[BCrosby]

Tom -

If I understand, your reluctance to design shallow greens turns on your view that hitting a ball with backspin is of a higher skill level than hitting a ball straight. That is, there is bright line separating golfers who can hit it with backspin and those who can't.

Not sure I agree. Or at least your view is not self evidently true. Certainly Mrs. Haversham should not be asked to stick her 11 wood from 180 yards. Good shallow greens (see those noted above at ANGC and East Lake) generally contemplate short approaches with lofted clubs.

It seems to me that where weak players are approaching with lofted clubs, they are as capable of hitting it with backspin as they are capable of hitting it straight. The bright line between skill levels that may exist at 180 yards, disappears at 125 yards. At those kinds of shorter distances, shallow greens can make a lot of sense.

I would hate to see them go extinct.

Bob  

[James Edwards]

Bill,

Agreed, because there is a shot that can be played by all players.  Even if the pin is back right on your example.  You can still hit the left side and have a put.

[James Edwards]

Excellent use of the keyboard by the way

[Scott_Burroughs]

Another narrow green from a "top" course is the par 3 9th
(135 yards) at Myopia Hunt Club.  According to Ran's lost
course profile (asked to be taken down), the green was 9
yards wide:




Also, not that this is a top course in any way, but my home
course has the front half of the 4th green at 9 yards wide,
also in the same 'vertical' direction (narrow width, not
depth).   It's not even an original hole from the 1968 Gene
Hamm design.  When a housing subdivision was put in around
holes 2-5 in the late 80's, they designed new holes (#2 is
mostly the same and the 2nd half of #5 is the same).

[Mike Hendren]

Can anyone post an aerial photograph of Augusta National Golf Club that accurately depicts the shallowness of the 12th green?  I suspect many would be astonished at how shallow the green is.  

Tom Doak is correct in his assessment that it is too difficult for the average player, but any criticism must be placed in the context of stroke play mentality.  What a great match-play hole that is otherwise not a round-wrecker.  What a delight it is to attempt such a shot.  What a horror it would be to play from the drop area, again and again.

Mike

[James Edwards]

Mike,

Agreed..
But, this is only true if stroke indexes reflect the hole and it's challenge.  I'd be interested to see a card for the course at ANGC and the respective SI.  

[ForkaB]

Tom D

The "problem" with Augusta #12 for Mrs. Haversham has nothing to do with the shallowness of the green and everything to do with the context of the green.  Imagine the exact same green with a dry hollow where Rae's Creek is, and a slightly angled backstop where the bunkers and (magnolias?) are now.  Mrs. H could hit that 11 wood into the hollow and then try to chip up for a 3 or 4.  Her equally spin-challenged spouse (Mr. H) could hit his 5 wood long and hope for a favorable kick off the back hill, or even try to bumble a 3-wood through the hollow and onto the green.

So, I say, keep the shallow greens but get much more imaginative on the green complex.

PS--even if you take ANGC #12 as it is, who says that a 150 yard hole has to be a "par" 3?

[James Edwards]

Rich,

Thats a fine point, because then you could play left or right of the centre bunker and it doesn't matter if your "natural ball flight" is low and short.  Place the pin in the middle on the 8 metre shallow green and thats fine!!!  At least you have the chance to access the left and right portions of the green, or if you are good, take dead aim!

[TEPaul]

Rich;

Go back and read Tom Doak's first post more carefully and you'll probably see that his objections do not include some of what you may think they do. If you read the last part of his first post you should see that your post #32 wasn't necessary.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Hendren,

The 12th at ANGC isn't as shallow as you think, especially the right side of the green.  There is a "pinched" shallowness in the middle, but remember, the "Masters" tees only played at about 150 yards with the "Members" tees at about 130 yards.

This hole, and the 13th hole at Pine Tree, which is shallower, but without water, have worked very well for Members and guests for many years.  # 13 at PT plays at about the same distance, 157 from all the way back, 130 for regular play, and shorter for some of the other tees.

A Clayman,

I agree with you.

Why eliminate an architectural examination of a players skill level because the lower quartrile of the class will fail the test ?

A friend of mine was playing golf in Scotland, approached a shot, and disregarded his caddies advice, selecting a club he felt was "the" club.  He hit his shot pure, right at the flag, and was dumbfounded that the ball came up short.  He turned to his caddy and said, "that ball was right on line", to which his caddy responded, Aye, that's half the game now, isn't it lad",

With golf balls and clubs that result in straighter and straighter shots, perimeter weighted clubs that provide loft to skulled shots, why shouldn't distance control be a critical test of the architecture ?

Tom Doak,

I think you have to temper your position and reconsider your  concept and include the entire green complex, the surrounding area that will receive mis-hit or miscalculated shots.

The 7th green at NGLA could be a perfect example of a shallow green that will accept a variety of shots, ground and aerial and a combination of the two.

While the consequence for going long is onerous, it frightens the golfer, who will invariably come up short, thus the architecture has succeeded in defending the hole.

Since it's safe to say that few golfers fly their target, as opposed to coming up short, the onerous rear feature is more physcological then physical, but the effect is spectacular.

It also says to the golfer, that perhaps discretion is the better part of valor, that it may be best to play safe, hoping that a recovery shot and a putt will salvage par, rather then risk a much higher number by being bold, hence the intimidating elements of the architecture succeed in creating thought and alternate play.

Shot value must also be a prudent architectural element, with the length of the approach shot commensurate with a reasonably shallow target.

I loved # 8 at Pacific Dunes.  I viewed the green as shallow.
Into the wind, after a solid drive, despite my caddy's protest,
I punched a beautiful 2-iron about 15 feet from the hole.
Another time, a relatively short iron did the trick, but, in both cases the risk/reward wasn't so onerous as to prevent me from experimenting with a variety of shots, some mental, and the others actual.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Per your kind instruction, I went back and re-read Tom D's post and you know what?  Well I did in fact understand what he said the first time, and I'll stand by my post #32.

Rihc

PS--I also very much appreciate your agreeing with me fully re: the fact that it is the green complex, and not the green that makes the difference.  The fact that I can get such an important thought into the brain of someone as full of Max Behr as you just makes my day!

Peace and love

[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

Does that mean the 12th at Pitreavie is a better hole than the 12th at ANGC?

Brian

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  The eighth green at Pacific Dunes is a great example of how I like to temper my use of a shallow target.  The left side of the green is indeed a shallow target, with trouble behind, but there is nothing but fairway in front so the short hitter has no problem bouncing up the approach.  Also, the green extends to the back right, which is very receptive to an aerial approach, deeper and with a backstop ... but you'd better not pull your approach to the left.

Isn't your example of #7 at NGLA the same kind of green complex -- a road green at a somewhat different angle?  But if you put yourself in position to approach it from way left -- I couldn't tell if you meant on the second shot or the third -- haven't you made an error in either case?

P.S.  You may be amused to know that one of our current clients has "requested" we build a par 3 similar to #12 at Augusta.  I'm still working through how we can honor his request and build a hole I like, too.

[ForkaB]

Brian

Sure.  By Tom D's putative (and probably purposefully provocative) definition.

In fact, if you put an as near perfect as damnit copy of ANGC #12 in the middle of Texas, it would be an inferior hole to Pitreavie #12.

Rich

OOPS, I just remembered, I played "ANGC 12" at Tour 18 eight years ago in Texas, and, guess what, I was right!  It isn't that great of a hole once you take away the azaleas, the $1.75 hot dogs, the $7 million purse and Gary McCord.....

What, you mean to say that they've already taken McCord away.....??!!!

sic transit gloria Hootie......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I was referencing the 3rd shot approach at # 7 at NGLA.

There is a flanking bunker on the right side of the fairway, just short of the 7th green, adjacent to the 8th tee, so the risk reward is to flirt with that bunker if you want to have a less threatening approach, although, with a pin in the front penisula, I don't know if there is such a thing as an easy approach, but, certainly, for mid to rear pin positions, front right is ideal.

But, who will risk the peril front right, and.... who can execute that which they plot in their head ?  Hence, a lot of balls are faced with that threatening, shallow green approach.

What I also liked about # 8 at Pacific Dunes was the counterbalancing of the bunkers.
To the left, the bunker was to the rear with plenty of room up front, to the right, the bunker was fronting with plenty of room long.  In each case, the golfer had a prefered margin of error, short or long, depending on their ability to understand strategy, and execute the shot that would best reward their effort while minimizing risk.

With the WIND as an effective backstop, one could be even more creative, on the ground, or in the air.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Well, obviously you don't understand the distinction I'm trying to make regarding your post #32 to Tom Doak. He's talking about the 'green context' too not just the green itself as you appear to assume he is in post #32. Otherwise why do you need to point out to him about a dry wash fronting a green like ANGC's #12 with a hillside behind it for the ball to filter off of for Mr or Mrs Haversham? Judging from his first post it appears he'd have no problem designing and building a shallow green in a 'context' (as you say) like that. What he said in his first post is he objects to shallow greens with hazards both in front and in back (obviously that would include a green like ANGC's 12th with pond front and magnolias and bunker behind).

As to what you said about me being consumed by Max Behr I have no earthly idea how that's even remotely relevent to this subject or discussion. Do you?

[John_McMillan]

one of our current clients has "requested" we build a par 3 similar to #12 at Augusta.  I'm still working through how we can honor his request and build a hole I like, too.

Tom - show him a picture of how the 12'th at Augusta looked in the 1930's, and build a hole like that.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Tom D's 1st post qualifies his "SHOULD" to exempt forced carries.  Forced carries are a completely separate issue, which was all I was trying to say in that regard.  I still think one could design an Augusta #12 without the forced carry, but with enough interest in front of and behind the green to make it a very good hole.  Pitreavie #12 comes close to doing that.  Come see it sometime.

Vis a vis Behr, he is to me as Sartre is to you, an incomprehensible self-absorbed twit, the very thought of whose prose makes me want to lash out or just vomit.

Glad I got that off my chest.......

Have a nice day

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Extinct is a strong word.  I love shallow when the depth is used to defend against a short shot.  #12 at ANGC is what a #7 or #8 iron?  This seems fair enough.  

Fazio's Members Club at Alderra in Seattle has a par three (#11 or 12) that is 225 yards uphill and very narrow, never mind that a portion of it is also blind.  Although blindingly difficult and beautiful to look at it, it is also seems to me a weak golf hole.  It is simply too penal.

So shallow greens requiring long approach shots should provide some area for the player to miss his shot without undo penalty.  

God I sound like Wesley Clark, Waffling in every which direction!

[TEPaul]

Rich said;

"Vis a vis Behr, he is to me as Sartre is to you, an incomprehensible self-absorbed twit, the very thought of whose prose makes me want to lash out or just vomit."

Rich;

That remark and analogy is positively bizarre but certainly not unexpected coming from you. It's an analogy founded on thin air with no basis in fact whatsoever. First of all, I've never said a thing about Sartre on here, and frankly haven't even thought of the man or his writing style in perhaps 35 years so how in the world would you know what Sartre, his writing or writing style is or means to me? I truly never knew that I thought Sartre was an incomprehensible self absorbed twit and that the very thought of his prose makes me want to lash out or just vomit.

"TomD's 1st post qualifies his "SHOULD" to exempt forced carries."

I'm still trying to figure out what you're talking about. Tom Doak wrote this thread entitled "Re: Shallow greens SHOULD be extinct". Tom seems to feel that hazards in front and behind shallow greens is the only thing with which shallow green should not be designed. Hazards require forced carries. That doesn't look to me like he's exempting forced carries, it looks to me like that's the only thing that should not be INCLUDED with the design of a shallow green.

Your post #32 seems to agree with Tom Doak's first post  which is why I asked you why you wrote it since post #32 also looks like you're trying to tell him something he either didn't know or doesn't agree with such as a dry wash front and hillside behind is something that Mr and Mrs Haversham can run their balls through and back off of. It looks to me from the first post that Tom knows that and said a shallow green with something like that would be just fine.

But never mind---it really isn't that important! I shouldn't even write a post like this on here because someone other than you might read it and think we're both picking nits that are invisible anyway. I know I'm starting to lose my mind but I'm just trying to figure out if you ever had a mind or at the very least if you're losing yours a whole lot faster than I'm losing mine!

Whew, glad I got that off my chest.....

You have a nice day too!

[paul cowley]

...personally i think 'golf course design is a great big thing with room in it for all kinds............'

[Norbert P]

  If a green is shaped like this...

       o o o o o o o o o
       o o o o o o o o o

  I would call that thoughtlessly shallow.

  If a green is shaped thoughtfully and happens to be shallow for, say a tough pin placement,  I don't think it should be bannished.
           sand  oooooooo
          oooo               o
          oo/oooo            o
           sand     o o o o o      (Choose your own scale)

  That said, a shallow green,  in these times, would probably need more water for player acceptance and pleasant clubhouse-speak.  And architecture designs requiring softer greens for play is NOT the direction we want golf courses to be going.  I would avoid them but never say never.

Here's a design I've seen that I like on a par 4 and a par 5...

      ooooooooooooooooooo       (Should be "T" shaped but
   oooo/ooooooooooooooo/oo        digits keep shifting.
   oooooooooooooooooooooo
    sand   ooooooooo  sand        (/ = potential flagstick)

  Simply explained, if the pin is right, the approach should be from left and vice versa.  I know I'm a rube and this is rudimentary, but my point is that there are times when shallow can be utilized.

 BTW, Redanman, your royalty check is in the mail.

[TEPaul]

I'm glad to get back to this thread and subject. Personally, I think Tom Doak's initial post has the capacity to evolve into discussions of all kinds of interesting fundamentals and principles about golf architecture and how it affects and impacts options and strategies of various levels of golfers and how architects both past and present may look at golf and architecture differently (never a bad thing).

I think all kinds of subjects and questions can tangent off his initial post, for example;

1. How and how much should an architect design to accomodate every level of golfer on every hole?
2. Is the old fashioned architectural notion of single "shot testing" still valid?
3. Has GIR for all levels of golfers become almost a design requirement due to modern golfer expectation?"
4. Should every hole have some ground game option?
5. Has the idea of "option" as it relates to overall hole "strategy" and the shot at hand changed?
6. Should tee placement be used more to accomodate various levels of golfers rather than the green and green-end design?

There's more.....

[A_Clay_Man]

1. How and how much should an architect design to accomodate every level of golfer on every hole?
2. Is the old fashioned architectural notion of single "shot testing" still valid?
3. Has GIR for all levels of golfers become almost a design requirement due to modern golfer expectation?"
4. Should every hole have some ground game option?
5. Has the idea of "option" as it relates to overall hole "strategy" and the shot at hand changed?
6. Should tee placement be used more to accomodate various levels of golfers rather than the green and green-end design?

There's more.....

Tom- as per your #1-#6, With the "big World" theroy being less of a theory and more of a reality, wouldn't all the answers be dependant on the motivation given to the archie.

While the usga, r & a, don't want bifurcation in the rules, ignoring the extreme differences in the golfer's abilities, preferences and justifications for participation, seems contrary to the principles of quality.

Perhaps this is the area where the sport has evolved the most.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Vis a vis GIR's, the very best pros (Tiger, Ernie, etc.) hit 14-15 greens a round.  My guess is that you (as a 2-3) average 10-12.  I know that when I get into double figures I'll get a good score, and I'm a 5 hcp.  How many greeens does the average player (15-20 hcp) actually hit in regulation?  How about Mr. and Mrs. Haversham?  While GIR's may be in many (even most) players' minds it is in the same brain space where they store the "memory" of what they will do to Heidi Klum (or Brad Pitt) when picked up by either person in thier local bar.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()