[Jim Franklin]

I have had this discussion with several friends about a few holes in particular and the design in general. When designing a short par 4 (under 370 say), what kind of green do you build? The hole is clearly a half par hole, but needs to have some type of defense (I would think). One hole in particular that we have discussed is #17 at Pete Dye Golf Club. Some of my friends that are lower handicaps hate the hole because the green is split in quadrants by some large mounds making putting treacherous. I like it because the hole needs some teeth or it would be a simple pitch and putt. Do you feel the need to have a severe green on short fours?

And on short fives (510 or less), do you feel the need to pinch the landed area for the big hitter? One hole that came up was #16 at White Bear Yacht Club. It is 475 with hazard left and tall fescue right pinching the landing area. Is that good architecture, or does a hole like that need to change to a long par 4 and eliminate the fescue on the right so there is a place to bail out? I can certainly see that point of view as no one likes losing balls or taking an excessively long time looking for them. What is strategy for building a short five?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, they say there are no rules in golf course architecture.....so


If doing a new course or total redo, I group the holes before feature design. The hope is to make each one stand out from the others in some way.


If there are four short par 4 holes, I look at one really big green and one really small one, with two in the middle size range.  Of course, which is which depends on exactly what the hole is asking, such as precision par 4 vs. drivable etc.  Haven't played the Pete Dye club but that green sounds okay to me. 


They say the hardest putts for good putters are one where the major break is midway from player to hole, as break near either end is easier to read in combo with speed.  And many archies and supers would prefer a big green for short shots to disperse ball marks, so a big green with 2-4 sections probably makes some sense overall for short approach shots.


As to the short par 5, yeah, most times I would put one of the narrower fairways on it.  If you are going to reach in two, you need to take some risk. Whether that would be ball losing risk is a bit debatable, but I guess the more typical water is stroke and distance, so is a lost ball any different?

[Jim Hoak]

Jeff, and others, with regard to the greens on short par 4's, a related question--I have heard a good discussion (with reference to Perry Maxwell) about interior rolls on greens versus the rolls on green edges.  The discussion was that creating the edge rolls was simpler than the interior ones, because the areas outside of the greens gave you direction and a reference point.  My personal feeling is that it is the interior rolls that have gotten so crazy on some short par 4's--giving a silly look to some greens because they look so manufactured due to a lack of reference to any natural feature of the land.  Do you agree?

[Tom_Doak]

The reason short par-4's are my favorite holes is because I ought to be able to build anything I like.  If you think the fairway hazards are too severe, you can lay up and still comfortably reach the green with your second shot; and since everyone has granted the 8th at Pine Valley to be a great hole, I don't have to give you a chance to drive the green if I don't want to.


I'm known for building difficult greens in all circumstances, but I don't think I'm more likely to do so on a short par-4.  My best one is probably the 4th at Barnbougle, and that green is a bowl, though divided into sections.  The same for the 7th at Ballyneal -- it has a front, middle and back tier, but the contours are not the main problem.  [Now, the 12th, I'll grant you, has a wild green.]


The rules are somewhat different for short par-5's because many good players can easily reach them in two shots, and feel some entitlement to be able to do so.  Putting in a fairway hazard that causes people to lay back off the tee on a par-5 is generally considered bad design, although there's a big difference between pinching a fairway and introducing lost-ball rough.  And it's pretty silly to build any green that can't be hit and held by a good player from 180 to 200 yards out.  But, that doesn't mean it ought to yield an easy 4, so a difficult green on a short par-5 is certainly fair game.


And to Jim's question:  I don't agree.  Years ago Mark Parsinen told me he thought every contour on a green should tie into something on the outside, so it could be discerned from the fairway.  But there are hundreds of great holes where that's not the case, so I thought he was just making up rules of fairness.  I understand that wild greens on flat land can look really contrived, but there is contour all over a piece of ground like Ballyneal ... why would you have rules about where the green can be placed on those contours?

[Don Mahaffey]

I just want to add I think it is silly to think you HAVE to defend a short hole around the green more intensely than a long hole.
Just my .02 but I like golf courses where the easy holes are easy, and the hard holes are hard.  Whats the point of making short holes harder and long holes easier?   

[Mike_Young]

IMHO, it is a given on most short par 4's (under 375) and short par 5's that many can easily reach them from the tee, in case of the par 4 and on the second shot for the par 5.  So it seems to me like the difficulty of the hole needs to be in placement of those two shots.  For instance, if we know a green can be driven on the drive of a short par 4 or the second shot of a short par 5 then the penalty for a miss needs to be severe.  The green can be very easy and simple if approached from in front or the proper angle but impossible if coming from the wrong direction. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I just want to add I think it is silly to think you HAVE to defend a short hole around the green more intensely than a long hole.
Just my .02 but I like golf courses where the easy holes are easy, and the hard holes are hard.  Whats the point of making short holes harder and long holes easier?

This is very good.
I'd only suggest that, in the case of average architects who have built a *boring* easy hole, a challenging or even just unusual green site is often the only saving grace.
I'm thinking of my home course, a modest public. It serves all of us quite well, but its short holes are so 'safe' as to be forgettable -- except for one of them. It's no coincidence that the one that stands out for me -- a 350 yard Par 4 -- has a Pinehurst style upside-down bowl of a green. Nothing fancy or even unfair, but since you're coming in with short irons it does ask you to control your distance or risk rolling off into rough on every side.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, since there are no rules, and variety is good, AND, there is nothing wrong - and its perhaps preferred - with an easy hole every once in a while, there could be a short par 4 with a relatively flat green.


I have told the story about playing with some architects. One reached a short par 5 green and was genuinely thrilled to have a potential eagle put that was almost flat.  After birdie with two putts, he was beaming. Someone said, "You know, if you looked at that hole as an architect and not a player, you would have done something with that green to reduce chances of 1 and 2 putts.  But why not give the average golfer what he wants, at least some of the time?"


I'm with Mike....you shouldn't and don't have to defend every hole at the green.  Shorter par 4 and 5 holes are also good ones to challenge the tee shot with bracket bunkers or similar, or demand a precision approach shot.  And, if you pull those off, then maybe there ought to be some reward other than another hard putt because someone decided every green on a short hole ought to be a bit more difficult.


So, my conceptually ideal short par 4 holes would have a blend of hard/medium/easy among the three shots (tee/approach/approach putt) in most cases, but one might be really easy, and another really hard - the unusual short hole you walk off lucky with par, depending on your game skills.

[Don Mahaffey]

A hole can be "easy" without being boring.


Think 18 at The Old Course. It's not just  history that makes that hole interesting.


And a long hole can be really hard but also very interesting as opposed to just a slog, think 17 at The Old Course

[Peter Pallotta]

You're surely right, Don. A golf hole can be "easy" without being boring.
Many here will have experienced that fact dozens and maybe hundreds of times, at fine golf courses all around the world.
But in the world I live/play my golf in, such a golf hole is by far the exception instead of the rule.
In my world -- granted, just one among many -- at least 90% of the shorter and/or easier golf holes I play (on the 4 or 5 public courses closest to my home) would be dramatically improved -- i.e. would be made more interesting, more visually appealing, and more varied -- with a challenging/contoured green.
I know we're supposed to all agree that "there are no rules". Maybe that's true for top-flight architects doing high end work aimed at retail golfers; for the rest of the courses and the rest of us golfers I think there is indeed at least one rule, i.e.
"Never, ever finish off any golf hole, long or short, easy or hard, with anything but the most interesting/challenging/contoured green you can manage to create".
Peter   

[Steve Salmen]

A few short 4s with fantastic greens that defend scoring well are 1 at NGLA, 2 at Muirfield, 8 and 9 at CPC, 13 at Shinnecock.


Holes with less defensive greens are 13 and 14 at NB, 10 at Elie, 17 at CPC.


I'm not sure the holes on the top list are better than the ones on the second. They are more difficult to make putts, though.

[archie_struthers]

 




As simple as it seems Tom's answer is right on point . My initial thought was to move them out past the 300 yard mark and open the hitting area for most players . This might visually shield the housing while you are hitting the second shot, but opening up a landing space is critically important .

By the way Doak's GCA IQ is pretty high !

[Ian Andrew]

I like short fours to have something very uncomfortable and dangerous about them.

It's easier to work that out at the green, and impact all players, than to make the landing super complicated for all. I find those holes can devolve into being too busy and I like my architecture decidedly more understated.

You don't have to make challenging greens on short fours, but the ones I like the most have very few bunkers and a rather inconvenient tilt to the green.

[Randy Thompson]

I like alternatives and for me a good short hole should be easy with some hole positions and others that put teeth into the hole. Hard holes are easy to design and so are easy, doing both with the same hole takes a little more thought but the key is in the green design. IMO!

[Sean_A]

I like awkward short 4s where there is no really good option off the tee...all can work of fail on given day. It seems to me this type of hole is rare.  Usually, its the green which is tricked up and thats fine.

One of the very best short 4s I know of is St E's 4th because it is awkward. An unsung, but great short 4 is Stoneham's 13th.  Blind drive..safe laying-up right.  Harder to lay-up left/centre because the visuals are saying keep right. Or go for the green, nearly an impossible shot with thick cover of trees left and a narrow green tilted left, but defended by a bunker right.

Pix nicked from E Tilley






Awkward, awkward, awkward!

Ciao

[paul cowley]

This thread is so typical for me not to be able to respond to....so GCA.


I really try to come up with a design answer/example that takes a stand...a strong design stance that others will say "wow that makes a lot of sense...he must know what he is talking about". Others seem to be able to do this quite readily and with authority...but not me. I totally understand the question so that's not the issue.


The more I ponder an answer, the more answers (options) come forward....big green, small green...double green, two greens...strong slopes, big movement, little flat target greens etc etc...and they are all valid and work as a possible good solution. Combine that with fairway options and I feel like the sorcerers apprentice...seriously, I get a feeling of design vertigo. How do you pick a right one...or two, or three? I can't seem to, so my best and most honest answer will have to be "I don't know".

[Thomas Dai]

I recall a quote/saying along the lines of "Hard hole, easy green. Easy hole, hard green". Not sure of the source of the quote/saying but thought I'd throw it into the mix.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

The more I ponder an answer, the more answers (options) come forward....big green, small green...double green, two greens...strong slopes, big movement, little flat target greens etc etc...and they are all valid and work as a possible good solution. Combine that with fairway options and I feel like the sorcerers apprentice...seriously, I get a feeling of design vertigo. How do you pick a right one...or two, or three? I can't seem to, so my best and most honest answer will have to be "I don't know".

Paul:

How about this?  "It depends."

Though I answered the question quickly when it was asked, because I've been conditioned since I was five to be the first one to have the right answer, I don't really design that way at all.  I take my time, maybe let other people start to do their thing, and wait until I really feel like I've got the right answer for that particular situation.
[/size]But every situation is different!  What are you trying to do with this hole in this place on the course?  What are you trying to do with this course in this place in your career?  What does this little piece of ground want to be?  The answers to all of those play into the right solution, and the right solution will not be the same from one architect to the next ... or from one project to the next ... or even from day to day.[size=78%]

[/size]No need to apologize for that ... you are seeing it clearly. [size=78%][/size]

[Mike_Young]

I can see clearly now...the rain is gone....

ready for fireworks...

[paul cowley]

[Jerry Kluger]

On holes like this should the green have enough hole locations/situations to take playing conditions into consideration? So if the hole is playing downwind and shorter should there be a more difficult hole location as opposed to when the wind is playing in the opposite direction?  Same thing with soft conditions  versus firm and fast conditions.  Or should it simply be that the hole is reachable based upon the conditions and be done with it?


As an aside, I have found that nearly all courses do not consider moving tees up to make holes drivable/reachable for other than the very long hitters. I think you see the PGA Tour doing this.  I have seen so many holes where they could move up to the forward tees and give so many more players the chance to go at the green but it is never done. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recall a quote/saying along the lines of "Hard hole, easy green. Easy hole, hard green". Not sure of the source of the quote/saying but thought I'd throw it into the mix.
Atb

Thomas, that is sort of what I was hinting at. There needs to be some difficulty balance.


If you pull off a hard tee shot only to get a hard approach, or have two hard shots and still face a hard putt, there is really no risk/reward.


Couple of other thoughts.


On Archie's comment about pinched bunkering at 300.....I think he is on the wrong thread.....but in reality, offering a much safer layback doesn't work at well on 370 yard holes.  The key to the temptation to do so is 25-30 yards further away AND going up 3 clubs.  It works even better if the layup approach goes from under 150 to over 180 yards, where it starts to get exponentially different.  Going from a half wedge to 8 iron makes it close to no-brainer land to layup, and the pinch works better on medium length par 4's.


My mentors at one time experimented with a simple system, which I always found it hard to get the numbers exact, so it is a rare deal when I pull this old chestnut out, but it can validate or double check the general principle. They assigned a value of 0-3 on tee, approach and first putts and figured the total of all shots should equal par.  If it equaled 5 or 6, and a 2-2-2 that might be okay on a shorter hole, because longer holes were harder by definition to them.  But they wouldn't think to do a hole ranked 3-3-3. 

They would strive to design holes that were 3-1-0, 3-0-1, 2-2-0, 2-1-1, or 1-1-2, 1-2-1, 1-3-0, 1-0-3 or even rarely put all or most of the emphasis on one shot or putting, like 0-0-4  0-4-0, 0-1-3, 0-2-2, 0-3-1, etc. 


Again, goofy, but I do agree that most holes should not be all that hard to be fun.

[paul cowley]

The more I ponder an answer, the more answers (options) come forward....big green, small green...double green, two greens...strong slopes, big movement, little flat target greens etc etc...and they are all valid and work as a possible good solution. Combine that with fairway options and I feel like the sorcerers apprentice...seriously, I get a feeling of design vertigo. How do you pick a right one...or two, or three? I can't seem to, so my best and most honest answer will have to be "I don't know".

Paul:

How about this?  "It depends."

Though I answered the question quickly when it was asked, because I've been conditioned since I was five to be the first one to have the right answer, I don't really design that way at all.  I take my time, maybe let other people start to do their thing, and wait until I really feel like I've got the right answer for that particular situation.
But every situation is different!  What are you trying to do with this hole in this place on the course?  What are you trying to do with this course in this place in your career?  What does this little piece of ground want to be?  The answers to all of those play into the right solution, and the right solution will not be the same from one architect to the next ... or from one project to the next ... or even from day to day.No need to apologize for that ... you are seeing it clearly.

Tom...I'm good with that and thanks as you obviously have been there!


I guess I'll never grow up to be a Jeff Brauer...who always sounds like he knows something from experience...and he probably really does! (this is a compliment big boy!)


I'm a "the more I learn the more I learn how little I know" type of guy....but for me that's a strength that keeps the quest alive...least I start to gel...

[Kalen Braley]

Paul,


That's an interesting perspective.  I often feel that way about Texas hold em.  I've played it for years now and have lost more money than I'd like to admit. [/size]Having played with all kinds of players, loose and tight, rich and poor, grinders and all-in-every hand guys....oddly enough its often the novices that gives bettert players the most trouble because they're so inexperienced, making odd bets, and completely and utterly unpredictable in spots.  Even myself I've folded some really good hands to a newbie where it turns out he's on a small pair and betting big cause he's think he's good!!  [size=78%]


In course design, perhaps the unexpected can turn out really neat cause no one expects it.

[Tom_Doak]

In course design, perhaps the unexpected can turn out really neat cause no one expects it.

A fine sentiment.


I think I have seen more of this on old courses than on newer ones.  Newer courses tend to have more people involved in deciding what's kosher, and the more people who have to approve of a hole, the less likely something unexpected will get through.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()