Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Thurman on October 21, 2020, 09:43:57 AM
-
After threadjacking the Golf Mag Top 100 thread with thoughts on the 4th at Prairie Club (Dunes), and the 4th at Sweetens Cove, I still had questions.
Both holes are par 3s featuring a green roughly 80 yards deep. As a result, they feature tremendous elasticity. 4 at Sweetens Cove is 169 yards from the tips on the card. I recall lasering it at closer to 200 yards on my first play, while it was more like 140 on my most recent one. Similarly, 4 at the Dunes course is 145 on the card, but played more like 180 into the wind the day I played it. It can play anywhere from about 80 to 230 yards depending on tee and pin placement.
The holes share a few similarities: heavily contoured greens, with at least two clear "sections" on either side of a center pinch point. It's almost like the concept from 17 at Pebble, but with a green that's like 4x bigger and loaded with slopes.
I'm interested in a few things here:
What other holes fit this concept? Some Biarritz holes have similar green depth. 8 at Old Mac comes to mind. But I don't think a Biarritz counts because it doesn't offer the same elasticity and the dominant swale comes at the expense of additional contour. A hole like 17 at Tobacco Road has an 80 yard WIDE green, but not 80 yards deep, and that's also not the same thing.
And does the concept work? I've played the 4th at Sweetens a couple times. I don't know whether I think it's a good hole or not. It's certainly memorable and sparks joy, though. I love the 4th at PC(D), but Tom Doak says he'd check himself into rehab if he built something like it. In fairness, I hit an awesome shot the first time I played it. But in fairness, I hit that awesome shot because I saw the architecture and used it to hit a ball that finished 40+ feet right of where it landed, and 12 feet or so from the hole. I tend to think that kind of thing only happens on pretty interesting holes, but when they tried to make me go to rehab I said no, no no.
-
3 at Royal New Kent has the green concept although the tee elasticity is more lateral than vertical. I would guess, however, that there are tee/hole combinations that provide as little as 100 yard and as much as 200 yard shots...
This particular hole is too severe in my opinion to be considered really good for a broad array of players, but I like it.
-
Four at Wilshire is almost exactly like this. So is four at Paa-Ko Ridge where I think the green is over 100 yards deep. I love these holes as long as there isn’t a “best” hole location where you’re kind of bummed if it’s cut somewhere else that day (i.e. front on a Biarritz!).
-
Not counting the Biarritz greens I have built, which get close to 80 yards long, I have built 2 greens in excess of 80 yards long, once on a par 5, just as a unique feature, and once on a par 4, with an elongated tee. Presumably, with forward pin and tee, you could get a 300 yard hole, and with back tee and pin, it might stretch over 400 yards on any given day.
I haven't been back to see it in a while, but the first pro at the course insisted they should have tee forward/pin back and vice versa so the hole played its scorecard length every day. He couldn't conceive of that big a variation and feared his players would not like potential negative effects on their handicap (as if that many public players carry handicaps)
I like "concept shots" on par 3 holes where there is no relationship to a tee shot, so I think the par 3 tee shot should or can be made more interesting, but I haven't built one there (have designed a few, like in China, where the projects got cancelled). I imagine the same scorecard mentality would take over at least for every day play. I still think it would be fun in any two day tournament (or really, for the Saturday and Sunday player) to create 19 unique holes out of 18.
-
Any par 3 can have this already, if you build enough tee boxes and actually moved the markers between all of them.
-
Any par 3 can have this already, if you build enough tee boxes and actually moved the markers between all of them.
Can't Instagram tee boxes though. Especially if they're RTJ's, they'll ban you.
-
Any par 3 can have this already, if you build enough tee boxes and actually moved the markers between all of them.
Not with that variety of hole locations, though.
-
It would take some tee box gymnastics (i.e. teeing off behind 1 green) to push 5 at Streamsong Blue over 200 yards, but the 75-yard-deep green makes that hole plenty elastic one day to the next.
-
Get ready for divot holes. The 17th on our South course shares the same putting surface as the 11th. There used to be a bunker separating the two holes, but that is gone. The long axis of the green is at least 100 yards long. So far my longest putt is 76 yards to a center pin. With contour I can barely reach that, so further attempts will not be using a putter.
-
Isn't there a cost in sustainability in an 80 yard deep green?
Construction, inputs, mowing?
-
Any par 3 can have this already, if you build enough tee boxes and actually moved the markers between all of them.
Not with that variety of hole locations, though.
+1
4 at Wilshire was mentioned - this hole had the front 2/3 of the green restored after it played as a ~180 yard hole to the back part of the current green. It can be and is played from 100-190 yards (backmarkers set here in tournament and every day play) and offers different challenges depending on the hole location.
The barranca makes for a difficult shot to any front hole location due to the fact that it crosses in front and wraps around the left side closely. The false right side and eventually the sand-filled portion of the barranca along with a raised center-front tier and left side bunker make for my personal favorite challenge. The swale short of the back tier is rarely pinned, but can make for an interesting HIO locations next to the bunker or false side (and you mustn't go long on to the wrong level). The rear third of the green offers challenges in the length of the approach and the accuracy required to either carry a ball to that level or run one up the slope (I see older members do this quite frequently). Pins on all parts of the upper portion have interest with bunkers left, right, and long and the slope in front.
Andy Johnson has some great photos here https://thefriedegg.com/wilshire-country-club-review/ (https://thefriedegg.com/wilshire-country-club-review/)
Hopefully he won't mind me using one of his many images which are worth checking out.
(https://43n98k41i1ee1kdt4e4bvlu6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/4-tee-comp.jpg)
-
Isn't there a cost in sustainability in an 80 yard deep green?
Construction, inputs, mowing?
My question too-- especially the mowing part.
An 80 yard deep green is a blast to play but must be a bitch to walk mow/roll.
-
Isn't there a cost in sustainability in an 80 yard deep green?
Construction, inputs, mowing?
Of course, as I mentioned on some recent thread. Most supers on a budget will push for greens up to about 6500, but no larger, i.e., the best compromise between enough cup space and no extra mowing and chemical inputs. There might be cases where, because of shade or other natural condition, a larger green would be required to spread wear. However, I find it is hard for greens to be "a little pregnant" under environmental stress - either they get the sun and breeze they need, or massive turf death comes pretty quickly, despite spoon feeding.
Some courses decide they can afford an unusual "conversation piece" green, others don't.
But back to design, I got to wondering what the strategic options were, other than length and club selection? And, if only club selection, does a green that might vary by 7 clubs really make the strategic element of club selection any better or worse, or even any more fun? Of course, a missed clubbing can result in a 70 yard putt, different than a equal length chip. I think such a green would be enhanced if, for instance, part of it was an elevated plateau, with another part being a punch bowl, even Redan, or a cross slope or some other unique feature so they play differently at each pin position, not just at a distance difference.
Hey, you could get all 4 of CB Mac's par 3 green concepts on one hole alone!
-
Falling a bit short of the 80 yard metric, 5th at Streamsong Blue to me is the best par 3 on property because of the uniqueness and flexibility of the green.
-
What of the #10 hole at Friar's Head? While I appreciate that such a unique hole was built I do find it less than appealing when played. I would guess that hole is 100 yards deep.
-
Four at Wilshire is almost exactly like this. So is four at Paa-Ko Ridge where I think the green is over 100 yards deep. I love these holes as long as there isn’t a “best” hole location where you’re kind of bummed if it’s cut somewhere else that day (i.e. front on a Biarritz!).
Wow. Nice mention of the 4th at Wilshire. Such a great hole now that they made it one, large, green.
-
Four at Wilshire is almost exactly like this. So is four at Paa-Ko Ridge where I think the green is over 100 yards deep. I love these holes as long as there isn’t a “best” hole location where you’re kind of bummed if it’s cut somewhere else that day (i.e. front on a Biarritz!).
Wow. Nice mention of the 4th at Wilshire. Such a great hole now that they made it one, large, green.
And the 10th is another fantastic par 3. In fact, so is the 7th. Hell, and the 13th. What a great collection of one-shotters.
-
I think the 7th at Glen Mills (outside Philadelphia) by Bobby Weed fits this thread. The green is probably 80 yards front to back with 4 levels and lots of movement. It plays uphill, probably as little as 160 and as much as 230. It’s sort of the 5th at Pine Valley on steroids. Even has a big drop off on the right and a left to right bounce on the left.
-
How deep is the green on 8 at TOC? The doubke green throws me off a little but it seems 60 yards at least?
-
Falling a bit short of the 80 yard metric, 5th at Streamsong Blue to me is the best par 3 on property because of the uniqueness and flexibility of the green.
Tell me more about this hole. I haven't been to Streamsong, and Ran did not list it as a "hole to note" in his Streamsong Blue profile.
I've seen a photo or two. Looks like a long, narrow green, with pretty punishing surroundings for a miss to one side or the other. But tell me about the green shaping. Do contours help run the ball toward or away from certain pins? And what's the recovery like if I, say, chunk a tee shot to a back pin and end up on the front part of the green? How tough is my long putt?
-
I want to dig into Jeff's post a little deeper...
Isn't there a cost in sustainability in an 80 yard deep green?
Construction, inputs, mowing?
Of course, as I mentioned on some recent thread. Most supers on a budget will push for greens up to about 6500, but no larger, i.e., the best compromise between enough cup space and no extra mowing and chemical inputs. There might be cases where, because of shade or other natural condition, a larger green would be required to spread wear. However, I find it is hard for greens to be "a little pregnant" under environmental stress - either they get the sun and breeze they need, or massive turf death comes pretty quickly, despite spoon feeding.
Some courses decide they can afford an unusual "conversation piece" green, others don't.
I think this is the crucial issue that separates, say, Tom Doak's thoughts on the 4th at PC(D) vs mine. For me, it's on the very short list of the most exciting par 3s I've played.
Tom, on the other hand, says he would check himself into rehab if he built that green. I've played Crystal Downs, and I've played a half-dozen or so of Tom's own designs. I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think his complaint is that the green has a lot of complexity and contour. I think his qualms with it are likely informed by his awareness of the cost ramifications involved in having such an enormous putting surface. If everyone who played the hole reacted like I did, then this "conversation piece" green would probably be worthwhile - something unique and special that brings players back to a remote and expensive golf resort. But clearly not everyone reacts like I did... do enough people love a hole like this to make its bottom-line impact a positive one?
In that sense, it's a microcosm for the entire course. PC(D) is probably the BIGGEST course I've played - tons of short grass, tons of options, tons of variability. Its bigness makes it memorable and exciting, but also raises the cost of maintenance. I know nothing of Prairie Club's finances and won't speculate. But if a course's coolest features also make it financially unsustainable, that surely indicts the design itself on some level. Or does it?
But back to design, I got to wondering what the strategic options were, other than length and club selection? And, if only club selection, does a green that might vary by 7 clubs really make the strategic element of club selection any better or worse, or even any more fun? Of course, a missed clubbing can result in a 70 yard putt, different than a equal length chip. I think such a green would be enhanced if, for instance, part of it was an elevated plateau, with another part being a punch bowl, even Redan, or a cross slope or some other unique feature so they play differently at each pin position, not just at a distance difference.
I THINK this is why I like the 4th at PC(D) over the 4th at Sweetens Cove. At PC(D), I've experienced firsthand that playing away from the pin and using green contours to feed the ball close can work. And from what I've seen, there are ways to use the slopes to access multiple pin locations. The result is the rare strategic par 3, where playing wisely away from the pin can build in some margin for error while still delivering good birdie looks.
4 at Sweetens might offer the same options, but the lack of visibility from the tee makes them harder to see and consider. With more plays, I might eventually figure out how to feed a ball to different pins. But currently, I feel like my best play is to aim for the target and try to hit it. It's still a cool and memorable target and a hole that I enjoy, but it's not quite as suspenseful or attention-grabbing for me.
-
It would take some tee box gymnastics (i.e. teeing off behind 1 green) to push 5 at Streamsong Blue over 200 yards, but the 75-yard-deep green makes that hole plenty elastic one day to the next.
There's a 185-190 shot out there from the tips to the back hole location. Today it was into the wind, too.
-
Falling a bit short of the 80 yard metric, 5th at Streamsong Blue to me is the best par 3 on property because of the uniqueness and flexibility of the green.
Tell me more about this hole. I haven't been to Streamsong, and Ran did not list it as a "hole to note" in his Streamsong Blue profile.
I've seen a photo or two. Looks like a long, narrow green, with pretty punishing surroundings for a miss to one side or the other. But tell me about the green shaping. Do contours help run the ball toward or away from certain pins? And what's the recovery like if I, say, chunk a tee shot to a back pin and end up on the front part of the green? How tough is my long putt?
I have more than one two-putt birdies on the hole.
I've hit more than one 5-iron approach, pure, that's ended up short of the hole.
Anything else you'd like to know?
-
Isn't there a cost in sustainability in an 80 yard deep green?
Construction, inputs, mowing?
I think this is the crucial issue that separates, say, Tom Doak's thoughts on the 4th at PC(D) vs mine. For me, it's on the very short list of the most exciting par 3s I've played.
Tom, on the other hand, says he would check himself into rehab if he built that green. I've played Crystal Downs, and I've played a half-dozen or so of Tom's own designs. I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think his complaint is that the green has a lot of complexity and contour. I think his qualms with it are likely informed by his awareness of the cost ramifications involved in having such an enormous putting surface. If everyone who played the hole reacted like I did, then this "conversation piece" green would probably be worthwhile - something unique and special that brings players back to a remote and expensive golf resort. But clearly not everyone reacts like I did... do enough people love a hole like this to make its bottom-line impact a positive one?
In that sense, it's a microcosm for the entire course. PC(D) is probably the BIGGEST course I've played - tons of short grass, tons of options, tons of variability. Its bigness makes it memorable and exciting, but also raises the cost of maintenance. I know nothing of Prairie Club's finances and won't speculate. But if a course's coolest features also make it financially unsustainable, that surely indicts the design itself on some level. Or does it?
Sustainability is always on my mind, to an extent, but clients also pay us to generate interest among golfers and sometimes a wild green is a way to do that. Lord knows I have built a few. 😉
My objection to the hole at The Prairie Club was that it looked like there were situations where there was no golf shot from the wrong part of the green to the right part, and further, that it wouldn't be easy to take that miss out of play. [ex. You can get stymied on the boomerang green at Crystal Downs, but you can also take that out of play by playing left, so if you're stymied it's a bad miss.]
To be fair, I haven't even played the hole once - the course was ckosed for the season, and I was in the midst of seeing 55 holes in one day. It just felt like they got carried away with it and hadn't considered all of the combinations, and it was too much for the golfer to simplify.
I have built some wild ones myself: tge 5th at Streamsong is a good example, that evolved as we shaped it. The hole locations are crazy different, and you don't just fly it to the part where the hole is. But if the pin is in the bowl and you miss it, there are ways to get close from every other part of the green, and vice versa. You don't have to putt twenty feet short to a corner, or risk putting off the green to try and get to the right quadrant. I'm not a fan of greens like that.
-
How deep is the green on Streamsong Red Number 8? I remember a deep one on Black as well. Was that part of the brief from the developers?
Ira
-
How deep is the green on Streamsong Red Number 8? I remember a deep one on Black as well. Was that part of the brief from the developers?
Ira
Not as deep as Blue #5, but with flexibility ranging from the Pat Mucci Ace setup of approx. 75 yards to 165 yards depending on the tee location (left or right).
-
I think the 7th at Glen Mills (outside Philadelphia) by Bobby Weed fits this thread. The green is probably 80 yards front to back with 4 levels and lots of movement. It plays uphill, probably as little as 160 and as much as 230. It’s sort of the 5th at Pine Valley on steroids. Even has a big drop off on the right and a left to right bounce on the left.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/912/28155533658_a2a4fe58a2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JU1teu)
Glen Mills #7 uphill par 3 from front tee (https://flic.kr/p/JU1teu)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/912/42028710531_46d28422b8_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/272W8oc)
Glen Mills #7 left side of green (https://flic.kr/p/272W8oc) The entire green didn't fit in this frame
-
Four at Wilshire is almost exactly like this. So is four at Paa-Ko Ridge where I think the green is over 100 yards deep. I love these holes as long as there isn’t a “best” hole location where you’re kind of bummed if it’s cut somewhere else that day (i.e. front on a Biarritz!).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2937/14187678128_ea19ac2ace_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nBHyq9)
Paa-Ko Ridge #4 par 3 180 yards to middle from tips - tiered green is almost 100 yards deep (https://flic.kr/p/nBHyq9)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/2913/14187731580_d25a6572bb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nBHQiJ)
Paa-Ko Ridge #4 view back over very deep green (https://flic.kr/p/nBHQiJ)
-
For whatever reason, I woke up this morning thinking about this one. While not the sole criteria for selecting one design over another, it occurred to me that par 3 holes back up play, and in general, a design that might create confusion, extremely long putts, lots of chip shots, etc., might back play up even more.
For at least many courses, as exciting as that design might be for the 3% (or 0.03%) interested in architecture, would it be appreciated by course managers and/or the 99.97% of golfers who find the worst part of golf is slow play? In considering everything that must be considered in most designs, is it worth it overall, given the extra maintenance AND reduced revenues it might cause? :o
Of course, thinking even more broadly about par 3 holes and back ups, I wonder if we would have to (gasp!!) rethink Ross's dictum that will the ball on a tee, and distance controlled, it is feasible/desirable to make par 3 holes harder shots that you would otherwise? On at least the modern public course, from the middle tees forward at least, should all par 3 holes be shorter than 170 yards and with greens slightly (but not overly) larger than what we would expect most bogey golfers to hit, with few hazards, and gentle putting contours, so they can get a move on, finish the hole, and not back up play?
-
My objection to the hole at The Prairie Club was that it looked like there were situations where there was no golf shot from the wrong part of the green to the right part, and further, that it wouldn't be easy to take that miss out of play. [ex. You can get stymied on the boomerang green at Crystal Downs, but you can also take that out of play by playing left, so if you're stymied it's a bad miss.]
To be fair, I haven't even played the hole once - the course was ckosed for the season, and I was in the midst of seeing 55 holes in one day. It just felt like they got carried away with it and hadn't considered all of the combinations, and it was too much for the golfer to simplify.
I'd like to tell you that 4 at PC(D) provides routes to any pin from anywhere on the green, but it's now been almost 10 years since the one day I played it and I honestly can't claim that in good faith.
But like you say, someone who gets stymied on 7 at Crystal Downs has hit a really bad shot. And to get stymied on 4 at PC(D), you also have to hit a really bad shot. I know you can get close to a front left pin OR a back right pin from the center of the green. I can't vouch that you can putt from front left to back right and have a realistic chance to get reasonably close, for example. But I do know that if you're facing that shot, you've missed the target by about 60-80 yards. I think that constitutes a pretty terrible miss, and if your best chance of two-putting in that situation is to either make a 20 footer or pull a Woodland, I'm okay with that. How much better am I supposed to think you'd have fared getting down in two with a wedge from 70 yards away on fairway instead?
Jeff, I think you make a fair point for the majority of courses. But while the logic around designing to keep golfers moving makes a lot of sense, it doesn't always hold up in practice. If I think of the courses in my area with the most user-friendly design - the places that architecturally seem like they'd be easiest to play quickly due to lack of length, hazards, and other slowdown-causing features - I think of a couple city-owned munis that attract a crowd of beginners and hacks that leads to some of the most abhorrently slow play I've ever experienced. That's anecdotal, but it does seem to me like there's a threshold level of architectural interest that draws a savvier clientele, and leaning too much into designing to keep people moving might sometimes backfire by failing to meet it.
-
Jason,
Generally, I agree with you. Golfers may not understand architecture, but they do recognize courses they like, probably due to some combo of beauty and design interest. And, a few like the unusual, as the described green would be, for certain. I do think a creative architect can come up with all the desirable attributes without it being drop dead dull, however, and it doesn't have to be muni level or US Open tough. So, the question still stands, for any given course, would the green in the OP - described as a template, which suggests an architect would use it every course - be able to provide design interest, "fair play" (as TD describes it, being able to putt anywhere on the green) and keep play moving.
As I mentioned, I have used a 90 yard long green on both par 4 holes and once on a par 5. Thinking again only about speed of play, maybe using this kind of green, which might slow down play, on the hole preceding a par 3 might be the best use. Just a thought.