Green Approach Areas

[Jeff_Brauer]

Woke up this morning thinking (for some reason) of something former PGA Tour head Jack Tuthill told me - that green approach areas were the forgotten aspect of golf architecture due to the aerial game.  While some of that has changed over the years, in general, they may get less attention than may be deserved.

Any thoughts on that general statement? Any great or poor approaches that spring to mind?

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me on many older courses in need of remodeling or resto, the green pads tend to be raised with back to front slopes, leading to foregreens that are not well drained, thus constantly wet from surface and sub surface water drainage accumulation not being moved out.  Even just nightly irrigation leads do soft/wet approaches.  So, I'd say great emphasis in well drained and designed drain lines in the twenty or so yards of foregreen. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,


Very true.  We try to limit drainage off the front to half or third the green, and have seen greens that all drain off the front, or have adjacent mounds that add to drainage off the front drain slowly.  One way to mitigate that is to adjust any part to part sprinklers to something other than 90 degrees so the stopping points where it waters a bit more before returning doesn't all stop at the approach.  While I like my greens to set pretty low to the ground in many cases, I have set my minimum slope at 3-5% (5 being the max if it happens to be the required wheelchair route) rather than 2% or so.


Of course, for this site, I was thinking about more design aspects, such as a comment I once heard about Dye courses- "The approaches look Scottish with all the bumps and hollows, but in reality, all it does is reinforce the desire to play the aerial game because they are so unpredictable.


On the Dye positive side, for variety, I occasionally use a steep bank grass bunker, an ode to his 10th  (?) green at the Golf Club where I thought it looked cool.  I also pull out the old "catwalk" approach I first saw at 17 Seminole years ago. But, most greens, IMHO, probably need a near green width approach to accommodate average players, maybe concave to help direct shots, or slope left if coming in on the right side of the green, and right when left, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

When we built The Rawls Course we wanted to emphasize the ground game on a windy site, so we installed six inches of greens mix for 15-20 yards in front of the greens and around the side of some greens where we wanted to have chipping areas.  The idea was so that the ball landed on a similarly firm surface whether it was just on the green or just off.


It was a pain in the butt to shape the approach "wells" that way, and the superintendent struggled mightily to grow in the approaches ... he just couldn't keep them wet enough for some reason.  And over time, I expect they have become somewhat thatchy, too.  I think it was a waste of effort and money; the clay soils in the fairways give a pretty good bounce without that treatment.


I do agree with Mr. Tuthill that the contouring and bunkering of the approach is much more important for average golfers than most architects realize.


The approaches at Royal Melbourne are really something.  A lot of them are heavily contoured and there is a bit of a bowl created just in front of many greens ... but they play just great. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have mimicked the first at RM a few times, with the small mound being the real hazard, not the side bunkers.


In renovating La Costa, I gained a new appreciation for the Wilson "swooped" up green approaches.  Measured a few, and the neat looking ones, while minimizing the ground game, sloped from 10-17%.  20% up slope would seem to be the max for maintenance, but looks a little steep.  Below 10%, and they still look pretty flat, although, if you want to encourage the run up, I have seen up slopes as little as 7-8% stop senior golfers FW metal approach shots in their tracks.  Seems to really tee them off....to them, it was a perfect shot and it came up short of the green.....


Another reason I was thinking approaches is the fact ANGC changed 3 and 9 to have little collector areas, so if an approach came up short, it wouldn't roll too far back down the fairway.  On 3 especially, that seemed to ruin the whole concept, at least IHMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

JB - I think what I tend to see are half-hearted attempts at green approach areas.
It's as if the architect didn't want to build a perched green surrounded by bunkers that would demand an aerial shot, but neither did he commit to fully realizing a nuanced and engaging ground game approach.
So, there's a (sometimes generous) opening and a gentle enough slope up to the green, but the ball hit along the ground takes a completely straight line - if you hit it straight, it will bound straight through the opening and (if hit a tad too hard) roll straight through the green and end up on the other side of the green, directly in line with the opening.
It's the 'middle ground' approach to design, and tends to be a bit boring, and a little annoying too: the rabbit being treated too obviously as a rabbit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,


Agree for the most part.  It might be a bit boring, but it is also functional, working well for the average player.  I do many of those on their account, and as mentioned, if off center to the right of the green, make the slope go a little left so they can maybe use the slope to get on green/closer to pin.  I had an associate who used to draw them the other way, using a thought process I never understood..... and we had to field correct some.


Going back to the Pete Dye idea, while those little hillocks sure make for an entertaining approach for good players who use the ground game, when I think of the accuracy required to hit just the right area to move the ball forward, rather than back or sideways, I sometimes wonder if he over does it just a bit, with more shaping really reducing the actual ability to use the slope as intended.  As I said, I wonder if they just make most players pull out the standard wedge, since they are looking for (correctly) the easiest, not the most artful shot.

[Thomas Dai]

This would seem an astute observation by Mr Tuthill.


With 'good/clever/interesting' approaches and modern equipment the player can still play the aerial game if they wish. Without them though options decline and I for one rather like options.


Would the development and use of different fairway/approach grass types over the decades have an effect as well? Some grass types allow the ball to release on landing short of a green whereas with other grass types it seems the ball pretty much stops where it lands irrespective of severity of upslope.


Some cool looking approaches here - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60832.0.html


Atb

[Bradley Anderson]

I saw a lot of interesting approaches during my tour of TPC Boston last year. I am surprised there isn't more discussion on here about the golf course.

[Jerry Kluger]

My club just put in champion bermuda greens on one of the courses and the approaches are far too soft with the firmness of the greens.  This conversion is getting quite common in North Carolina and it has been suggested that the approaches be aerated and top dressed to keep them firm.  A nearby club that has had very good bent grass greens recently decided to convert one of their courses despite the objections of the greens superintendent who felt the course was not designed for firm bermuda greens.  The bermuda greens are certainly better in the heat in this area but can really pose some challenges for players especially with soft approaches.

[Sean_A]

In general, I think too many greens are raised with fronting bunkers...I guess the temptation to slap bunkers into the green pad is simply too much for most archies.  Even with a gap down the middle (often very narrow because of pinched in rough) the percentage shot is aerial even without considerations for turf conditions.  More greens at grade level I think would lead to more creative bunker placement, green shape and approach areas.

Ciao

[Steve Okula]

My club just put in champion bermuda greens on one of the courses and the approaches are far too soft with the firmness of the greens.  This conversion is getting quite common in North Carolina and it has been suggested that the approaches be aerated and top dressed to keep them firm.  A nearby club that has had very good bent grass greens recently decided to convert one of their courses despite the objections of the greens superintendent who felt the course was not designed for firm bermuda greens.  The bermuda greens are certainly better in the heat in this area but can really pose some challenges for players especially with soft approaches.

Whatever the design, approaches will benefit from regular dethatching and topdressing. Time permitting, I try to keep the approaches on the same maintenance program as the greens, the main difference being the height of cut, and even that is low for approaches at about 1/4 inch (6-8mm).