the 3 metre band around the edge, the difficulty in turning for ride-ons make them a bit difficult for maintenance. I have done a couple where I am trying to get a green fit into a steep side slope in each case it was a realative short approach shot.
It depends how you interpret narrow ofcourse and at 12 metre width, most courses have one.

[Emil Weber]

That's a difficult question.  Imagine you are on a golf course and you have to hit a 10-yard corridor if you want to be on the green, and at the next hole you have a 30-yard wide green. Now where does the average golfer feel more comfortable? It'll surely be the 30-yard wide green where the player can swing freely without any concerns. Furthermore, approaches to the green from the sides will be much more diffcult than if you miss long or short, because you have less green to work with. And if there's no short grass around the greens, having 18 lob-shots on a round isn't that fun, is it?

[Mike McGuire]

This hole gets a lot of discussion. Its only 33 feet across and plays over 200 from the tournament tee (185 from the regular tee). Miss left and the ball feeds away giving  you a tricky pitch or a putt. If the pin is up some players purposely miss the green short and try to get it up and down.

Missing right is better as the long grass holds the ball much closer to the green.

PB Dye 2000

[Richard Hetzel]

On most golf holes, I dislike a very narrow, but deep green. The Oasis CC (Arnold Palmer) near my house has a green like this on the first hole and I hate it. By the same token, I  think it would be OK if you have somewhere to bailout to. It shouldn't be so penal. On this hole if you hit the left trap you had better be able to hit an ultra soft sand shot or it is over the green and in the rocks (red stakes I think). If you push too far right it is lateral as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

First, thanks for reading my piece.

Second, I would actually design mostly deep, but not overly narrow greens as a rule. I use exagerated long greens for effect and variety, but no more than once a course (or twice - one long and one across).  Strantz has a handful of those on his courses.  They look unnatural in most places because they are so unusual stand out as repetitive if over done, IMHO. 

Third, as Tom D suggests.  I also try to include up to 4 across the line of play greens in a design for variety.  Actually, I often do one on the longest par 3 and par 4, figuring the average guy is playing a wedge on his third and that its a good test for the best plalyers.  They can also be used successfully on one short par 4 and most par 5 holes.  The final decision is made looking at the land, of course, but the stats are difficult to ignore - if you put in too many, you make for an unpleasant and unplayable course for the average golfer, while not affecting the pros (who won't show up anyway on most courses)

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't have time to post more, but should note that the angle of the green is an interseting discussion (I think I have an article on that in Cybergolf, too) that is not limited strictly to along the line of play, or across the line of play.  The angle of the green sets up the shot, and even greens that are longer than wide should have some angle to them - usually from 5-25 degrees right or left, which sets up draws and fades, etc.  After 30 degrees, the green often appears to be a 90 degree across green to the golfer. Yes, that can fool them, which might be nice occaisionally, but in most cases, I like the green to present itself as the challenge that it is.

Lastly, in a discussion with Tripp Davis, he went into detail about how he is narrowing greens for the purposes described by Jason in the original post.  I am not sure I agree with designing for the best players all the time, but some deep thinkers have come to the same conclusion as Jason.

[Ross Tuddenham]

I am not sure what the experts on here think but I have found that when playing with higher handicap players they can have problems with long greens and hazards at the front, that the better player might not think about.

I see a pin at the back 20 yards beyond the hazard and it won’t even enter my mind, but for the 18 handicapper whether the pin is at the front or back they must negotiate the hazard.  Or at least think about it.  It is just an observation I have made but it suggest that there is a few scenarios where the longer green can benefit the better player.  It’s more that it is relatively more difficult for them with respect to a situation where they both had to think about the hazard.

PS

While writing this I was thinking about whether such a pin placement would be used and wondered if there are examples of greens with large areas never intended for a pin placement?

The area may just be there to provide an over hit shot with a long putt instead of a chip or to fulfil some sort of visual aspect.  i don't mean areas on a slope I mean large areas that could have pin it's just it wasn't intended to ever put one there.  I can't see the point but it might happen.

Just a thought really, what do you think?

[Anthony Gray]

  Someone pleae post the 4th green at Spyglass. Thanks.

  Anthony

[archie_struthers]

 


I don't see any reason to do any type of green to excess . Plain and simple .
Tp design to defend par against the best players is pretty arrchaic , as they wil find a way. Better to make it fun, interesting and visual so more people want to play and play again.

[Charlie Goerges]

What about the surrounds, how much should what is around a green affect what size/shape the green is. I.e. if it's a wide shallow green, deep bunkers short and long would be very difficult, shorter cropped grass might not be so difficult.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

First, thanks for reading my piece.

I particularly liked that you were responding to a letter from "Jack from Columbus"

[Jason Topp]

I don't have time to post more, but should note that the angle of the green is an interseting discussion (I think I have an article on that in Cybergolf, too) that is not limited strictly to along the line of play, or across the line of play.  The angle of the green sets up the shot, and even greens that are longer than wide should have some angle to them - usually from 5-25 degrees right or left, which sets up draws and fades, etc.  After 30 degrees, the green often appears to be a 90 degree across green to the golfer. Yes, that can fool them, which might be nice occaisionally, but in most cases, I like the green to present itself as the challenge that it is.

Lastly, in a discussion with Tripp Davis, he went into detail about how he is narrowing greens for the purposes described by Jason in the original post.  I am not sure I agree with designing for the best players all the time, but some deep thinkers have come to the same conclusion as Jason.

I would think that a deep green offset slightly to reward an approach from one side of the fairway is a pretty subtle but effective way to create an interesting playable course.  I think Nicklaus courses in the last 15 years have made extensive use of this sort of design in a softer version of Jack's early green designs.

I also like the idea of narrower deep greens with short grass hollows instead of bunkers flanking the greens.  Such greens make it a challenge for low handicappers to make par if they miss but make it relatively easy for high handicaps to make bogey.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()