Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on September 03, 2011, 10:57:07 PM
-
the distance issue.
Rather than circular like greens, wouldn't greens with pronounced extensions, and tiers offer a more prudent and more dfficult challenge.
Wouldn't they place a greater emphasis on tee shot placement ?
Today I was observing some of the hole locations at Mountain Ridge and I noticed some that presented a very difficult approach from certain sides of the fairway. Now Mountain Ridge has very generous fairways and on most holes you can see where the hole is located prior to playing it.
Since the greens average 7,500 ft, locating a hole near the perimeter presents a unique challenge.
Play safe and you're left with a long to very long putt on greens with plenty of contour and/or slope.
Greens that are typically at 11 and firm.
Miss on the short side and you're left with a very difficult recovery.
Miss long or on the long side and the recovery is equally difficult.
To provide context, think of the difference in the greens at Baltusrol Lower and Winged Foot West, both great AWT courses.
But, miss a green at WFW and it's very difficult to recover, whereas, at BL, it's much easier.
In my mind, I find about a 5 shot difference in the play of the two courses due to that playing feature.
So, rather than roundish greens, greens that might look like a marble in two dimensions, wouldn't greens that look like popcorn better thwart the golfer's efforts at scoring, no matter how long the hole ?
-
Patrick:
Hopefully you do not want every green to look like the 18th at Whistling Straits ... a four-leaf clover of silly hole locations.
-
Pat, there's a big-name architect out there who seems committed for now to developing not greens but "quadrants of greens." Last I looked, most golfers have trouble hitting the 6,000 square foot target, let alone the tiered 1,500-square foot ones. And even the PGA Tour has a stat for GIR, not QIR.
-
Pat,
Maybe, but wouldn't you have a much easier time hitting to a 1500 sq. ft. green segment with a PW from the fairway but not perfect angle vs. a 7-iron from the perfect spot? Height and spin takes away much of the need for that perfect angle and allows you to access otherwise hidden locations. I think that your earlier post about coming up with ways to make it difficult to get below the hole but still in close proximity is more effective. That's why I like greens that are canted side to side or even better front to back.
-
Obviously there are unique shaped greens that do not have to look like the 18th at Whistling Straits. You could have L-shaped, triangular, etc. The first at PV has a unqiue shape. Having uniquely shaped greens with creative slopes and surrounds would seem to be more flexible and less costly than maintaining the extra tees and length. You can adjust the difficuly day to day throungh unqiue greens pretty easily. But I still do not know if it would do anything to stop today's pros.
-
Basically what you're suggesting is a variation of the old idea of short grass around the green to deflect the less than perfect approach. In your case the short grass would be "very short grass" and could be putted from. So I think your variation might actually play easier than the classic run-off style, where the recovery would have to be a chip in most cases.
Also, with the "classic" style you can go much wilder on contours, because no one can complain about unputtable greens :)
Ulrich
-
Patrick, one thing to remember here is that you need to be able to reach every pin position on the green from every other portion of the green using a putter (unless you want divots on your green)... You can argue that the use of short grass surrounds should not stop balls having to putt off the green to come back on and I'd agree but if the surrounds are that smooth, then haven't you just got a more uniform shaped putting surface anyway?... Greens shaped liked popcorn make the above quite difficult in most cases...
-
Patrick, one thing to remember here is that you need to be able to reach every pin position on the green from every other portion of the green using a putter (unless you want divots on your green)...
I don't agree with that at all.
Look at MacKenzie's 9th at Augusta, Pete Dye's crescent green at Crooked Stick.
I know an inordinate number of greens, great greens, that prevent the golfer from putting directly to the hole from every location on the putting surface.
You can argue that the use of short grass surrounds should not stop balls having to putt off the green to come back on and I'd agree but if the surrounds are that smooth, then haven't you just got a more uniform shaped putting surface anyway?... Greens shaped liked popcorn make the above quite difficult in most cases...
That's the point !
-
Patrick:
Hopefully you do not want every green to look like the 18th at Whistling Straits ... a four-leaf clover of silly hole locations.
I've never played that hole, but, I wasn't advocating for winged greens as a universal
Greens with wings provide a unique challenge not offered by circular greens.
Irregular shaped greens would seem to hold more interest, more tactical demands and more demands on putting
-
Pat, there's a big-name architect out there who seems committed for now to developing not greens but "quadrants of greens." Last I looked, most golfers have trouble hitting the 6,000 square foot target, let alone the tiered 1,500-square foot ones. And even the PGA Tour has a stat for GIR, not QIR.
Brad, shouldn't failure to hit one's approach or recovery to that quadrant result in a more demanding putt.
And, if they should miss the green entirely, a more demanding recovery.
As opposed to boring circular greens that present little in the way of tactical challenges on the approach and little in the way of a putting challenge for playing safe.
Don't diagonal greens offer a similar challenge ?
-
Basically what you're suggesting is a variation of the old idea of short grass around the green to deflect the less than perfect approach.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting.
In your case the short grass would be "very short grass" and could be putted from. So I think your variation might actually play easier than the classic run-off style, where the recovery would have to be a chip in most cases.
Also, with the "classic" style you can go much wilder on contours, because no one can complain about unputtable greens :)
Ulrich
-
Patrick, one thing to remember here is that you need to be able to reach every pin position on the green from every other portion of the green using a putter (unless you want divots on your green)...
I don't agree with that at all.
Look at MacKenzie's 9th at Augusta, Pete Dye's crescent green at Crooked Stick.
I know an inordinate number of greens, great greens, that prevent the golfer from putting directly to the hole from every location on the putting surface.
You can argue that the use of short grass surrounds should not stop balls having to putt off the green to come back on and I'd agree but if the surrounds are that smooth, then haven't you just got a more uniform shaped putting surface anyway?... Greens shaped liked popcorn make the above quite difficult in most cases...
That's the point !
Patrick,
I'm not well enough familiar with the two greens you mention but are you sure that there are pin positions that cannot be reached from other areas of the putting surface?... I don't mean the putt needs to be straight. I just mean it needs to be a possibility. If you want a popcorn shaped green with lots of different pinnable spurs, this is quite difficult to achieve with varying concepts on a regular basis.
-
Ally,
It's not uncommon for a golfer not to be able to putt to every hole location from everywhere on the green.
Not that you have to go to extremes, but, it's quite common that a golfer, near the perimeter, can't get to other hole locations.
Any green with a bulge protruding into it would be a prime example. Any kidney or crescent shaped green would be another example.
-
As I think Ally is suggesting, I don't think its clever to have greens where one can't putt to a hole location. For sure the rule can be broken here and there because if done well it will be a small percentage of people caught out. Once on a course is probably all that any archie could justify. I recall Tobacco Road having two (8 & 11) and I was caught out on both on the same day! On the 11th I actually thought it was bad architecture because the pit COULD have been in play while ON THE GREEN if one wanted to put from front right to back right. Instead, Strantz just deemed it impossible to get at the hole. I recall that Southern Pines had at least one, maybe two of these as well.
Pat - in general I think you are right. Odd shaped greens with hangin bits is at least interesting.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Most L shaped greens have that feature.
The 6th at Winged Foot West comes to mind.
The 8th green at Mountain Ridge has that feature.
If the hole is cut back right and you hit your ball short right, you won't be able to putt directly to the hole and vice versa.
It's a feature that rewards a well executed shot, a feature that places an emphasis on long distance putting should you play overly safe
-
Looking at all the suggestions and answers, I'm not seeing why odd shaped greens are an answer to increased ability to hit the ball a long way. Sure the different shapes and small landing areas are harder than round monolithic greens, but it seems to me that the closer one can get to hit to these smaller, odder shaped areas, the better chance you'd have to handle the challenge. Distance, along with height and spin, would seem to trump attaining the perfect angles of play. It might even be the case that uniquely shaped greens exasperate the problem and increasingly reward length. Uniquely shaped very firm greens might help as they could reward playing the right angles, but they'd have to be so firm that height and spin don't really matter.
-
Sean,
Most L shaped greens have that feature.
The 6th at Winged Foot West comes to mind.
The 8th green at Mountain Ridge has that feature.
If the hole is cut back right and you hit your ball short right, you won't be able to putt directly to the hole and vice versa.
It's a feature that rewards a well executed shot, a feature that places an emphasis on long distance putting should you play overly safe
Pat
Like most anything in architecture, its not an issue of yes or no, its more about the quantity of a feature.
Ciao
-
Patrick (and Sean),
I'm still not sure... There are plenty L-Shaped or crescent greens that allow you to putt from back to front with the contour certainly. But I have to say that I am not a fan of building a green where the only two logical options are to get your first putt to 10 feet or to take a lob wedge off the putting surface...
Patrick, these greens you mention - How close can you get the perfect putt?
Either way, designing a lot of indents that can be reached from all areas limits conceptual choices in design... And if designing little spurs that cannot be reached from other areas, you may as well take it to its logical extension and say "why not just design 6 little 800 square foot greens on each hole that you have to chip from one to the next?"...
As Sean said, maybe once per round... but superintendants prepare for divots on your greens...
-
Pat,
Riviera #10 is a case where you are right. If that hole had a normal shaped green, more players could have the advantage by bombing the ball at the green as they'd have greater opportunities to get it up and down for birdie if they missed the green. The exceptionally narrow shape with adjacent bunkers makes it more sensible to get a 220 or so yard tee shot into perfect position instead.
But, how many such holes can you have on a course that take the driver and 3-wood out of the hands of the player before the course becomes too tedious to enjoy either playing or watching a big professional event?
-
David,
I think the problem that you, Ally and others may be having is that you're viewing every green as the same.
As if 18 "cookie cutter" greens are the product of the concept, when nothing could be further from the truth.
When you next play Mountain Ridge pay special attention to the putting surfaces of greens # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 17.
When I say pay "special attention" I mean study their configuration, their contours and slopes in conjunction with challenging hole locations. Hole locations that present the dilema I describe.
They're different, yet certain hole locations present the golfer with a dilema, which is, go for the flag and risk the consequences of failure, or go for the more benign approach (toward center) and be faced with a very difficult approach putt.
When you consider that the greens are F&F and running 11 or 11.5 or 12, lag putting from a distance on those contoured/sloped surfaces is no easy task, so the golfer, has a real dilema when sitting in the fairway trying to decide how to play the hole.
What has been lost in a good deal of golf is "match play" strategy.
If your opponent has hit it to 10 feet, do you risk attacking the flag, knowing that a missed shot will probably result in a bogey while your opponent will probably make par, or being conservative, relying on a long two putt and counting the odds that your opponent will miss the birdie putt.
Medal play would seem to dictate the conservative play, but, in match play, you may be forced, against your better judgement, to attempt the more aggressive shot.
-
Pat,
I completely agree with all you've said. Greens as you've described create challenges and dilemmas that are interesting and fun and are more than a welcome element. What I don't get is how these greens neutralize length, which is your discussion topic. I believe that they make it harder for everyone, but acceptably applied length more often than not neutralizes more of the challenge than will perfect positioning off the tee by a shorter hitter.
To a green such as you're describing, does Player "A" with a 180 yard approach from a perfectly placed tee shot have an advantage over Player "B" who's 140 yards away, still in the fairway but maybe not with the same perfect angle? Player "A" being shorter and further from the hole, is hitting a 6-iron. Player "B" has a PW in hand.
My interpretation of your thread is that you'd say "A" has the advantage to such a green. Is that your premise? If so, why?
-
David,
I think the problem that you, Ally and others may be having is that you're viewing every green as the same.
As if 18 "cookie cutter" greens are the product of the concept, when nothing could be further from the truth.
When you next play Mountain Ridge pay special attention to the putting surfaces of greens # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 17.
When I say pay "special attention" I mean study their configuration, their contours and slopes in conjunction with challenging hole locations. Hole locations that present the dilema I describe.
They're different, yet certain hole locations present the golfer with a dilema, which is, go for the flag and risk the consequences of failure, or go for the more benign approach (toward center) and be faced with a very difficult approach putt.
When you consider that the greens are F&F and running 11 or 11.5 or 12, lag putting from a distance on those contoured/sloped surfaces is no easy task, so the golfer, has a real dilema when sitting in the fairway trying to decide how to play the hole.
What has been lost in a good deal of golf is "match play" strategy.
If your opponent has hit it to 10 feet, do you risk attacking the flag, knowing that a missed shot will probably result in a bogey while your opponent will probably make par, or being conservative, relying on a long two putt and counting the odds that your opponent will miss the birdie putt.
Medal play would seem to dictate the conservative play, but, in match play, you may be forced, against your better judgement, to attempt the more aggressive shot.
Pat, it all depends on what you mean? If you mean individual greens with only one or two extensions, then most architects attempt that on a relatively regular basis. e.g. A crescent shape, the common ameoba shape etc... All you have to do is make sure the contour allows you to all parts of the green from other parts... It sounds like this is what you mean... But note that greens of irregular shapes actually limit what you can do with detailed conceptual ideas... A LOT can be done with contour on an essentially round green... or an oval green with its axis set at an angle to the line of play (which let's face it is the most common shape of all)
If you actually mean a green with 5 or 6 little spurs (your "popcorn" image promotes this), then my comments further above stand.
I can assure you that I'm not viewing all 18 greens as the same. I think we may just be misunderstanding what each other is saying.
-
Pat,
I completely agree with all you've said. Greens as you've described create challenges and dilemmas that are interesting and fun and are more than a welcome element.
What I don't get is how these greens neutralize length, which is your discussion topic.
I believe that they make it harder for everyone, but acceptably applied length more often than not neutralizes more of the challenge than will perfect positioning off the tee by a shorter hitter.
Here's where I think you're missing the point.
The guy that's hitting it 280-300-320 isn't playing from the white tees, he's probably playing from the back tees, and, he's not a 20 handicap, he's probably a low single digit handicap, therefore, par on each hole is significantly more important to him the general play of 18 holes.
The 14-16-18 handicap, usually playing from the members or white tees, will rarely go flag-hunting, as it's usually beyond his ability, and, making a bogey isn't the end of the world or a meaningful dent in his score. So, that golfer is content just to be on the green, in regulation or one over regulation.
But, the 0-6 handicap is now faced with a dilema, go flag hunting with the risk/reward/punishment that comes with it or play conservatively and try to two putt.
I started a tournament at MRCC called the "greenskeeppers revenge" where hole locations are challenging to extreme.
It's a 4 man scramble, so flag hunting is the norm since your team gets 4 bites at the apple to make a great recovery shot or putt.
But, if you were playing medal play, you'd avoid those hole locations like the plaque, and the more you played conservatively, the more pressure would be brought to bear on your approach and saving putting game.
Not being able to get close to a hole location and playing and putting defensively puts a pressure on the golfer.
Now, I'm not endorsing extremes, but, greens with wings/extensions at their corners seem to provide a heightened challenge for the better player, especially when missing the green on the short side brings such a difficult recovery with it.
When you visit MRCC you'll see exactly what I mean with regard to wings or bulges and the unique challenge that Donald Ross created, on the approach, recovery and putting.
To a green such as you're describing, does Player "A" with a 180 yard approach from a perfectly placed tee shot have an advantage over Player "B" who's 140 yards away, still in the fairway but maybe not with the same perfect angle? Player "A" being shorter and further from the hole, is hitting a 6-iron. Player "B" has a PW in hand.
What you've forgotten is the handicaps of players "A" and "B" and the significance of par to both of them.
My interpretation of your thread is that you'd say "A" has the advantage to such a green. Is that your premise? If so, why?
What I"m saying is that the better golfer, the longer, lower handicap golfer INHERENTLY has to go flag hunting, systemically, but with exception in order to maintain his handicap, thus, the longer player will be presented with a more challenging test when a target green has wings/bulges/extensions where the hole is cut.
Hope that helps
-
A small distinction Pat...
I greatly prefer that the difficult pins are created in 3 dimensions not 2.
I'm thinking of the 8th at Hidden Creek
From above the green is still a circle
Cheers
-
A small distinction Pat...
I greatly prefer that the difficult pins are created in 3 dimensions not 2.
I'm thinking of the 8th at Hidden Creek
From above the green is still a circle
Mike,
That's true and part of what I was alluding to with the characterization of a wing, an elevated portion of the footpad where shots missing the green have to contend with recovery to the putting surface above them.
That heightens the risk and the penalty for an errant shot and factors into the decision making process on the approach.
-
Pat,
Thank you for your explanation. I agree that having the wings and other non-regular shapes, especially with elevation, adds a great deal to the complexity and challenge for the low handicap player.
With wings as you've described, I think we'd both agree that when the bomber feels compelled to go pin hunting and then misses, the downside is often worse than the upside of success. Then it comes down to the pin seeking bomber missing enough times so that the math works out. I think that I can give you that one for the undisciplined (or maybe typically disciplined) 0-6 handicap player who overestimates his skills and is reckless in pin hunting beyond his ability.
How about the disciplined bomber who is better at picking his spots? Or even more clearly, the professional tournament golfer? For this population, the ability to bomb the ball and then have shorter approaches that can be attempted with higher, softer, more spun shots is a huge advantage over the well-skilled but shorter player. The perfect positioning of the shorter player can't over time overcome the less ideal positioning of the bomber as long as the bomber is hitting either from an acceptable lie from which he can loft/spin his shots even from the less than perfect angle. For this collection of players, I believe that the wings probably give a further advantage to the player who can hit the ball a long way as they can access spots that the average-lengthed comparably skilled (but somewhat more accurate off the tee) player can't get to.
Something else seems to be present here, especially if the conservative play leaves a putting challenge that results in a high percentage of 3-putts. Under that scenario, why not pin hunt? A successful shot leads to a sure par and a possible birdie. A miss earns you your share of bogeys, but so would the safe play to the center of the green. You could end up with the perverse outcome of too severe wings and shapes rewarding the aggressive play. Either way, a shorter approach should have a greater chance of success. Only if the safe play leads you to a relatively reliable par would the wings reduce the benefits of length.
Interesting topic...
-
Pat,
Thank you for your explanation. I agree that having the wings and other non-regular shapes, especially with elevation, adds a great deal to the complexity and challenge for the low handicap player.
With wings as you've described, I think we'd both agree that when the bomber feels compelled to go pin hunting and then misses, the downside is often worse than the upside of success. Then it comes down to the pin seeking bomber missing enough times so that the math works out. I think that I can give you that one for the undisciplined (or maybe typically disciplined) 0-6 handicap player who overestimates his skills and is reckless in pin hunting beyond his ability.
I think that one of the "lures" of golf is that we can attempt a shot that may be beyond our ability.
It seems to be a systemic or universal quality in all golfers. The idea that they can rise to meet the challenge.
And, often, even in failure there's an element of glory, with the "almost pulled it off" mentality.
An approach that's on the green and a considerable distance from the hole, while difficult, shouldn't produce doubles or triples, but errant shots to short side hole locations often yield those scores, so the decision seems to be an unbalanced or unduly weighted one. The failure to meet the challenge often results in more than a bogey.
How about the disciplined bomber who is better at picking his spots? Or even more clearly, the professional tournament golfer?
For this population, the ability to bomb the ball and then have shorter approaches that can be attempted with higher, softer, more spun shots is a huge advantage over the well-skilled but shorter player.
Are there really any short hitters on the PGA tour ?
Aren't they all long ? With some just being longer than others.
The perfect positioning of the shorter player can't over time overcome the less ideal positioning of the bomber as long as the bomber is hitting either from an acceptable lie from which he can loft/spin his shots even from the less than perfect angle.
Remember what Lee Trevino said, "Pros that chip for pars and dogs that chase cars aren't long for this world."
When there's a substantive consequence when a green is missed, it alters one's thinking, as does pressure.
Whle the PGA Tour pros tend to disect the course and understand percentages better than anyone, ego and fear still play a part in the decision making process.
For this collection of players, I believe that the wings probably give a further advantage to the player who can hit the ball a long way as they can access spots that the average-lengthed comparably skilled (but somewhat more accurate off the tee) player can't get to.
With wings/diagonals, balls in the rough have a more difficult time getting close to those hole locations, and when the consequences for failure to hit that wing are significant, it causes pause for consideration Just look at certain hole locations on # 12 at ANGC where the best players in the world, don't go pin hunting on what has to be for them, a short hole. And, they get to give themselves a perfect lie, on a tee.
Something else seems to be present here, especially if the conservative play leaves a putting challenge that results in a high percentage of 3-putts. Under that scenario, why not pin hunt? A successful shot leads to a sure par and a possible birdie. A miss earns you your share of bogeys, but so would the safe play to the center of the green.
Because missing a short side pin is the most difficult recovery and scores can be higher than bogey
You could end up with the perverse outcome of too severe wings and shapes rewarding the aggressive play.
I don't see the logic in: The more severe the challenge, the greater the reward for failure to meet that challenge"
Either way, a shorter approach should have a greater chance of success.
Except, with a greater chance and penalty for failure, will the golfer attempt that shot or take the more conservative route.
Only if the safe play leads you to a relatively reliable par would the wings reduce the benefits of length.
The flaw in your logic is that you're excluding scores higher than bogey for those who take the aggressive path and fail.
Interesting topic...
If the pin is back left on # 1, back left or back right on # 4, back left or back right, or front right on # 6, back right on # 8, back right on # 11, back right on # 17, I want to see you attack those pins when you next play MRCC. I can assure you, bogey will seem like a good score. ;D
-
Pat,
You're right in that I'm not really considering anything worse than bogey, at least not at the elite player level. And on short holes, wings and unusually shaped greens really amp up the difficulty (see my earlier example of Riviera #10, where that green pretty much wipes out any distance advantage).
But I still don't agree that the wings and diagonals necessarily solve the distance issue. Assume for a moment two very good players. Both play conservatively to all winged cups (no pin hunting, no short-siding unless there's a clear miss). Won't the longer player have the advantage of being able to be a bit more aggressive with his safe play? With a wedge in hand, the longer player might aim 15' from the cup on the safe side. The shorter player with 8-iron in hand might play comparably safely to a spot 20'-25' away. At some point, that extra margin for safety, or a small miss too far to the safe side gets you on the wrong side of a slope and now putting gets far more difficult.
Yes, all touring pros and top amateurs (the level where the distance issue is most pronounced) are long, but we agree that there are varying degrees of long. That 8-iron might be after a 290 yard drive on a 450 yard hole, while the bomber has PW or gap wedge after hitting it 315. The really long driver still has an advantage under your scenario. Couldn't you argue that the advantage might even be bigger than had the pin been more centrally located?
I look forward to seeing some of those pins when I'm up there. We won't be able to do this then, but an interesting experiment would be to play two approach shots into those types of cups. The safety would be from the perfect angle but further back, and then an attack shot from 15-20 yards closer in but from the wrong side of the fairway. Play both out and see what happens.
-
David,
I DIDN'T say they solved it, I said that they may be part of the solution.
Fear of failure, the consequence of failure will discourage pin seeking.
Again, you're creating a favorable situation. Instead of a wedge versus an 8-iron, consider a 4-iron versus a 6-iron or a 6-iron versus an 8 iron. And, factor in the consequences for missing the short side of an elevated green.
It would seem to me that the 4 and 6 iron player will avoid the winged location and that more aggressive play would be more inclined when short irons are used, but, why context the issue solely in the realm of short holes/shots.
Now, add water or a deep bunker next to the wing.
I don't know how you can think that a circular green offers an equal or more significant challenge than an irregularly shaped green with substantive falloff, when the hole is cut in that wing.
The problem with playing two different approach shots is that there's no pressure on either shot, especially the dicey one.
However, with $ on the line, I like my side of the bet ;D
The best example I can give you is to bet you $ 100 that you can't walk 100 feet, only 33 yards on a 4 X 4 without falling off.
Now, I know you'll take that bet every time. I mean, how hard is it to walk 100 feet on a 4 X 4.
But, if I elevate the 4 X 4 to 500 feet, will you still take the bet ? ;D
Fear of failure, the consequences of failure loom large when making decisions, on and off the golf course, on the ground and on the same 4 X 4 at 500 feet.
-
Pat,
I have no disagreements with anything you've written here. And you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who's had a whole lot more competitive experience than me.
A couple of things I'm picking up on here. First, it's not the wings themselves that matter, but the stuff off the green that does. No doubt that the worse the consequences of a miss, the more inclined any player, including bombers would be to play safe. And I agree about the dilemma one faces when playing to the safe side introduces putting risks with tiers and other issues that winged greens often create.
Second, I didn't say that a circular green offers a greater challenge than a irregularly shaped green when the cup is cut into the wing. What I said was that the circular green may be less rewarding of distance because everyone can go for the pin with comparative safety. But with the winged green, everyone might play safe but the player closer to the green can play a tighter line on the safe side with the same percentage room for margin as the player coming in from further away who has to play an even safer line further from the cup. And once you get too far from that winged cup, then the putting challenges you introduced take on a far more pronounced effect.
Under competitive conditions and with the desire to play safely and conservatively (and not short-side yourself to a winged cup) won't you still play a tighter line with an 8-iron than a 6-iron, or a 6-iron than a 4-iron?