[TEPaul]

.......STRATEGY?!?

I just mentioned in another thread that one of the original themes of Dick Wilson's Meadowbrook Club (1955), Jericho LI was some really enormous greens--some probably close to 15,000sf.

It seems like RTJ was doing some enormous greens in that same era. Of course there were some enormous greens in the early American era too, such as NGLA, even PVGC with a few probably well over 12,000sf! Did the original architectural idea emanate from TOC? I'd assume so.

It seems to me the evolution of architecture sort of cycles between eras of large green popularity to small green popularity and back again.

The whole idea of "greens within a green" have been talked about on here many times and what they mean in the way of interesting strategies and extremely large green surfaces are generally necessary to fit a number of greens within a green into one unified space but some of the greens at Meadowbrook, for instance, or the 10th hole at RTJ's London Hunt club which is a full 90yds long on a diagonal don't have  much slope or contour in them--there're just basically super enormous.

But even greens that are super enormous without much slope or contour in them can be extremely interesting to play strategically. Greens like that are definitely not the kind that a player can get the yardage to the middle of and play accordingly, not unless one occassionally wants about a 100+ft putt!

How about the return of super enormous greens here and there if for nothing else for their interest of approach strategies?

On that note one hole I would recommend again would benefit bigtime from this and probably make it a true world class hole would be Pacific Dunes #13. If they stretched that green surface back a good 25-30 yards right into that narrowed down natural back that hole would be just awesome in all the ramifications of its green-end!!

[Norbert P]

.......STRATEGY?!?


...  Pacific Dunes #13. If they stretched that green surface back a good 25-30 yards right into that narrowed down natural back that hole would be just awesome...

  I believe Doug Wright proposed that scenario last Winter with PD 13.  Interesting vortex of minds.

  As for the big greens, I do believe they have their place if thoughtfully regarded.  It does bring up the "ground game" concentration for the player.  Forcing them to look at the ground and not just the target.  

 

[Doug Siebert]

Big greens also somewhat nullify the advantage of having yardage markers on every sprinkler head.  If I'm playing to a smaller green that's 25 yards deep I can play to the middle and even if I don't have any indication or knowledge of whether the pin is in the front/middle/back I'm within 35 feet if I hit it where I intended.  Try that on a green is that is 50 yards deep and you'll probably make a lot of three putts.

[DMoriarty]

For what it's worth,  I too wondered why they did not extend the green on  PD 13 back into the narrow.  When we were there (early spring) the sand buildup back there was incredible, probably 3-4 inches from the beach below and/or the dune.  Perhaps this area just collects too much sand to work as part of the green?  

I'm afraid that those who dont believe in strategy wouldn't find much merit in your claim that large greens might make an otherwise uninteresting hole more strategic, especially if  the surface is relatively flat.  Apparently these guys just figure the correct distance, dial it in to their mental computers, and fire it exactly to the flag.  

But come to think of it, this should be the case with small greens, as well . . . perhaps the next step should be to do away with greens all-together.  Just place clothes hampers out at the end of the fairways and let these guys fly it into the bucket.  I wonder who the first architect will be to stick a clothes hamper in an inner-tube and call it an island green?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

# 13 at PD is one of my favorite holes and we've discussed extending the green back, but, I'm afraid, if you did that, that golfers lining up putts hit behind the hole might never be heard from again.

I'm scheduled to play Meadow Brook again, in the near future.
In addition, my host has offered to research the selling off of a number of holes, and related information.  I'll report back to you as soon as I find out more about the revisions to Meadow Brook.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Basically if holes were sold off at Meadowbrook they must have been sold off super early in Dick Wilson's project there for as far as I can remember that golf course is the same way it's been from just about when the golf club moved from its original Westbury site.

Maybe they sold off some holes back when the course was under construction after me and Herman Whiton (whose parents owned the place) wrecked those early holes by driving through bunkers and launching his 1929 milk truck onto a few newly constructed green surfaces!!  

[Tony Petersen]

  I'm not sure of the hole, but I believe #4 at PaaKo Ridge is something to behold... Par 3, green is close to 100 hundred yards long, triple-tiered! Talk about a tough 2 putt!!! Still, it's the kind of design that makes you come back for more

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Some of the original holes remain and can be seen as you play the front nine.  

I think this occured well after Dick Wilson crafted the original
18 holes, but as I said, I'll make it a point to try to get clarification on who, what and when.

The first time I saw Meadow Brook I was amazed at the size of the greens, they were enormous.

I however, prefer the greens within greens concept for large greens, like #'s 3 and 6 at NGLA.

The 9th green seems rather large, but, with the exception of the perimeter hole locations, doesn't offer much challenge to  the approach shot, whereas the different hole locations at
# 3 and # 6 have an enormous impact on the approach shot and putts.

Dick Wilson's greens at Pine Tree are rather small in comparison.  Perhaps Dick Wilson could provide a greater range of design then most give him credit for.

[Mike_Cirba]

One of the interesting and challenging facets of Moselem Springs in PA is the very large, multi-dimensional greens created by George Fazio.  They put enormous pressure on approach shots, and there are few courses where the excuse of "too many three putts" to account for a bad round doesn't hold water.

Another good example of a very large green creating deception and indecision is the par three 14th at Hidden Creek.  

I also recall playing a course in the Poconos during the 1970s called Lords Valley Country Club (Norman Woods - designer) where the par five 7th hole features a green about 50-70 yards long and about 15 yards wide, angled at about 45 degrees to the direct line of play.  It certainly offered a variety in terms of setup!

[Forrest Richardson]

A recent discussion tackles The European Club. Like it or not, Pat Ruddy was able (as he was the client!) to use a fascinating idea I tried to sell many years ago: The verrrrrry long green that allows a hole to play 5-6 clubs different depending on the pin position. I believe it is No. 12.

15,000 s.f.? Pat, that sounds tame. A realllllly big green would need to be at least 25,000 s.f. to be considered beyond "normal big".

Jack Snyder created a 25,000 s.f. green here in Phoenix that serves a split fairway hole (one fairway playing to its own portion) and a separate hole playing in from the opposite side., which also has optional approach angles. It really is four greens in one.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

While rather large the greens of Moselem Springs aren't large in comparison to what some of Meadowbrook's greens are or once were.

Pat:

I think the 4th green was unusually large as well as the par 3 #6. Many of the others once were really big but by no means all of them (#5 was small).

Dick Wilson obviously mixed things up bigtime in what he did. I've not been there but my understanding is Deepdale has rather small but unusually complicated greens that have always been scary to putt.

As far as what you call 'the old holes at Meadowbrook' it was always my belief that those holes (behind #1, #2 tee, #3 green et al that were near the Jericho turnpike) were temporary holes at best when the course was under construction. I remember the little hut out there that served as the clubhouse (or whatever) for the members to come and practice when the course was under construction. If you look on some of the old aerials you can see the old road out to that hut. I seem to recall that the noise level out in that section (from the Jericho turnpike) was sort of a problem!

In other words I doubt those holes would be something of interest or worthy of restoration for any reason. At that early time Meadowbrook club and course was under construction but for some reason the Whitons who owned and still lived in the house and property that is now around the clubhouse had not turned it over to Meadowbrook. If they had I can't imagine how or why Hermann Whiton and I would've been driving around the course as we did in his 1929 milk truck. He lived then in what is now Meadowbrook's clubhouse!

[T_MacWood]

The 15th green at Oakmont is big now, but at one time it was enormous (as is the 9th green). It would be interesting to know Fownes thoughts on those greens.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

While rather large the greens of Moselem Springs aren't large in comparison to what some of Meadowbrook's greens are or once were.

Yes, I'm sure that's true, Tom, never having seen Meadowbrook.  I guess I was simply trying to draw on your original point that large greens can create their own strategy, if imaginatively implemented.

Perhaps the biggest green I've seen apart from The Old Course is one created by Hurdzan and Fry at Sand Barrens in NJ, that serves the 2nd & 13th holes which come from opposite directions.  

It's a mere 55,000 square feet and contains a heckuva lot of internal contour.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Didn't Forsgate have the largest green in the world at one time ?  I think it was a medium lenght par 4 in a punchbowl setting, I forget the hole number, I thought it was # 4 or # 5  Perhaps Matt Ward knows.

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

That fact alone is going to make me go visit Sand Barrens!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

It's definitely worth seeing, although I've only played the original 18 holes of the 27 hole complex.  Basically, they started digging at ground level and found pure sand just underneath, so the ended up creating all of their sand "features' by digging down.  On some holes, the look is almost like a bowling alley with gutters.

Here's from a review of the course, concerning the green in question;

"The 55,000-square-foot, boomerang-shaped double green at the second and 13th holes, stretching nearly 400 feet from end to end, is a case in point. The dips and swales in this massive green make the undulations on the Himalayas putting course at St. Andrews seem tame."

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  I've seen that green at Sand Barrens.  It's a waste of maintenance dollars, and it would be a waste of fuel for you to make the trip just to see it.

Then again, I'm not a big fan of "super-large" greens unless they exist for a very good reason.  Generally I can't think of a good reason for greens that are both long AND wide, because players aren't going to aim away from them ... they're just going to have a very long putt if they miss it by a lot.

The greens at the Old Course are cool because most of them aren't very deep, and there are hazards guarding a wide swath of some of them.  If the pin is tucked way left and you can't go over the bunker and hold the green and you play a bit too wide and safe from the bunker, you get a LONG putt.  But if the green was deeper, there would be no reason to aim to the right of the bunker, and there would be no strategy ... you'd just be getting a long putt when you hit a bad approach.

The ninth at Oakmont is cool because if you go for the green in two, and get on but not very close, that may be worse than having laid up ... the large green is a sort of penalty for an indiscriminate long approach.

However, I am not a fan of long multi-tiered greens like #4 at Paa Ko Ridge, where if a player hits a fat iron shot he winds up with a 100-foot putt up three tiers.  To me, it's a gimmick which doesn't fit in on that course at all.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, How do you say, Ted Robinson? (the king of the three-tiered green!)

[Mark_Fine]

Large greens can be quite expensive to maintain.  On a typical country club course back East, my guess is that the average maintenance cost per square foot of green is about $800.  You can do the math.  Of course they do spread out wear on courses getting a lot of play.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

Your cost per square foot can't be accurate.

Are you sure you didn't misplace a decimal point ?

I don't think that the incremental cost to maintain larger greens is that significant to the overall budget.

Where would the big jump in cost be ?

Water,
Fertilizer
Gas
Labor
Equipment
Chemicals
Aeration
Top Dressing

If the square footage was 114,000 including the practice putting green, a 20 % increase on the golf course would result in and additional 21,600, 40 % 43,200.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Some very nice points on very large greens particularly deep ones. I'm very familiar with Oakmont's 9th (melded into the practice green behind it). Frankly if the pin is on the right side of #9 the best idea if you're going to miss that pin is to miss the green right along side it because if you miss that shot wide left of that pin you're probably going to be hitting the next shot after your first putt from that same spot off the green to the right anyway! I saw that a bunch of times in last years state am.

It's not that different from Hogan's strategy on #1 and #10 Oakmont when he won the Open. They asked him why he kept hitting his approaches over those greens and he said because he'd rather be there in two than in three!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Doak- I 've just returned from Paa-koo and while I did not have the 100 foot putt, someone in our group did. They made their par. A hundred feet is only 1/3 of the green, but if it were close to a 100 yard putt, why doesn't the guy deserve to have that putt, after failing to come within 100 yards of the pin?  Plus, there is something to the story of how that green came into being. I applaud the risk taken to do  something that different. Without it, there would be no reward.
P.s. Congrats on Lubbock. I felt as though I was in Scotland and honestly felt it was the most thought provoking course I've ever played. BTW, it blew a steady 25, with gusts close to 40. All out of the non-prevailing direction, sometimes mixed with a little misty rain. It really was fun, challenging and for a sadist like myself, all I could ask for, out of a golf course. Thanx for saving me the airfare to see Rihc.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You are right.  I got my numbers from our Superintendent and I need to have him double check them.  Maintenance costs have to go up, however, with increased size for all the reasons you mentioned.
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak;

I know you're not a big fan of gargantuan greens, and I know you think even less of double greens like the one I mentioned at Sand Barrens.

Yes, they are generally there as publicity-grabbing, conversation pieces and come across as subtle as a sledgehammer as obvious marketing tools.

However, the reason I told Tom Paul that I thought it was worth seeing is really not that I'm somehow caught up in the hype of something unusually different.  It's simply that I truly believe that someone interested in architecture should make a point of seeing anything and everything that's "different", or attempting to stretch the envelope.  Yes, some of it works well enough and some of it doesn't, but what frame of reference does someone have if they only visit the greatest and most successful coureses?  

You've seen a lot of courses and the great majority of them in your travels have been less than magnificent.  I believe that it's given you a very good sense of what is worth emulating and what isn't, and I think your sense of what entails great architecture is shaped as much by seeing the 2's and 3's as the 8's and 9's.

In any case, I didn't find the huge double green at Sand Barrens nearly as offensive as you seem to, although I must admit that it's lacking approach shot strategy (except for distance control).  However, I did enjoy seeing a green with THAT much internal contour and variation within an acre and a quarter of green space.  

Like a car accident, it's hard to avert the eyes, and there are lessons, both good and bad to be learned.  

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

I didn't find the green at Sand Barrens that offensive ... I just didn't see much merit in it, and it DOES cost a bit to do that kind of thing.  (Sprinkler heads within the green aren't cheap.)


That reminds me, though, it's pretty funny for me to be saying this stuff when right now in the dirt in Tasmania we have one of the biggest wildest greens ever -- the par-3 13th, which Brian Schneider and I call "Sitwell Park."  That one will make the trip worthwhile ... even a trip to Tasmania.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()