"Switching" green sites

[Ran Morrissett]

Occasionally, you hear someone's like of a par five hole because it possessed alternate routes ala 14 at St. Andrews. Or someone compares a short par four green to the tiny one at 8 at Pine Valley.

Such comparisons are between similar holes - i.e. par fives to par fives, short par fours to short par fours, etc.

What about doing more mixing and matching?

For instance, the 14th at Yeamans Hall is a tough Knoll hole of 410 yards with a 12 foot deep bunker angled down its entire left side and a 6 foot deep bunker down its right side. I remarked to my playing partner this past weekened wouldn't it be neat if this was the green complex at the end of a 530 yard hole? Because of the severity around the green, an up and down is far from a certainty and the big hitter really would have to think about matters before having a rip at it in two.

What are some other interesting combos out there?

I think the 2nd green complex at Pine Valley would be FASCINATING at the end of a 500 yarder as a) you best hit the fairway off the tee so you can advance your 2nd well down the hole and b) going for it in two would definitely get the heart racing   (like 14 at Yeamans, the green is sufficiently huge to receive a 230 yard shot).

Cheers,

PS Last example: suppose 16 and 17 at Pebble were a par five - wouldn't the 17th green be an interesting one at the end of such a hole (we'll call it around 550 yards)? If you can draw your three wood onto the green, you're a legend (!) but if you come up short, you might have a 40 yard bunker shot with the Pacific Ocean smiling at you on your choppy down swing.

[Brad Miller]

Maybe by definition a great green complex would be fun to play regardless of it starting out as a one, two and/or three shotter with the excetion being certain current green complexes that are built in conjunction with short par 3's and short 4's. (examples PV#8 and PB#7)

Don't see may going for PV#8 in 2 if it were a 500 yarder, although I seem to recall that it has been driven.

[redanman (Guest)]

Why stop at 4 vs 5.  Green#1 at PVGC would be a just fine 3, 4 or 5.

[Ran Morrissett]

Brad, I hear what you're saying but the 13th green at Augusta National (even pre-Nicklaus swale) would lose a lot as a par three. The reason? The golfer is guaranteed a level stance.

[Brad Miller]

Ran, good point, just one of the many reasons you have 5 stars next to your name
Part of the charm of the 2nd shot at PV#8 is the stance, as with many other examples we might come up with.

[TEPaul]

I tried this mixing and matching topic a couple of months ago but I guess people weren't feeling real imaginative.

The reason I got to thinking about it was when doing a routing on open land you plan out holes and then after a while you start to notice that there are other interesting ways to come at various greens if they're contructed or oriented in particular ways. Then you start thinking about greens you know anywhere and everywhere and start to think what  could be used best for this purpose here and there--let's say multi-purpose on various landforms--hole landforms. Then you start thinking about doubling up on tees and going in various directions here and there to see what you have or coming from various directions and seeing what multi-purpose greens you have that become multi-purpose holes and then you start to think about how they can all be routed in various ways and what you can come up with. If you get lucky you might come up with what I call courses within a course and if you really get lucky the whole thing can actually end up a bit like a Rohrshach test--which is when you look at it you see one thing only and nothing else. In other words you do have courses within a course but you really only see one (at a time)!! This is extremely interesting because theoretically although you have a golf course if you're lucky and it's done well you could have two courses, or three of four or who knows!

To do this large degrees of openness and width are sometimes necessary though and nice rolling terrain is a big help.

An example, given a different routing but using one green could be Merion's #5 hole as is but then a par 3 using the same green coming from well over from the left of #5 green.

Or how about par 3s coming at NGLA's #7 from well over to the left straight into the wide end from about 210 or coming from the other direction dead into the narrow end from about 160 to the middle? Or maybe NGLA's #1 at the end of a 500yds go/no go par 5, or directly into the gut of PV's #12 from about 165, or directly from the right of PV's #8 as about a 100yd par 3 with a tee level to the green; Maidstone's #17 as a 145 yd par 3, or maybe at the end of a 520yd par 5 coming straight at it! How about NGLA's #3 as a par 3 coming from #5's back tee--it would be an awesome hole! So many notes and so many arrangements!

[Bill_McBride]

Given the general apathy about Pasatiempo's #17, and the par 3 finishing hole (no apathy there), I believe a par 5 played from the 17th tee to the 18th green would be a great hole.  Might even be reachable in two for Woods or Daly!  Of course you'd have to find another par 3 somewhere out there on the back 9.

[Peter Galea]

Bill, there is an "alternate" par 3 on the back nine at Pasatiempo. It's in the corner of the property behind 14 tee. I believe it is now a nursery green. It is tiered. You could finish 13, walk to the right and play the hole, then come off left to 14 tee. Not that I would ever 2nd guess MacKenzie.

[Bill_McBride]

Thanks, Pete, that's very cool!  Let's sneak out early next week and lay it out!  Tiered green - could never be as wild as #18 but that would give you at least six truly wild greens on that back nine!  11, 13, new 14, old 14, 16, 18.