Big park, small target

[Ben Sims]

I just spent the last few days playing the same course again and again. It’s a big ballpark. But in order to get the ball in hole in the least strokes, the targets are very small. Any shot approaching or near the green requires relatively precise execution.


It hits me that my favorite courses generally (though not universally) share this trait. My thought is that this sort of golf requires firm turf, quite a bit of contour, and a willingness to make fairways and greens a large cohesive area to find and play your ball.


I think this description may be what I consider ideal golf. Thoughts?

[Niall C]

Ben


I'd suggest any course has small targets in terms of getting the ball in the hole. For instance a softer course than you describe will still require you to hit it where it is required to get it in the hole. That said, what you describe with firm turf and contour gives you more ways to get to the hole but as before you still need to hit the target but being mindful of the trajectory. Not sure I've articulated that too well but hopefully someone will step in and make a better job of it.


Niall

[Ben Sims]

Niall,


I understand what you are getting at, I just don’t think I agree. I can think of a number of golf courses where it’s easier to finish a golf hole because the margin for error is larger. Greens at grade and greens with rough tight to the green surface seem to decrease dispersion. Conversely, greens slightly above grade that have ample short grass around them seem to increase dispersion.


When you combine greens with lots of fall offs and false fronts with really large playing corridors, I think it becomes really important to hit precise shots. Much more so than when there’s bunkers and deep rough (not to mention gathering slopes) near greens.

[John Kirk]

Hi Ben,

The short answer is "it depends on the nature of the small targets" and "I prefer a course with a balanced set of challenges."

On most modern course designs, small targets usually refers to greens with partitions of various sorts.  Usually high and low areas on the green with ridges and mounds separating sections of the green.  But it can also mean small greens, where the penalty for missing your spot is a hazard or an uncomfortable recovery shot.

Let's get theoretical about this for a minute.  Let's compare this green with discrete, pinnable areas separated by ridges and mounds to a simple round, uniformly tilted green with no surrounding hazards.  If we take a random distribution of shots to each type of green, I think you will find that the green with small discrete targets will exact a quantum penalty for missing the target, while the difficulty of holing out in two shots to a round, tilted green with no hazards is distributed in a more linear fashion.  If you miss your target by 3-6 feet to the demanding undulating green, it might cost you a half a shot or more.  If you miss by three feet on the simple green, it's just a .03 or .05 stroke penalty.

I think the modern undulating green with discrete pinnable areas has its place, especially in courses used for competitions, but there is value in a less contoured surface which levels the playing field between the expert and the average golfer.  Furthermore, I find one of the most pleasurable plays in golf is a long, gently breaking and predictable approach putt.  It's nice to have one or two of those every round.

[Thomas Dai]

Greens within greens, ie several smaller pin-able areas linked together within a much bigger overall putting surface?

Atb

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think this description may be what I consider ideal golf. Thoughts?

I think your description is half of my personal ideal golf maxim: "Make the easy shots hard, and make the hard shots easy."

What you describe seems to bet the "make the hard shots easy" half. That is, the target is small, and there is little room for error, but penalty for error is modest. These are the big wide fairways, and big wide greens you're talking about.

The other half of my view is the "make the easy shots hard," which I think differs from your view. That is, when on the golf course you are presented with an exceptionally short hole, either par 3 (60-130yards), 4 (220-250), or 5 (450-480), suddenly the penalty for error should be extreme. This means small greens with deep bunkers like the postage stamp. It means terrifying approaches like the 7th at Sand Hills. It means off-kilter shots like Azalea.

I think only having first aspect can feel exasperating, but only having the second can feel patronizing.

Anyway, I hope I've interpreted what you are getting at accurately.

[Ben Sims]

John,

Clearly I’m struggling to make a cohesive point. I think it goes beyond discrete pinable areas. For me it extends outward from the green too. I may be beating around the idea of what some people call “second shot golf courses.” Dunno.

That said, I agree with you completely about the mathematical distribution of scores on different types of greens. The stats dudes would probably tell us proximity is king no matter the type of green. Over a large sample, that’s probably true. But I agree with you it likely becomes distinctly different the more you focus in on green shapes and undulations.

Matt,

I think you’ve made a great point. In fact you might’ve made my argument for me. The course I was playing has some massive corridors, essentially making the player think it’s an easy tee shot. But I’d argue that the tee shots are the “making easy shots hard” part of the balance you describe. Like I said above, I may be describing what some call a second shot golf course. I generally loathe this description just as I also loathe the label “match play golf course.”


Shot dispersion and score distribution are fascinating as it applies to golf architecture. It seems modern architects are acutely aware of just how large shot dispersion is for most golfers and can use that as a tool for making the game fun AND challenging.