Look at the simplistic yet functional beauty

[Patrick_Mucci]

of the architecture in this photo.

Notice how the spine (horseshoe/thumbprint) divides the putting surface creating challenge on the approach, recovery and putting.

Look at how the bunkering in conjunction with the spine creates a demand for accuracy to get to the hole location of the day.

Look at how the steep slopes penalize the marginal or mishit approach/recovery.

It is that combination of features that makes this hole an enjoyable challenge at 100, 130, 160 and 190 yards.

Should the "greens within green" concept be more plentiful ?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat,

Forsgate 12




Haven't seen any in new construction.

[Jon Cavalier]

Same hole.  To Pat's point, note the difficulty of the putt my mediocre approach as left me (my ball is at the 4 o'clock position in the photo).

[Jim_Kennedy]

If you can handle embarrassment you like this stuff, and vice versa.

[JESII]

Not a fan!

I don't think I've ever played a green similar so can only speculate but the visual is unattractive and I'm sure the maintenance is a headache with the relatively shard peak of that rise.

What would be the positives of a green like this? Is it anything beyond added difficulty?

[Jim Hoak]

Front-to-back spines are sure underused compared to those running across the green from let-to-right and creating two shelves.  I would love to see more spines--great look and great strategy.  On a short par-4, a spine increases the importance of placement of the tee shot.

[Bill_McBride]

If you can handle embarrassment you like this stuff, and vice versa.

Ha ha!  I 4-putted the ninth green at Mountain Lake from 15' around the donut, giggled all the way to the tenth tee. 

[Bill Brightly]

Not a fan!

I don't think I've ever played a green similar so can only speculate but the visual is unattractive and I'm sure the maintenance is a headache with the relatively shard peak of that rise.

What would be the positives of a green like this? Is it anything beyond added difficulty?

A Macdonald and a Banks Short hole, designed to play from 120-140. From that distance you should be able to hit the proper section of each pin location or risk a three-putt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not a fan!

I don't think I've ever played a green similar so can only speculate but the visual is unattractive

How can you say that if you've never seen a thumbprint/horseshoe green as the golfer sees it, as he plays it ?

and I'm sure the maintenance is a headache with the relatively shard peak of that rise.

Not at all.
Have you played # 12 at NGLA, # 12 at GCGC or # 5 at Somerset Hills, all are much higher and much steeper spines/mounds

What would be the positives of a green like this?

I listed them, but, perhaps sleep deprivation prevented you from assimilating the words.
In one word, "FUN"
This green presents a challenge that's alot of fun, on the approach, recovery and/or putt.

Is it anything beyond added difficulty?

Yes.
Try it, you just might find that you like it.
If you like the slopes and contours at Pine Valley, I don't see how you couldn't like this.

[Jeff Taylor]

Are there any pin positions outside the thumbprint? Behind it looks reasonable, not so much for the sides.

[Andrew Moss]

I think a lack of good pin positions lets it down as Jeff points out. For a short par 4 I would appreciate it more, in terms of the holes defence and a tough pin.

[Jon Cavalier]

Are there any pin positions outside the thumbprint? Behind it looks reasonable, not so much for the sides.

There's more space to the left and right of the thumbprint than it appears in my photo, but I don't think the front third of the green is realistically pinnable outside the thumbprint.  From around the midpoint of the green all the way through the back is very pinnable.

I thought this hole was a blast.  I'm not saying that I would want to play a hole like this every round, but I found it a unique and fun hole to see and play (despite the predicament I left myself in).

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think a lack of good pin positions lets it down as Jeff points out. For a short par 4 I would appreciate it more, in terms of the holes defence and a tough pin.

Look at the size of that green - losing a couple of cup placements at the side and the front really doesn't 'lose' much.


Bill, B,
I really liked the Short at Knoll East. Banks didn't create a full horseshoe, and the back section of the green fell away from the tee.
Never saw that before -  a nice touch.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Yale's #5 is a thumb print Short hole, as is #7 at Montclair's Banks 9. Neither one is that good/special, and they are FAR LESS severe than Forsgate, and most of the other holes/par-3s on their courses. I think these holes provide a pretty obvious safe option, and allow those that want to try to aim at the outer pins take them on, knowing that Banks usually leaves you in a flat floor bunker 10+ feet bellow if you miss wide. Simple, strategic (especially for a par-3), but not a hole that one would get excited to play in most circumstances (Forsgate is different).

[Bill Brightly]

Are there any pin positions outside the thumbprint? Behind it looks reasonable, not so much for the sides.

You don't necessarily need pin positions on all sides of the footprint. As the photo shows, a slightly pulled SHORT iron is still on the putting surface, yet heavily penalized. That is the point of MacRaynor Short holes...

[BCowan]

With the modern green speeds, the steepness of the ridge/horseshoe isn't a problem from a maint. standpoint? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think a lack of good pin positions lets it down as Jeff points out.

Andrew, have you and Jeff considered seeing an oculist ?

There are an abundance of good hole locations on thumbprint/horseshoe greens

For a short par 4 I would appreciate it more, in terms of the holes defence and a tough pin.

The thumbprint/horseshoe feature is found almost exclusively on short holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yale's #5 is a thumb print Short hole, as is #7 at Montclair's Banks 9. Neither one is that good/special, and they are FAR LESS severe than Forsgate, and most of the other holes/par-3s on their courses.

Jaeger,

The 7th on the 4th nine at Montclair has softened over the years.
The thumbprint/horseshoe was more pronounced and more of a feature to be reckoned with.
The 7th was unique in that the green was elevated far above the surrounding bunker floor, making recovery a challenge.
It was a fabulous short hole and locating the hole close to the spine, irrespective of which side of the spine, always made for interesting golf.

I don't have the same historical perspective when it comes to the 5th at Yale as I was only introduced to it in the last few decades.
But, from some of the old photos I've seen, the thumbprint/horseshoe was more pronounced than it is today.

I think these holes provide a pretty obvious safe option, and allow those that want to try to aim at the outer pins take them on, knowing that Banks usually leaves you in a flat floor bunker 10+ feet bellow if you miss wide.

Not sure what the safe option is.
With the hole located outside of the spine, playing to the interior leaves the golfer with a dicey putt, and challenging the outer hole locations on the approach brings those deep bunkers and steep slopes in to play.

I always found the hole location behind the spine at the back of the green the most difficult

Simple, strategic (especially for a par-3), but not a hole that one would get excited to play in most circumstances (Forsgate is different).

The softening of the spine has certainly taken some of the strategic play down a notch, but, the hole still remains exciting to play due to the pass/fail nature of the hole and the consequences for missing the green.

[Jeff Taylor]

"Andrew, have you and Jeff considered seeing an oculist ?"

I looked at the image and asked a question. I did not make a judgement about the value of what I observed. The second sentence of your reply would have been fine even if it didn't address the hole that was shown.
I think Jon gets the point of my question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are there any pin positions outside the thumbprint? Behind it looks reasonable, not so much for the sides.

Jeff,

Given the short distance that the hole plays to, hole locations outside of the thumbprint/horseshoe are reasonable.

But, not every green has the same dimensions.

If you look at the photo in my first post there's an enormous amount of pinnable green beyond the spine.

Other greens might not afford that much green between the spine and the dropoff, but, one has to view hole locations for the "Short" in the same manner you would for the "Double Plateau".

Some greens, especially greens within greens, are NOT meant to provide an abundance of area by which the golfer will feel comfortable.

Some greens are meant to test the golfer's resolve and his skill sets .

[Bill Brightly]

I think a lack of good pin positions lets it down as Jeff points out. For a short par 4 I would appreciate it more, in terms of the holes defence and a tough pin.

Look at the size of that green - losing a couple of cup placements at the side and the front really doesn't 'lose' much.


Bill, B,
I really liked the Short at Knoll East. Banks didn't create a full horseshoe, and the back section of the green fell away from the tee.
Never saw that before -  a nice touch.

Jim, we are currently trying to figure out out to restore our Short at Hackensack.  On this green, Banks' very first solo effort, it is clear that the thumbprint went much deeper towards the back of the green, leaving a relatively small (yet pinnable) back middle section before there was a steep drop off. William Gordon chopped about 5 feet off the back and 20 feet off the left side of the green, presumably to make it more "normal looking." Restoring the "circle" look of the bunkers is the easy part, restoring the green size is much tougher.

[Jim Nugent]

Are there any pin positions outside the thumbprint? Behind it looks reasonable, not so much for the sides.

In Pat's first photo, from where everyone is standing and facing, it looks to me like the pin IS outside the thumbprint. 

Same hole.  To Pat's point, note the difficulty of the putt my mediocre approach as left me (my ball is at the 4 o'clock position in the photo).

Based on the photo, I much prefer your position to the one at 10 o'clock. 

[Philip Caccamise]

Are there any pin positions outside the thumbprint? Behind it looks reasonable, not so much for the sides.

Jeff,

Given the short distance that the hole plays to, hole locations outside of the thumbprint/horseshoe are reasonable.

But, not every green has the same dimensions.

If you look at the photo in my first post there's an enormous amount of pinnable green beyond the spine.

Other greens might not afford that much green between the spine and the dropoff, but, one has to view hole locations for the "Short" in the same manner you would for the "Double Plateau".

Some greens, especially greens within greens, are NOT meant to provide an abundance of area by which the golfer will feel comfortable.

Some greens are meant to test the golfer's resolve and his skill sets .

I think it depends on the course... I have seen them put the pin to the right of the horseshoe at Camargo and it's viciously difficult (about a 12' wide flat spot) with the height of the horseshoe to stop a putt close after playing to the center, and even harder still to keep it in there with the tee shot. As Pat mentioned, the Montclair spine isn't as pronounced. I don't remember the dimensions there however but my instinct says it's much more doable outside the horseshoe.

[Paul Gray]

Architecturally, surely, it has to be an excellent concept. In practice, greenkeepers need to understand the importance of restraint regarding pin positions. The other day I managed to putt my ball straight across the green and off the other side. It wasn't that I hit a bad putt, it was simply that the pin was in a position not suitable for summer greens on a links course. The point is, I'm not criticising the architect, I'm suggesting the greenies were at fault.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - I'm all for simple and functional beauty. So a question for you: what does the green/design you posted provide that a simple and functional back to front tilt/slope doesn't? That classic design -- a green that slopes sharply from back to front -- allows the better and more precise golfer to try to stay below the hole (if the pin is cut in the middle) or to try to go long and spin the ball back (if the pin is cut in the front) or to flight his approach shot lower and run the ball up the slope (if the pin is cut in the back). These types of shots (and distance control and flighting) are all difficult for the average or less skilled golfer, who normally is happy enough just hitting the green; so that classic design challenges and tests the better golfer while remaining very playable for the average one -- and of course engenders breaking putts (left or right) with just about every available pin position (of which there are many available). And all this in a truly simple design that is easy to maintain. What does the thumbprint design offer/provide that the one I describe doesn't?

Peter