[David_Elvins]

I am interested in the relationship between green complexes and hole length and whether the importance of matching a green's design to the length of a hole is overblown or not.

I would be really interested to hear from people as to what they thought the ideal lengths for the following holes would be, based on the design of the green (or atleast what you interpet to be the design of the green from the photo).  If you dont know the holes in question, even better.

Thanks

No 1


No 2


No 3

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I think the first photo should be for a driveable par 4, if it's the hole I'm thinking of.

I can't tell that much from the photos, so I can't speculate on the others (of course I know what hole the third picture is).  But, generally, I don't think the correlation between hole length and green design is as strict as some people insist it should be.  I'm a big defender of the idea that a very long par-4 should sometimes have a small or severe green, because most people will be playing a short third shot to it.

[Tim Rooney]

Tom, how often are you presenting the less forgiving/long par 4 Green complex----Routinely/Rarely(one per 18)?The Spectacles Hole certainly,however never considered your rationale description.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Don't you have to consider things besides length, too, such as how hard and fast the course plays and, in the case of the first and third photos, whether the green falls away?

[Peter Nomm]

Not knowing the holes, my thought at first glance is:

#1 - long par 4
#2 - shorter par 4
#3 - par 5

Just my $.02 -  

[Scott Witter]

David:

It is impossible IMO to project what greens might work best from the photos you show, simply because they are only a snap shot and don't show the entire hole with all the physical conditions that led to the greens, not a criticism of the pictures.  When I first started, I initially approached the design of a green site while thinking of length, difficulty, etc.  But that didn't last very long as I could quickly see there were too many other essential factors, natural features, man-made, topo, wind, firmness of soil, short-vs-long grass around putting surfaces, shot angles, etc, that had more significant influence on the 'actual' design of the green.

I do think there is a correlation between length and green design, but there is so much in between those two elements/parameters that must be taken into careful consideration to get it right.  The correlation, however, IMO is overblown.  On the other hand, many architects do design this way, with a tighter/stricter relationship and do just fine with it, but I don't believe you end up with the best design given the site conditions that led up to the green site and around the site itself.  Usually, it is a bit more manufactured looking.

There are a couple of par 5's I built some years ago that sport fairly large putting surfaces and almost every player must approach them with a wedge due to their long length. To this day, both rank among the toughest holes on each course because of the subtle, but interesting contour built in the surfaces and the relationship to the surrounding terrain.  The surrounds say one thing but the greens don't agree.

[jeffwarne]

I think there are plenty of "successful" architects who could either from the photos or a site inspection tell you how long the holes should be.

The fact that most of their courses suck doesn't mean they're not successful



This all goes back to the ideas of fairness, shot values.
How about a hole that's 485 with the smallest green on the course? Whatever happened to hitting a long iron to a small target as a way to separate yourself from someone who can't?
or one that's 296 ,open in front, that's quite large?
fairness and preconcieved notions about how large or difficult a green should be based on its' length are how we got into the architectural abyss we're just starting to get out of.
Not every hole needs to average par. AGNC used to be the best example of this.

[Norbert P]

David, since, in that first picture, my ball rolled over the green into the back bunker, it should be dug up and lengthened by about 10 yards longer that it is.  


Really though, loved the hole, I think I played a 4 iron or 5W  short of the bunkers on the lower left (as viewed from tee).  It's a short hole, and memory serves me that it was not a large green but with right side slope, with tight cut, was puttable to pinnables, or usable as a funneler for approach.  Funny how it looks easy in hindsight, but when I was there, for the first time, it was a bit confusing from down low. I imagine with a few more plays, I might become (a little) wiser.

[Andrew Summerell]

#1 – A par 2 where you putt from just off the green. In fact, if you look really hard & squint your eyes, you can almost see the tee up in the shadows to the left.

#2 – This is from a ‘pitch & putt’ course & plays at about 85y.

#3 – This is a target green from David’s local driving range.

Seriously though, it’s interesting how people say the green complex shouldn’t dictate, or indicate, the length of the hole. I find a majority of the time it does in some way. Where I find it often doesn’t is on older courses, mostly on half par holes or holes where the par has been changed over the years, especially throughout the British Isles.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()