[cary lichtenstein]

I played a course the other day and at lunch, one of the players remarked "what a pleasure to play a renovated course where the architect didn't put in all the run off areas on the putting greens"

It got me thinking about Donald Ross and all his run off areas and whether or not they really were true runoffs with the green speeds in those days being 5 or 6 and they fringes being higher.

Today, with green speeds upwards of 12, are runoffs good or bad design?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I don't think they are bad design but its probably not something that works on all courses.

[Tyler Kearns]

Cary,

Multiple run-offs are important aspects of green design to facilitate surface drainage.  It is the severity of these runoff areas of the green that affect playability.

TK

[Carl Johnson]

Cary,

Multiple run-offs are important aspects of green design to facilitate surface drainage.  It is the severity of these runoff areas of the green that affect playability.

TK

Our recently renovated Carolina Golf Club course is a re-do of an old Donald Ross course.  Thus, both new and old.  The architect's goal was to build Ross (Hatch) style greens following the old green pads as much as reasonably possible.  There are some run-off areas, but at this point, with the green speeds at which we are presently operating, they are not unreasonable.  Also, when looking at run-off areas on greens on old Ross courses, keep in mind that the experts say that the greens on many of those courses are substantially more contoured today than when they were originally constructed by Ross, largely as a result of the build up of old style top dressing (without punching).

[Emil Weber]

I do think run offs are goodesign because recoverys are easier for the average player yet the tour pro would be challenged, maybe more than if it was a bunker.

[Michael Blake]

I do think run offs are goodesign because recoverys are easier for the average player yet the tour pro would be challenged, maybe more than if it was a bunker.

I think runoffs "appear" easier to the average player, until they actually attempt to execute a recovery.  When often, it's the miss into the bunker that is the easier shot, even though it appears to be the more difficult one.

Pinehurst #2 comes to mind.

I think runoffs are great.

[Scott Warren]

I love them when mown tight. So many more recovery options and a greater reward for a skillful and imaginative player than ankle deep hay 4ft from the green that just necessitates hack with a lob wedge and blind luck in the result.

One of the many reasons I prefer watching the Masters and Open Championship to the US Open and PGA...

And as a player, there's that sinking feeling of watching your ball gather speed as it makes its way back to your feet

[Emil Weber]

I do think run offs are goodesign because recoverys are easier for the average player yet the tour pro would be challenged, maybe more than if it was a bunker.

I think runoffs "appear" easier to the average player, until they actually attempt to execute a recovery.  When often, it's the miss into the bunker that is the easier shot, even though it appears to be the more difficult one.

Pinehurst #2 comes to mind.

I think runoffs are great.

In addition, what makes tightly mown run offs challenging for good players is the need to be creative and not just excecute the shot they always practice on the range.

I have never seen tightly mown run-offs here in Germany which is one reason why golf is a little less fun over here. If you miss the green, it's always the same: you grab a sand-wedge and chip it out of the short rough. German golfers who play links golf for the first time are often overstrained because they've never even thought about taking a putter from 20 yards off the green!

[Carl Rogers]

Green speed, speed and lushness of the fringes are the issues of this thread. 

A difficult combination for me are very quick greens and slow fringes & run-offs that take away the putter option.

[Dan Herrmann]

Isn't Mr. Dye the "King of runoffs" today?

[Carl Johnson]

Are we talking about run-off areas on the green, or about closely-mown chipping areas off the green?  Two different things in my view.  My focus was on the former, but it seems to me some of the discussion is getting into the latter.  I could be wrong.

[Dan Herrmann]

Carl,
Good point.

How would you characterize the difference?  (I have my opinion, but I'd like to learn what you think)

[Anthony Gray]

  At Pinehurst No 2 they were definatly overused.

  Anthony

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,
Good point.

How would you characterize the difference?  (I have my opinion, but I'd like to learn what you think)

Well, it would be easier if I could draw a picture or take you out on a course.  But, to me, when you say run off areas on greens I think of the shortly mowed green itself, and then areas toward the outsides of the "green" that slope down and and away from the high point(s) on the green, and off the green at their low points.  (I exclude false fronts.  Although those are as a matter of fact "run off areas, too.")  Once you get off the green (and a short collar), what do you do next? Do you have thick grass, or do you have very closely mown grass on a down hill slope that, once the ball is on it, carries the ball many yards from the green.  For me, those are what I call chipping areas.  The run off areas are limited to the green surface itself.  Big difference.  If you have a run off area on a green, your ball might (to your chagrin) leave the green on its own volition.  But then if the collar is followed by high grass, the ball will hold up there.  If the run off flows into a "chipping area," then your ball could end up 10 to 15 yards or so off the green.  Where would you rather be?  Frankly, I'd rather be on the green about 12 inches from the hole.  I don't know the technical terminology from an architectural standpoint, but this is what I surmise as a golfer and initially I thought that's what Cary was describing.

[jeffwarne]

I love them when mown tight. So many more recovery options and a greater reward for a skillful and imaginative player than ankle deep hay 4ft from the green that just necessitates hack with a lob wedge and blind luck in the result.

As a skilled wedge player and chipper. I've always enjoyed short game options.
But lately as agronomy at high end courses has improved, I'm finding most "chipping areas" are not chipping areas, but rather two speed putting greens.
(meaning the closely mown area is running 8-9  and the green is 11-12)
anything other than putting is foolish (I mean would you chip from the green at a course where the greens were running 8-9?)
So I would argue options are being REDUCED when turf is maintained that tight and greens are consistently surrounded by such
and those who claim blind luck occurs from thick greenside rough probably aren't experiencing success-I enjoy being able to excel from greenside rough and control the ball while others struggle.....err..... experience blind (bad) luck.
All I'm saying is super tight chipping areas are being overused and few good/smart players CHIP from them

[Trey Stiles]

IMHO : Run Out areas make the game much more interesting.

Without the run out areas ( Houston ) you just take out the wedge and hack it out .... With run out areas , I have to think all the way back to the approach shot ( Don't miss right , it will collect in a difficult position ) ... When your in the run out area , your options run from putter , to 5 wood , to mid iron , to pitch , to flop .... Now that's Golf ... Options and making the player Think.

Interesting side note from my club ( Kingwood CC ) ... We have 3 courses that generally have rough around the greens and 1 with combo of deep bunkers , steep slopes , run out areas , deep native grasses ... It seems like the average players stay away on the 3 traditional courses and more serious players are on the one course ( Forest )

I'm still trying to figure it out , I really don't like the look of the Forest ... But I LOVE the way it plays.

[Sean_A]

I love them when mown tight. So many more recovery options and a greater reward for a skillful and imaginative player than ankle deep hay 4ft from the green that just necessitates hack with a lob wedge and blind luck in the result.

As a skilled wedge player and chipper. I've always enjoyed short game options.
But lately as agronomy at high end courses has improved, I'm finding most "chipping areas" are not chipping areas, but rather two speed putting greens.
(meaning the closely mown area is running 8-9  and the green is 11-12)
anything other than putting is foolish (I mean would you chip from the green at a course where the greens were running 8-9?)
So I would argue options are being REDUCED when turf is maintained that tight and greens are consistently surrounded by such
and those who claim blind luck occurs from thick greenside rough probably aren't experiencing success-I enjoy being able to excel from greenside rough and control the ball while others struggle.....err..... experience blind (bad) luck.
All I'm saying is super tight chipping areas are being overused and few good/smart players CHIP from them

Jeff

Run off areas are best when the drop is severe (say 6-8 feet and higher) and there is trouble on the far side.  The player then has true options: the flat stick, the wedge or variations on bounce in with an 8 iron or something.  The slightest thing like the wind being in your face may make one lean toward the wedge.  Or perhaps the lie is tight and the player doesn't fancy a wedge and goes for the putter.  Maybe the ball is setting well down and the guy elects to bobble one up.  I very much like run offs, tight bunkering, fall offs leading to bunkers and even the once in a while nasty rough nearby or worse - water.  The important thing is not to overkill any trait.  For instance, Pinehurst gets carried away with run offs, Yeamans Hall gets carried away with run offs leading to bunkers.  Variety is and always has been the spice of life.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I really like run offs (both on and around the green).  When I'm at Crail I play the Craighead course as often (if not more often) than the Balcomie because of the work Gil Hanse did there with run offs, which makes for great fun round the greens.

[Rich Goodale]

I agree with Sean that sharp changes in elevation are needed to make run-offs non-trivial (as desscribed by Jeff).  One of the things I found uninteresting about Rustic Canyon was the repetitive green presentation as relatively flat upturned saucers surrounded by huge swathes of puttable fairway.  I don't remember a single interesting "should I putt, bump and run or pitch?" dilemma in my 18 holes there, but maybe I was just unlucky.

[Mark Pearce]

I agree with Sean that sharp changes in elevation are needed to make run-offs non-trivial (as desscribed by Jeff).  One of the things I found uninteresting about Rustic Canyon was the repetitive green presentation as relatively flat upturned saucers surrounded by huge swathes of puttable fairway.  I don't remember a single interesting "should I putt, bump and run or pitch?" dilemma in my 18 holes there, but maybe I was just unlucky.

I agree that there needs to be enough elevation change to make you consider your options and, in particular, to make judging the pace of a putt very difficult but also making a pitch straight to the green difficult.  I don't think as much as 6 to 8 feet is necessary, as Sean suggests.  Going back to the Craighead, on Sunday I played at least two shots from run offs where I deliberately pitched a low 8 iron chip into the face of a run-off, so that the ball was "stunned" and bounced up onto the green but with most of its speed taken off.  These shots had in common 1) short cut grass, 2) steep bank for the run off and 3) both banks were less than 5 feet high.  In both cases it would have been extremely difficult to judge the pace of a putt and I didn't fancy simply being at the base of the run off rather than a little further back for my next shot and pin positions close to the run off, so that a pitch onto the green would be almost impossible if I wanted to be close.  Both shots would probably have been less risky with a higher bank.

[Lester George]

Without run-offs, a lot of modern architecture would be even more boring!  If they are bad, I've been screwing up for a bunch of years.  Actually, some may say that I have been screwing up for many years anyway, but not because of run-offs.

Lester

[Anthony Gray]

  The idea of a green should be to recieve a ball. I think run offs can be overdone.

  Anthony



 

[Phil Benedict]

I think getting a bad result from a shot which is almost good is part of the mental challenge that makes golf great.  Fall offs and gathering bunkers are examples of architectural features that disproportionately punish slight mishits.  That's golf.

[Michael Blake]

The idea of a green should be to recieve a ball.

According to whom?  I figured it was just the place where the hole was.


Phil, I agree.  An 'almost good' shot is exactly that--not quite good enough.  And they shouldn't have the same result as a 'good' shot or a 'smarter' shot that is maybe less aggressive and less risky.  People can claim that is fair or unfair if they want.  But better shots produce better results.  Regardless, runoffs make play around the greens alot more fun.

[Mark Pearce]

  The idea of a green should be to recieve a ball. I think run offs can be overdone.

  Anthony



 

And I thought you loved Cruden Bay......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()