[Ronald Montesano]

I've commenced a campaign to rid western New York golfers of the misguided need to label Crag Burn a "links-style" course.  I go about explaining that not all GB courses are links and that many are heathland, with Sunningdale perhaps the best of the group.  This past Fall, our high school team played a series of alternate-shot,non-league matches with rival schools, affording me the opportunity to play different tee decks on the par three holes.  We jumped #5 up to the 130 yard tees, changing the angle and increasing the drop of the tee ball...a great move on my part!  On #7, the hole that I revile, we moved up the 140 yard tees, decreasing distance and actually making the hole play slightly uphill.

#5 at Crag Burn has an L-shaped green, similar to #9 at Merion.  The green is receptive all the way back to the 210-yard Black tees, given its depth.  In absolute contrast, #7 might be 25-30 feet deep from side to side, with a slippery slope to water in the front and elevated bunkering (surrounded by fescue) in the back.  One needs to drop that 220-yard club pretty gently onto the green to hold it.  On #7, there is simply no place to properly miss the green, as the front left fairway is even less easy to access than the putting surface.  I think that a better green (perhaps the reverse of the one on #5) might have been built, especially given the nature of the water hazard that blankets it.

My question is, does a ratio exist for minimum green depth to yardage on a par three hole?  Even for the top players, the green is too challenging to hit and hold.  In fact, I hit the flag (the cloth part) this Fall and still managed to go through the fuzz into the back rough.  How deep should a green minimally be to hold a 200 or 210 or 220 or 230 yard shot?

This question assumes an essentially-flat shot from tee to green.  If the shot is uphill, the green will not have to be as deep; for a downhill shot, the opposite is true.

[Tim Nugent]

Always tough to generalize.  220 for me is a driver, for Tiger - 6 iron.  How much slope is in the green back-to-front? Is is upwind, downwind, or crosswind?   Personally, except for very short holes, I feel it is not good design to back a forced carry hazard with additional hazards. So, what's going on around the green also has a bearing on the green depth. Although I've never thought of it in such a manner, I guess - shooting from the hip, I would say somewhere around 1.5 yards of green for every 10 yds playing distance, so a 100 yd hole would be 45' deep and 220 would be about 100' deep, with a forced carry. If I cuold bounce it in, all bets are off.

[Carl Rogers]

Turf firmness or lack off might be the factor on how to begin to think about the problem in context??

Is the shot played from a down hill, up hill or hanging lie??

Is the shot intended to be the most difficult on the course?

[Tom_Doak]

Ronald:

I don't have any mathematical formulas for green size or depth or length vs. the length of the approach shot. 

I have seen a few which I thought were beyond the pale, but it is always a question of how severe are the hazards around the green?  If there is a reasonable amount of turf from which you might pitch and save par, then the dimensions of the green could be miniscule, and the hole would still be okay.  If you are going to wind up in jail everywhere around the green, then the green should NOT be too small or too shallow for your dad to land and hold the green with his 3-wood.

[Mark McKeever]

I think 17 at Pebble during the US Open this year was a great example of a hole not having enough depth for the shot being played into it.  If that hole played 190 or so, it would be a much better hole in my opinion.  You shouldnt have to land it in the primary cut of the front bunker lip to get it close.

Mark

[jeffwarne]

I've commenced a campaign to rid western New York golfers of the misguided need to label Crag Burn a "links-style" course.  I go about explaining that not all GB courses are links and that many are heathland, with Sunningdale perhaps the best of the group.  This past Fall, our high school team played a series of alternate-shot,non-league matches with rival schools, affording me the opportunity to play different tee decks on the par three holes.  We jumped #5 up to the 130 yard tees, changing the angle and increasing the drop of the tee ball...a great move on my part!  On #7, the hole that I revile, we moved up the 140 yard tees, decreasing distance and actually making the hole play slightly uphill.

#5 at Crag Burn has an L-shaped green, similar to #9 at Merion.  The green is receptive all the way back to the 210-yard Black tees, given its depth.  In absolute contrast, #7 might be 25-30 feet deep from side to side, with a slippery slope to water in the front and elevated bunkering (surrounded by fescue) in the back.  One needs to drop that 220-yard club pretty gently onto the green to hold it.  On #7, there is simply no place to properly miss the green, as the front left fairway is even less easy to access than the putting surface.  I think that a better green (perhaps the reverse of the one on #5) might have been built, especially given the nature of the water hazard that blankets it.

My question is, does a ratio exist for minimum green depth to yardage on a par three hole?  Even for the top players, the green is too challenging to hit and hold.  In fact, I hit the flag (the cloth part) this Fall and still managed to go through the fuzz into the back rough.  How deep should a green minimally be to hold a 200 or 210 or 220 or 230 yard shot?

This question assumes an essentially-flat shot from tee to green.  If the shot is uphill, the green will not have to be as deep; for a downhill shot, the opposite is true.

If the shot is uphill, the green will be MORE difficult to hold
downhill the opposite

That said, many boring courses have formulas (short holes,small greens, long holes,large greens)
What's wrong with a really hard ,long hole with a shallow green as a way to seperate players either via spectacular shots (run up or super high) or via short game-------followed by another hole that many might consider easy (again, a great seperator)

[Brent Hutto]

Our club's course has three nines but two of them make up the "championship" course. Each of those two has one long, difficult Par 4 hole as either its sixth or ninth. Both have uphill tee shots where all but the longest hitters land into an upslope. The slightly shorter of the two holes has a shallow and wide green while the slightly longer of them has a very deep green.

Almost everyone finds the one with the shallow green more difficult. In particular there is a right-hand section protected by a bunker in front that falls away slightly to the right and just a tiny bit toward the back. I think having a deep green (as befits a "formula" shot on a long Par 4) on both of them would lack interest. I particularly like having an accessible (by run-up approach) left half of the green divided by a slight ridge through the green from the smaller right half that requires a shot up and over the bunker.

[Ronald Montesano]

Front of the green is a slope down to the wrap-around pond that also protects the right side.  Beyond the green are bunkers and tall grass.  Left of the green is a wee little area that might be considered a safety zone, except it is 1/3 the size of the green.  I guess the logic is like this:  Here's a wide par three green...get the correct club and aim at the middle left.  If you pull it (righties) you'll be far left or in the swale.  If you push it, you'll be right center to right edge.  The shot is all about getting the distance correct, not the direction.  That seems to be pure RTJ senior, is the only shot of its kind on the course, standing out like a giraffe on Easter Sunday.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()