When Does a Hole End - in length terms, is it the Green?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Another question relating in part to rear Green Bunkers

One, of courses, would immediately state that if the Tee is the starting point then the hole in the Green is the finishing point of that Hole. But is it, does that really equate? Yes, the Tee is the starting point but the Green is just the target with the pin/hole the bulls eye, but it is not the end of the Hole. Many Holes continue past the Green, normally with a bunker or an assortment of shrubs subject the location which seems to define the end of the Hole, yet no actual distance from start to finish is ever disclosed only the Tee to Pin length  - understandable as you are play to the pin.

While many may be in agreement that the top tier of golfers can achieve good distance with a fair degree of accuracy by utilizing the latest equipment technology, the vast majority of golfers cannot. So the course past the pin is very much part of the course and IMHO should be allowed to play its part  in the outcome of the game. By that I mean the Green should not have rear catchment bunkers to save the wayward ball, nor shrubs to kill the game but a continuance of the fairway allowing the ball to come to rest on its own accord. No, I am not advocating a 40-50 yard run on but more that is currently allowed with then perhaps bunkers etc..

We have concentrated in developing the equipment to the extent that we regard the Green as the end of the Hole instead of just the actual target. Many Designers complete the Green with its catchment bunker as a fail save stop for the majority of the error shots. My opinion being that we should let them run on to enhance the game and teach the need to master some level of skill while planning the approach to the Hole with adequate thought.

To combat the long shots more hazards I believe should be placed to the front of the Green forcing that thought process of approaching the Pin, perhaps from the reverse which may just add a little spice the a round. Whatever, I do believe that rear Green Bunkers are a haven for the lesser skilled golfer who use then as stops rather than putting more thought into planning their shots.

So do you think that a Hole should be allowed to play beyond the Greens rear hazards? Should the rear hazards be that close to the Green? Also should the Hole be defined by the Tee to Pin or the full length of the playable field? Noting we are addressing the average player not the top 1 or 2% of Golfers.

Melvyn

[Kalen Braley]

Melyvn,

I agree completely.

They should blow up the 18th at TOC and start over again, as there is nowhere to play behind the green. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

Sorry you could not see what I was Driving at – no worries, it was only a GCA question - the overall length was just a Red Herring.

A Player/Golfer question

[Mike Nuzzo]

I thought Kalen's answer was super - he believes the hole is great - but that it didn't conform to your suggestion.
Sometimes great architecture is random.

If wanting to discuss great holes with lots of room behind the green...here is one:
Have you seen Rustic Canyon from above?

Most golf architecture isn't worth discussing.
Why don't you discuss the courses that are worth discussing - that have the values that you prefer.
They are out there.
This forum/website can help you find them.

Have you read all the course profiles?

Cheers

[RJ_Daley]

I remember a thread some years ago where it may have been Tom Huckaby that proposed a hole design that the second shot had little advantage to try to judge the exact distance to a shot onto the green or pin high due to the foregreen hazard and front to back slope of the green, along with arrayed near side hazards, thus the best play was to hit it beyond the green to some advantageous "long lay-up" yardage to pitch back on from the rear.  So, that yardage of the hole may be measured as the yardage to an LZ off the tee, plus yardage beyond the green to the optimal pitcvh back LZ, plus yardage back onto the green for the third.  Interesting concept, I'd say.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike/Kalen

18th TOC, Its been there, done it, I believe even got the Teeshirt. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike/Kalen

18th TOC, Its been there, done it, I believe even got the Teeshirt. 

What does this mean?
Why would you post this?
Cheers

[Kalen Braley]

RJ,

I wouldn't doubt that Huck thought of it 1st....darn it I thought that was my idea!!!      

Here is a hole I submitted for consideration years ago on this site.  A short par 4 where the play was to drive over the green with the tee shot and hit back to the green for the 2nd shot.  Perhaps not the greatest idea, but something unusual none-the-less.

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,


George Thomas had some ideas on this but for what may be the opposite reasoning. He didn't view rear bunkers as fail safe catch-alls but rather has impediments to aggressive play, and he advocated for leaving room behind the green to reward (or at least not to punish) the player who to aggressively approached the hole and just happened to go over by a bit.

[Bill_McBride]

I remember a thread some years ago where it may have been Tom Huckaby that proposed a hole design that the second shot had little advantage to try to judge the exact distance to a shot onto the green or pin high due to the foregreen hazard and front to back slope of the green, along with arrayed near side hazards, thus the best play was to hit it beyond the green to some advantageous "long lay-up" yardage to pitch back on from the rear.  So, that yardage of the hole may be measured as the yardage to an LZ off the tee, plus yardage beyond the green to the optimal pitcvh back LZ, plus yardage back onto the green for the third.  Interesting concept, I'd say.

The Redan at North Berwick, in fact I guess most Redans, the simplest par with a back pin is through the green and chip back uphill to the hole.

[Bill_McBride]

Melvyn,


George Thomas had some ideas on this but for what may be the opposite reasoning. He didn't view rear bunkers as fail safe catch-alls but rather has impediments to aggressive play, and he advocated for leaving room behind the green to reward (or at least not to punish) the player who to aggressively approached the hole and just happened to go over by a bit.

The bunkers behind the greens at the Valley Club are insidious; all of those greens are pretty well pitched back to front.  Those are not saving or "catch-alls" at all.   Try stopping a shot from one of these bunkers onto a 3^o surface at 10-11 stimp!

3rd green.  Look at the elevation change back to front!


15th green, three small tiers make it tough to get on the right tier.

[Mark McKeever]

RJ,

I wouldn't doubt that Huck thought of it 1st....darn it I thought that was my idea!!!      

Here is a hole I submitted for consideration years ago on this site.  A short par 4 where the play was to drive over the green with the tee shot and hit back to the green for the 2nd shot.  Perhaps not the greatest idea, but something unusual none-the-less.

Kalen,

This is sort of a similar way that the players approach 15 at Augusta.  Throw it long and pitch it back.  Just sub out the mounds with the pond that fronts the green.

Mark

[RJ_Daley]

Kalen, your drawing does look like what I had in mind.  Although, Huck may have offered one too  If your green was sloped front teeing ground side to back, fairway beyond, and a deep swale was at the rear, with that bunker behind, and then a gentle slope from the fairway beyond back into the green, with the fairway beyond leveling out the further back you go, I think it would be a blast.  I'd envision the yardages similar to yours.  175-85 to the green, but about 220-1280 behind to the ever more leveling fairway back there.  Thus, a big hitter might hit it 275-290 to a levelish lie, and then pitch it back onto what would then be a back to front sloping green.  So, played as a short par 4.  The only downside would be that it would seriously screw up pace of play through the holes, as everyone would have to wait until the group ahead played the hole out as a par 4.

But you had quite an armchair architect moment there with that one, and I for one would love to play it! 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

What does this mean?

It means that the site of 18th Green on TOC was not the end of the course in the 1850’s.  There is a photo from that period showing golfers passed that point somewhere around the R&A car park/Golf Place with the Martyr’s Monument in the rear and if memory serves me correctly a cannon too. In other words the courses played passed the current 18th Green.



Why would you post this?

I posted it in response to Kalen comment.

[Adam Makepeace]

Melvyn,

I also read your thoughts regarding rear bunkers on the other thread.

Does the green site chosen not have an impact on the placement of green side hazards, whether they are at the front, side or rear of the green? What is your suggestion for elevated greens built into a slope as per Bill's two examples above? Playing a devilish downhill bunker shot, sometimes from a down hill lie can be significantly more difficult than its alternative.

Although I appreciate your point of view, if architecture is about providing a variety of unique challenges, surely varying the location of hazards around 18 different green complexes is important.

[Ronald Montesano]

Sort of like having space behind a lacrosse net/goal, in contrast to a sport like football/soccer, where the end line and the goal line are the same>?

I'm not a big fan of a hazard that forces you to throw the ball anywhere. However, if one wished to encourage this sort of approach to playing the hole, a green that slopes away from the approach fairway might do the trick. It would certainly be unique, as the tile would need to be severe enough to repel balls past the green surface.

Kalen's hole is gimmicky to me. I'd certainly play it for a chance to change my mind, but it sets up an impediment for those who can't hit the ball high enough to carry the trees. The first bunker would create a double-hazard situation (sand and trees), which also goes against my humble thinking.

Does the hole have to end there? No, but what's the profound and grounded justification for not doing so?

[Kalen Braley]

RJ,

Thanks for the kind words....my drawing skills leave a lot to be desired.  But if that drawing launches my golf course design career, then so be it!!   

Ronald,

There are no trees on my design.  The brown splotchy bits are supposed to represent being either dunes or hillocks.  As the green slopes downward away from the player on the tee box, the ideal tee shot would be to hit it over the green, and then chip back to the green which would now be sloping rear to front and be receptive of a chip.