[Doug Siebert]

I agree with TEPaul that the green in question needs to have a lot of fairly extreme slopes so that there is almost always some way of getting from point A to point B without needing to worry about divoting an LW from the green to get there.  Lots of crazy Himalayas-like rolls add to the fun and imagination and serve for the local to show any visitors who are pissed at their misfortune how it is really done.

In that vein, I have to disagree with Tom Doak saying that this shouldn't be used on a par 5.  If there is anywhere it SHOULD be used, its on a par 5 where one is putting for an eagle.  Maybe I'm not "better" enough for Tom to be talking about here, but I'm going to be a lot more annoyed if I'm left with a "circus putt" on a 450 yard par 4 for birdie than a 550 yard par 5 for eagle!  I recall that I was pretty pissed at the 9th at Kingsbarns when I played there in 2001 (I've heard it has been modified since then) after hitting a brilliant 1 iron off hardpan from behind a mound to the left of the fairway from 250 only to find my ball on one of the lower areas with the pin in the tiny raised middle.  However, that isn't so much a "imagination required to get from here to there" but more of a "guess how hard you have to hit it to get up this big ass slope" kind of putt.

Maybe I'm being hypocritical and should re-evaluate my dislike of that green, but I really believe I would have accepted that a lot better if it had crazy slopes and I had to do something nutty like putt around a pot bunker in the center of the green using two outlyling mounds to produce a 40' break.  However, while this defiance of the Score & Pencil mentality may win me a permanent home in Shivas' foursome, it would perhaps distance me from those who believe that golf is only about lowest score wins....fun and challenge matter not, winning is all that matters...  I'm not sure whether my disagreement with Tom Doak on this indicates he's selling good players short or that I'm just hopelessly naive and full of projection and wishful thinking on this matter.

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:  Isn't the ninth at Kingsbarns a par five?  And whether it is or is not, didn't you just describe exactly what I was talking about?  You hit a "great" shot from a long way out (but which you can't be expected to control the precise landing area of), and you got up there and you had a VERY difficult putt.

You said exactly what I thought you would ... good players will forgive such a situation if they hit a bad approach shot, but not if they hit a "good" one.

Tom P:  I used the words "two good shots" understanding that the second wasn't really that good if it left the difficult putt, but also understanding that is the good player's mentality.  It's fine if other designers want to tweak those players by leaving them a wild putt on a par five, I'm just saying it's not going to be that popular.  

I'm not saying that a par five green shouldn't be wrapped around a tough hazard.  But I would be more inclined in that circumstance to make the green somewhat smaller, so that one side of the boomerang is approach ... you can still putt at it off the bank if you want to, but you can also chip if you think your percentage is better.  That is exactly what Jack Nicklaus and his associates wanted to do with our par-4 green at Sebonack, for exactly the same reasons; which is why I immediately took the concept out to Colorado with me and built a wild version of it.

There is a very fine line between "fun" and "gimmicky", which is rewritten by every individual observer.  All I'm really saying is that low-handicap guys are likely to label the short par-4 fun and the short par-5 gimmicky; that doesn't mean I consider the latter "unfair".

[cary lichtenstein]

There is an excellent boomerrang green at the par 3, 3rd hole at Lakota Canyon.

[PThomas]

"quirky" is a better word, I think, and some quirkiness in golf is great, imho

I loved it at C Downs!

[Mike_Cirba]

The 16th green at Tom Fazio's Trump National in NJ is a true boomerang, where you can use the slopes to putt "round" the bend.

The 8th green is going to be expanded to achieve the same effect.

Isn't 13 at Rustic Canyon a boomerang?

[TEPaul]

But TomD, Doug Siebert is describing a long shot into a long par 4 vs a long shot in two into a par 5 and how many players look at that differently. Maybe some don't see the distinction but some certainly do. It's not really in the realm of straight shot value risk/reward sans par psychology, it's using par as some kind of pyschological numbers game against the player. It's a strategic offering that's basically nothing more than right between the players ears. Done well, it's great stuff in my opinion, and apparently Doug's too, even if it inherits its own controversy. But this kind of controversy in golf and architecture is supposed to be good or at least interesting. Certainly Mackenzie and Macdonald are on record as thinking so and saying so.

We all realize you're the architect and your the one who takes the heat for such as this, and not us, but there is a good point and position that any architect should not really be intimidated into trying to please the mindsets of all good players. Come on Pal, just think Pete Dye, one of your mentors, and you'll get over it quick.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

It does get old to build a great green complex on a golf hole and then be told that it's gimmicky, so over time one may decide to take the same sorts of features and put them on holes where they will be more accepted.  I don't think that's the same thing as pandering to the louder good players.

Then again, I don't have any problem with doing a small or severe green on a long par-4 occasionally, to mess with good players' minds, whereas you seem to be saying in your last post that it's okay on a par five but not a long four.  What's the difference to a 20-handicap, who's not going to be near either green in two anyway?  What's the difference to Tiger Woods, who can reach them both with a short iron?  It's all a continuum, but it's funny that every player has his own idea of what's fair based on how far he hits it.

[TEPaul]

"...whereas you seem to be saying in your last post that it's okay on a par five but not a long four.  What's the difference to a 20-handicap, who's not going to be near either green in two anyway?"

TomD:

The difference is remarkably simple really. One is simply called a par 4 and the other a par 5. The difference in higher par number alone seems to make things so much more acceptable in this way than on the lower par number. Realistically, it doesn't appear to make much sense since the idea in golf is to play any hole in the lowest strokes possible considering of course the risks but no one who knows golf well ever claimed that even good players are always realistic.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom Doak,

I'm surprised you would eliminate a concept from your design pallete because good players might find it unfair. This doesn't sound like the "Play It As It Lies" Doak of the late 90s?

Geoff

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

Not only was # 4 at ANGC a Boomerang green, but so were holes # 2, 7, 9, 10, with other greens at ANGC taking the shape of softened boomerangs.

The boomerang on # 9 is of particular interest due to the elevated nature of that green.

Those who seem disenchanted with boomerang greens can't contend that the original ANGC, with its abundance of boomerang greens was all that special.

I don't feel that you're correct about ANGC being void of trees.  ANGC retained a great number of trees on the property and many trees appear to have been planted when the golf course was being built or shortly thereafter.
I don't think that the absence or eradication of trees was an intended design feature postured by AM or RTJ, quite the contrary, I think they intended trees to be an integral part of the golf course.

As to comparisons to TOC, I don't see it, topographically, strategically, visually or aesthetically, and as such I have my doubts that anyone envisioned or intended to create, duplicate or template TOC in Georgia.

To infuriate the cognoscente even further, I believe Roberts and especially Jones ALWAYS intended to make ANGC a championship golf course with the intent of hosting major competitons.

[Tom_Doak]

Geoff:

I'm not eliminating the feature from my design palette.  I'm reserving its use for where I think it works the best, and where a lot of other people would also think it works the best.  I might use it on a par five, if the green site was crying out for it and the routing dictated it was at the end of a par five ... but I'd think of using a short par-4 first.

And I wouldn't eliminate anything from my vocabulary because someone thought it was "unfair".  "Gimmicky" is the title of this thread, and it has a slightly different meaning.  I'm not ALWAYS out to upset the better player, only sometimes.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom Doak,

Yes, #9 Kingsbarns is a fairly long par 5.  My point was that while I did fit your profile of being annoyed by my misfortunate at being left with a difficult putt, it was because there wasn't any way I could overcome its difficulty through imagination or creativity.  The green simply condemned me to a very likely three putt (which happened) by "brute force", essentially, because that green has (or at least had at the time, like I said I heard it has since been changed) a section about 40x40 feet pushed up about 5 feet in the middle, falling off in all directions, with the pin that day being in that middle.  It is essentially a very small plateau green surrounded on all sides by a Valley of Sin (the "Moat of Sin"?)  Since I ended up on one of the lower sections, my putt required no real imagination, but I had to guess how hard to hit it up that slope to get it to stop by the hole.

If that was a boomerang green, with the pin on one wing and my ball on the other with no direct path, but there were all kinds of wild Himalayas-like mounds and swales, I could have Tiger stalked that putt for 30 seconds trying to figure out a way to get from point A to point B.  Maybe I'd succeed, maybe I wouldn't, but I'd damn sure have a lot more fun and have fond memories of that three putt par rather than being annoyed at the lack of imagination the architect showed when designing #9 Kingsbarns' green.  The really bad thing about it was that even if I had instead laid up (the reduced layup options being one of the reasons I went for it from such a place and another reason I think that hole is an example of terrible design) I'd have been left with a very difficult shot to put it up on that plateau and keep it there.  Either carry a wedge the right amount and stick it, or play it running and hope I get the right amount of run so it gets up there, but doesn't fall back off the other side!  Into a boomerang green, if I have a lob wedge in my hands and put it on the wrong side of the boomerang, I deserve whatever fate I get!

I'm also confused what the real difference is between using this on a short par 4 or a par 5?  If better players are annoyed at hitting a green in two on a par 5 and having that putt for their eagle, wouldn't they be equally annoyed at driving the green on a short par 4 and having that same putt on that same green for that same eagle?

[TEPaul]

"I could have Tiger stalked that putt for 30 seconds trying to figure out a way to get from point A to point B."

Doug:

Maybe you could've stalked that putt for 30 seconds but if you didn't hit that putt in the remaining 10 seconds from point A to point B, had I been there, I would;ve slapped a Rule 6-7 penalty on yo ass in a New York second!!  

(and then even if you did two putt you would've had a penalty added par ).

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

Thanks for clarifying.

As for your question at the end, I am saying I like to use the concept for a drive and pitch hole.  I don't really think about short par-4's being driveable under most circumstances, even though it seems to be getting more common these days ... whereas, practically any golf pro can hit most par-5 holes in two now.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Agreed that there were several other boomerang greens at ANGC. The 9th was the most radical. I might define boomerange a little more narrowly than you. I see the 2nd and the 10th as more oval than  boomerang. I have trouble seeing the 7th as boomerang. That green was Mack's take-off on the Valley of Sin and other features of the 18th at TOC. But using your generous definition, you might include the 6th as well.

As for trees, of course there were lots there on opening day. On the perimeters of the property and, mostly, in areas of extreme contours. (Think the trees to the left of 2, 5 and 8.) There were trees on the high ridge running above the right side of 10, 11, and 13. The important point is that trees (and rough) were not very significant strategic factors in the original design.

Might bad shots find trees? Yes. But they had limited strategic significance in the original plans. Two exceptions come to mind. The trees along the left side of 2 are a factor off the tee (the ones on the right side were added later), though interestingly Jones appears to have wanted them cut down to bring the creek on that side into play for over-aggressive shots. The other exception is the stand of pines at the corner of 18.

That's all changed now, of course. Trees are in play on any number of holes today. I suspect MacK is spinning in his grave over what happened to the 7th.

As for ANGC holding major tournamants - Roberts/Jones were eager to hold a US Open and, by implication, get on the "rota". Scheduling wouldn't permit it, so the Masters thing evolved. What they didn't originally think was that they would host a major tournament EVERY year. But, as it turned out, that's what happened.

But your comment touches on what I thnk is a more important point. For me the genius of ANGC is that it successfully pulled off a design that was interesting and challenging for world class players, yet not intimidating for the average player. High rating, low slope. A course on which, in the same group on the same day each playing their normal game, a scratch player might post his highest round of the year and the handicap player his lowest. It is a very small number of courses that can pull that off.

It was always critically important to MacK and Jones that ANGC be challenging to the best players in the world. It was never intended to be a only a quiet little members' course. The architectural trick was making it both.

Bob        

[TEPaul]

"I suspect MacK is spinning in his grave over what happened to the 7th."

Bob:

If I'm not mistaken, the redesign of #7 was former Mackenzie partner, Perry Maxwell, and as far as I can tell very few courses ever went wrong bringing Maxwell in for green redesign. Most on here blanch at the idea of and word "redesign" but Perry Maxwell is Perry Maxwell---in my opinion probably the best green designer/builder there ever was.

I have a special interest in that 7th green as it seems to be basically a Maxwell prototype that he did a number of times in seemingly hidden iterations. He did one at GMGC and as of now it seems to be the first one he did.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I think the green surface at the 7th is as good as it gets. Even on TV, the Maxwell rolls jump out at you. It's the hardest 3 foot putt in golf.

The "spinning in his grave" comment relates to how they have grown trees the length of the fairway on the 7th. They overhang the landing areas, leaving an extremely narrow playing corridor. It is a case study in what MacK would NOT have wanted on that hole or any other.

I also regret the removal of the Valley of Sin feature and the elevation of the green, but that's a different topic.

Bob

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()