How effective at defending par is the use of a back upper

[Patrick_Mucci]

plateau on a putting surface ?
 
Ignoring hole length and square footage of the green and their interrelationship for a second, does the mere insertion of a back tier/plateau, increase the inherent difficulty of the hole by half a shot or more ?
 
Does that difficulty increase, incrementally, when a deep bunker or other hazard lurks behind the green.
 
One of the most challenging greens, to me, with an upper plateau, is the 16th at The Creek. (par 4)
# 6 at Piping Rock might be another. (par 5)
 
In terms of increasing the difficulty, how much of a role does the height differential create ?
 
What incremental challenge is created when the differential is 1', 2' or 3' ?
 
And, what about the slope of that differentiating portion of the green.
 
Does a more subtle slope deceive the golfer more than a sharper differential ?
 
I've always held a fascination with tiered greens, most with the back tier being elevated.
 
Yet, the 4th hole at Spyglass Hill has a reverse configuration that seems to work well with an angled green.

[Pete_Pittock]

The professionals were apoplectic when the hole was on the final tier of the original 16th green at TPC Sawgrass.

[Joe Bausch]

Interesting question, Pat.

I wonder if your thought is true, is part of the reason simply because nearly all golfers under-club and having a pin back just makes the hole longer?

I don't quite know how I would test out my hypothesis, but perhaps if a bunch of holes could be found with a longish, flat greens.  Compare the average score on these holes when the pin is front vs back.

[Michael Felton]

Back plateaus are certainly very effective at defending par when they are small and risky to get at. It's so easy to be "safe" and wind up with a long and challenging putt that is not practised often.


I've been lucky enough to play a few times this summer at Sands Point GC on Long Island. The 14th hole is a very long par 5, up against the boundary of the course. It's a difficult hole with out of bounds left all the way down it and bunkers and trees on the right where you would instinctively hit it to avoid the OB. I can't get there in 2 (it's 605 yards) and my third shot was normally from a downhill lie to a relatively small green with a back plateau. I found it very hard to get back to it and wound up taking 8 putts in my 3 goes at it. Not good.


There's a par three at my club back at home (Effingham GC in Surrey) that has a two tiered green. I think the average score is about half a shot higher when the pin is on the back tier. The back tier is smaller and longer, so those definitely impact the scoring anyway, but I think a good chunk of it is people three putting from the front.

[David Whitmer]

I think back plateaus are very difficult if a bunker is behind the green. I think it is also difficult when putting from below the plateau; the more pronounced the slope, the tougher a two-putt from below will be.

The 16th at Camargo has a back left and back right plateau, but the slopes are fairly moderate. I am always content to play for the middle of the green if the hole is located on either plateau, as the putt to either location is not overly difficult, especially compared to going long.

[Tim Gallant]

 
I've always held a fascination with tiered greens, most with the back tier being elevated.
 

Pat,


Really interested in this thread, as I think it somewhat relates to one I started a few months back: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63151.0.html


Would love to hear your thoughts on tiered greens. Full disclosure: I have softened slightly on my stance when they are innovative, blend in well to their surroundings, and aren't a cookie-cutter styles. I look to revise my OP soon!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I usually include one like that and exaggerate the front (oversized) and undersize the back tier, the front concave, and the back flat.  To me, it really ramps up the temptation/dilemma/risk/reward factor as the back "Sunday Pin" is really hard to get to.   It is also nice on greens where the ground falls gently away, as it perches the back tier up, creating a delicate wedge to a narrow green section.

I sometimes model it after the "dustpan" green at Fox Chapel in PA, with a little lip dip on the front.  Think 2 at Bridges of Preston Crossing or 12 at Firekeeper for those who have played there.

As I have related before, based on some comments to me by JN, I try to use this on long downwind par 4 holes, which he feels encourages a run up shot with less spin to get it to the upper tier.  Although, both the examples listed above are more typically into the wind.....darn!

[Jon Cavalier]

I've been lucky enough to play a few times this summer at Sands Point GC on Long Island. The 14th hole is a very long par 5, up against the boundary of the course. It's a difficult hole with out of bounds left all the way down it and bunkers and trees on the right where you would instinctively hit it to avoid the OB. I can't get there in 2 (it's 605 yards) and my third shot was normally from a downhill lie to a relatively small green with a back plateau. I found it very hard to get back to it and wound up taking 8 putts in my 3 goes at it. Not good.

The 14th at Sands Point is a terrific example, and a really good par-5 overall. Here's the hole, so you can see the tier Michael is referring to:

[Peter Pallotta]

Visually they do say "golf" in an elegantly simple and very pleasing way; green design/arcitecture at its stripped-down best. And it is striking how much, even for an average golfer like me who only rarely is able to hit the shot that I'm visualizing, the back-tiered green impacts club and shot selection and decision-making. We often speak of "fun" golf courses and about "options", and for me when I play golf, it is those kind of selections that are fun and those kind of options that have the most relevance for/to my skill-set. And meanwhile, better golfers like Pat are made to sweat a little more than I am because they are looking for a birdie chance/putt while my goals are more modest. All around, a terrific tool in the architect's bag of tricks; I wish I saw more of them (though not on Par 3s)

[Jon Cavalier]

I sometimes model it after the "dustpan" green at Fox Chapel in PA, with a little lip dip on the front.

Love that green:

[Will Lozier]

I think a skyline green with this feature (or even just an uphill approach) creates the ultimate feeling of insecurity...especially with a wedge in hand as that is the situation where the golfer feels the need to be precise in his/her distance control - but perhaps even more so with the expert player as the subconscious expectation exists to create a good birdie opportunity.

[Bill_McBride]

Wish I had a photo, this reminds me of the 18th on the original course at Half Moon Bay, a medium length par 4 with a downhill tee shot that had to avoid a barranca left and the ocean right.  The approach is uphill.  The back tier is back right, hard on the cliff, and about the size of a snooker table.  Trying to hit it?   A major sucker play, but it's also not easy to two putt from below.  In maybe 20 rounds I only saw it back there four times, which was about right. 


I agree with Jeff, one per course is about right. 

[J_ Crisham]

Absolutely effective in defending par-I would say the back pin is a half stroke harder. One good example is the 2nd at Beverly- a par 5 that has a plateau that is about 8yds in depth and about 10 yds wide. It is guarded by a front right bunker and a dropoff behind the green. Requires a very precise 3rd shot from 100 yds or so on this 570 yd hole. So many shots end up short in the center of the green and require a very good first putt to walk away with a 5.

[Charles Lund]

It would seem to me that the question can be examined empirically by looking at daily course statistics where kept in a competitive event.  For selected greens meeting the criteria, average score relative to par with the same field could answer the question of just how much difference there is from one day to the next.

I understand the tendency to provide anecdotes of players hating pin positions on this hole on that course being appreciably more difficult and the dreaded "top tier back pin position" somewhere.

But the how effective at defending par question could be answered quantitatively.  Most likely it would overlap with anecdotal complaints or comments about the person who set up the course having a bad time at home with his wife and the resulting nasty pin position.

Charles Lund

[Carl Nichols]

For me, very effective.  Chipping/pitching is by the far the worst part of my game, and I find that missing a back tier--especially long-- usually leaves very difficult recovery shots, which just puts that much more pressure on this already weak part of my game.  So I almost always play to the fat of the green and live with the result.

[/size][size=78%]  [/size]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think a skyline green with this feature (or even just an uphill approach) creates the ultimate feeling of insecurity...especially with a wedge in hand as that is the situation where the golfer feels the need to be precise in his/her distance control - but perhaps even more so with the expert player as the subconscious expectation exists to create a good birdie opportunity.
 
Will,
 
With a skyline green, the differentiation in the tiers is probably impossible to see.
 
Can you give an example of a skyline green with an upper tier in the back of the green ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,
 
Not so sure that I agree on a limitation of one per course.
 
NGLA appears to have a few.
 
What's interesting is how the tiers are differentiated.
 
On # 10, a very large green, the transition is more subtle, over a greater distance, whereas on # 11 it's rather pronounced, occuring within a few yards..
 
What I like about them is the penalty they place on those playing short or on those who don't attain the back tier.
 
Often, they're left with long difficult putts.
Miss long and the recovery is also difficult.
It's a diabolical choice for the golfer.
 
On # 10 at NGLA the approach is longer, ergo the bigger upper tier.
 
On shorter holes. I would opt for a more pronouced elevation change.
 
A Biarritz might also qualify as a green with a back tier.

[Bill_McBride]

One I remember that has driven me crazy for over 50 years, back to when I played college golf there, is the second green at the George Thomas designed La Cumbre CC in Santa Barbara.  It's a relatively short par 4 that plays much longer because of a kikuyu landing area and a steeply uphill second shot back up to the clubhouse level.   There are two tiers with a probably 24" slope between.  You can't see the back tier from the fairway but of course you know it's there.   Putting from the back to the front is impossible, front to back merely difficult as the overall pitch of the green is probably 3% back to front.  The green is benched into the hillside.   


I absolutely love making par there but it's not often.   It's a very demanding second hole. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,
 
Thanks for reminding me, as I was focused on the play from front to back, but, you're right, playing from back to front when the hole is cut on the lower level is no bargain.

[John Cowden]

No. 16 at Pasatiempo is well-defended by hole placement on the back tier...or any tier.

[Bill_McBride]

No. 16 at Pasatiempo is well-defended by hole placement on the back tier...or any tier.

That beast deserves a thread of its own!  😎

[Will Lozier]

I think a skyline green with this feature (or even just an uphill approach) creates the ultimate feeling of insecurity...especially with a wedge in hand as that is the situation where the golfer feels the need to be precise in his/her distance control - but perhaps even more so with the expert player as the subconscious expectation exists to create a good birdie opportunity.
 
Will,
 
With a skyline green, the differentiation in the tiers is probably impossible to see.
 
Can you give an example of a skyline green with an upper tier in the back of the green ?

Ballybunion Cashen #10 (324yds) where you can indeed see the severe slope to the tiny back tier from the valley fairway with nothing but a shoulder of dune and the Atlantic behind. You should go there and check it out for yourself - not just to see the Cashen course, of course!

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


I have built greens where the back plateau was considerably higher -- 4 feet higher, even -- in order to make a transition on a big slope.  [The 8th at High Pointe was one; the 10th at Stone Eagle another.]  In these instances I would swear, based on limited observation of play, that the stroke average on those holes was almost a full shot higher with the pin in the back of the green!


Ideally, I feel like that's too much of a difference ... I would prefer it to be no more than a half-shot difference from the hardest hole location on a green, to the easiest.  The 6th at Piping Rock was the first example I thought of, it must be at least a half shot difference when it's back there.

[Will Lozier]

The 12th at West Hill in Surrey offers a fascinating use of a severe back tier - 288yds. from the tips making a crack at the green very risky with nine bunkers over the last quarter of the way. A long bunker shot to a back pin with the extreme drop off behind kept as short grass can be one of the hardest shots on the course. Of course hitting the front half of the green from the tee and 3-putting for par can be even more frustrating. A great hole on relatively flat ground created by building up HALF a green!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,
 
I happen to love the 6th at Piping Rock and think that the fairly severe back upper tier is merited due to the general distance of the approach shot into that tier.
 
What lurks behind that upper tier makes that approach so much more threatening.
 
What's the scarier shot, the approach into the back upper tier at # 6 at PR or the approach into the back left hole location at # 3 at Sebonack ?
 
Disimilar and similar challenges with high consequences for failure.