[Dan Herrmann]

At the end of 2020, our long-time and beloved head greenkeeper retired.   He saved our course (French Creek GC in Pennsylvania - Hanse, 2003) back in 2009-ish from ruin due to sick greens and overwatered fairways.   


One of his practices was to set hole locations to be relatively simple.  Goals were to speed the pace of play (which wasn't a significant problem), and perhaps to make golfers "happy" by having fairly straight putts.


The role was assumed by his lead assistant.   The new guy and his #1 assistant play golf and love the subtleties of the greens that Hanse built.   So they started placing holes in places I hadn't seen since the course was new about 18 years ago.   I actually have to read greens again and, more importantly, I've fallen in love with the greens all over again.


Point is that simply taking full advantage of what Gil built in 2003 has excited members and visitors and has proven to be tremendously successful (even if my scoring average has increased  


Have others had similar experiences?

[Mike_Clayton]

Funny - I play a lot at St Andrews Beach - a fabulous course Tom Doak designed to be a members course but after the failure of that model (and 18 months closed) it became a public course.
The pin positions are a source of some disappointment, based on the view it's a public course and putting them in the more interesting places will slow up play - something I don't necessarily think is true.
Then last Thursday they played a 'Doak Challenge' ( I had no idea it was on) and I messaged the pro shop from the 3rd green asking about the pins - Basically "what's going on?"
Turned out they'd let the greenkeepers loose to put the pins in interesting spots and the course was much better for it.
Every single pin was 1/ in a place rarely used and 2/ in a place making the approach shots and the putting so much more interesting.
Almost literally, the pin is never on the back level at the 7th, the front of the 9th, right of 12 or left at 18.
It's not as though all 18 pins need to push the limits but 6 a day isn't too much to ask.

[Ira Fishman]

We have a new Superintendent who has gotten the course fast and firm. The retired Superintendent used interesting hole locations bur tended to have a small rotation. The new Superintendent has found a number of new ones. The greens are the highlight of the course, and the new locations really let them shine.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

I’ve long wanted to play an event where the tees are pushed way forward, like the men playing from the ladies reds, but every flag location on every hole is in the most challenging position on each green. The outcomes might be interesting, maybe even enlightening.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Funny - I play a lot at St Andrews Beach - a fabulous course Tom Doak designed to be a members course but after the failure of that model (and 18 months closed) it became a public course.
The pin positions are a source of some disappointment, based on the view it's a public course and putting them in the more interesting places will slow up play - something I don't necessarily think is true.
Then last Thursday they played a 'Doak Challenge' ( I had no idea it was on) and I messaged the pro shop from the 3rd green asking about the pins - Basically "what's going on?"
Turned out they'd let the greenkeepers loose to put the pins in interesting spots and the course was much better for it.
Every single pin was 1/ in a place rarely used and 2/ in a place making the approach shots and the putting so much more interesting.
Almost literally, the pin is never on the back level at the 7th, the front of the 9th, right of 12 or left at 18.
It's not as though all 18 pins need to push the limits but 6 a day isn't too much to ask.

Even just three per day would be enough for most people!  And you'd think that the greens at St. Andrews Beach are small enough that they would have to use the fun ones sometimes just to spread out the wear?  [Unfortunately, the big greens at Old Macdonald made it easier for Mr. Keiser to rule out the hole locations he doesn't find as fun as we do.]


The selection of hole locations is one of the under-sung parts of golf.  The USGA spends millions on "setup" for a US Open, but at the end of the day, it's the choice of hole locations that make or break its success.


Many clubs try to systematize the process by putting them on a rotation, which basically forces them to eliminate any hole location that might not work in certain conditions.  At one of my courses which is notorious for its tough greens, I actually found that the rotation had omitted some of the easy locations!


The PGA TOUR does it by eliminating any hole location with more than a 2% slope -- sometimes they go down to 1.8%.  That is not the slope at which it's impossible to stop the ball near the hole, but instead the slope where a three-footer can be played inside the hole.  They are making it easy on the players, and giving the spectators the birdies they think they want.


There is a good software program now that helps greenkeepers spread out wear on the greens and move the holes within certain parameters.  If you update it with the speed of the greens, it will include more difficult locations when the greens are slower, and limit them when the greens are at their fastest.  It's not as good as having a really creative guy on the green staff, but not every club has that guy!

[David Wuthrich]

I agree that pin locations make a huge difference.
I was just in Arizona and played Desert Mountain Renegade.
We had a blast playing a shorter distance but playing to the harder pin locations.
For those not familiar with Renegade, there are two different pins on each hole, one easy and one more difficult.  You are free to pick the course that you would like to play.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Dan
How accurate is your scoring increase statement?
How much? Similar for other players? Was there an increase in time to play?


Mike
Did you observe any average scoring changes? Was there a change to the pace of play?


Wouldn't these be great experiments to answer our age-old treehouse questions?

[Kalen Braley]

I think they should do so called "Monster Mash" 4 man scramble events more often, provided they make single bogey the worst score any team can take on a hole.

They could mix it up where perhaps one tournament everyone plays from the tips, and in the fall when the greens are running quick, put the pins in utterly deviant hole locations. I played one a number of years back where the pin was on a slope where you couldn't get the ball to stop within 20 feet of the hole.  Made for some fun times on the course where getting lucky on the greens was the name of the game.

[Thomas Dai]

Nice when a green who’s size has shrunk over time is expanded again as some delightfully wicked hole positions can as if by magic appear. Maybe not positions that can regularly be used at today’s green speeds however, but at least they ought to allow some more adventurous positions to be used nearby even if only occasionally.
Atb


PS - bring back no fringes …. eg direct from putting surface to bunker edge!

[John Emerson]

Back left hole down the hill is THE primo hole location at the par3 8th at Kingsbarns.  It is such a fun hole and I’ve never played the hole where it’s been anywhere else on the green, but it looks like it could be fabulous on the far right side of the green as well

[Jimmy Muratt]

This entire premise is why it's so important to play a course multiple times before passing judgment or "rating" a golf course.   The hole location itself can easily dictate one's entire strategy on a hole, even going back to the placement of a tee shot on a par 4 or par 5.

To appreciate great greens, you often need to miss in the wrong place.   As they say, "ignorance is bliss".....once you know the potential trouble that awaits going after a well placed pin, it makes the approach that much more rewarding when the shot is executed properly.

[Dan Herrmann]

@Mike Nuzzo:

Dan: How accurate is your scoring increase statement?   
I'm going on a general hunch based on the scores I've been entering.   Before this year, I didn't need to spend much time reading putts, and the hole locations were often flat.   These days, I need to spend a little more time looking over a putt. 

Example - last week I had a putt on the top of a gentle Biarritz to a hole location in the lower part (a 15' putt).   I had to walk it and "feel" the break with my feet 2 or 3 times until I finally was comfortable with the read.    Actually ended up with a tap-in, and it brought a lot of happiness and laughs that I was able to figure it out.

How much? Similar for other players? Was there an increase in time to play?
I'm probably 3-4 shots higher this year, and some of this was probably due to the course playing much more firm & fast.   I don't know about others'.     I usually play with my wife Laura in one of the first tee times out, and we'll get around in 3:15 in a cart, which is pretty much the same it's always been.

[Mike_Clayton]

Funny - I play a lot at St Andrews Beach - a fabulous course Tom Doak designed to be a members course but after the failure of that model (and 18 months closed) it became a public course.
The pin positions are a source of some disappointment, based on the view it's a public course and putting them in the more interesting places will slow up play - something I don't necessarily think is true.
Then last Thursday they played a 'Doak Challenge' ( I had no idea it was on) and I messaged the pro shop from the 3rd green asking about the pins - Basically "what's going on?"
Turned out they'd let the greenkeepers loose to put the pins in interesting spots and the course was much better for it.
Every single pin was 1/ in a place rarely used and 2/ in a place making the approach shots and the putting so much more interesting.
Almost literally, the pin is never on the back level at the 7th, the front of the 9th, right of 12 or left at 18.
It's not as though all 18 pins need to push the limits but 6 a day isn't too much to ask.

Even just three per day would be enough for most people!  And you'd think that the greens at St. Andrews Beach are small enough that they would have to use the fun ones sometimes just to spread out the wear?  [Unfortunately, the big greens at Old Macdonald made it easier for Mr. Keiser to rule out the hole locations he doesn't find as fun as we do.]


The selection of hole locations is one of the under-sung parts of golf.  The USGA spends millions on "setup" for a US Open, but at the end of the day, it's the choice of hole locations that make or break its success.


Many clubs try to systematize the process by putting them on a rotation, which basically forces them to eliminate any hole location that might not work in certain conditions.  At one of my courses which is notorious for its tough greens, I actually found that the rotation had omitted some of the easy locations!


The PGA TOUR does it by eliminating any hole location with more than a 2% slope -- sometimes they go down to 1.8%.  That is not the slope at which it's impossible to stop the ball near the hole, but instead the slope where a three-footer can be played inside the hole.  They are making it easy on the players, and giving the spectators the birdies they think they want.


There is a good software program now that helps greenkeepers spread out wear on the greens and move the holes within certain parameters.  If you update it with the speed of the greens, it will include more difficult locations when the greens are slower, and limit them when the greens are at their fastest.  It's not as good as having a really creative guy on the green staff, but not every club has that guy!

Just once every three months on the back of 7, the front of 9 and left of 18 would be a start.
It's also funny how you discover things about a course long after it's open.
I've always tried to drive it left on 14 - to get a clear line up the green (but with most of the putting surface still blind) - but many times push it enough to catch the slope - from which it just runs sideways down the hill, leaving a 70y pitch.
The other night I hit a driver deliberately down then right - something I've never done - and it ran all the way down to the end of the fairway leaving a simple - but blind - 30y pitch up the hill.
It's a fun drive to try and hit it down that line - but counterintuitive given the obvious strategy to drive it left.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you @Dan!
I hear you loud and clear about the increased difficulty in reading the putts.
Do you know any members who track their putting statistics and could compare previous years to this year?
Firm and fast conditions will have an impact on scoring.
Good to hear similar pace for you.

[Sean_A]

This entire premise is why it's so important to play a course multiple times before passing judgment or "rating" a golf course.   The hole location itself can easily dictate one's entire strategy on a hole, even going back to the placement of a tee shot on a par 4 or par 5.

To appreciate great greens, you often need to miss in the wrong place.   As they say, "ignorance is bliss".....once you know the potential trouble that awaits going after a well placed pin, it makes the approach that much more rewarding when the shot is executed properly.

Out of position is at least half the measure of a course. That's why it's so important to make rough areas playable. It's better to tempt the player rather than dictate play.

Even if some rediscovered old hole locations can't be used these days, often times hole locations very near these spots are almost as good.

Ciao

[Ian Galbraith]

.... It's better to tempt the player rather than dictate play.

So much truth captured in so few words 

[Mike_Trenham]

My club acquired the EzLocator software a number of years ago.  It cause our staff to start using more pin locations, especially closer to the perimeter of the greens. Our green staff at the time we purchased the system had no avid golfers.  I think it’s really improved the course set-up as a guy that has played there for 40 seasons.


The software also creates pin sheets that can be printed or viewed via your smartphone.

[Jason Thurman]

Forget greatness - let's talk goodness.


My home course isn't anything special architecturally, but we have a low-key very good set of greens. At first glance they're mostly small and round and pretty tame looking, but with a few plays you'll come to appreciate the variety of contours and character they have while also realizing that the subtle-looking slopes on many of them are much fiercer than they appear.


In addition to maintaining them wonderfully, our superintendent has taken to cutting some really aggressive hole locations. He's not afraid to pin corners and edges, or to pin some pretty severe slopes. It really boosts the strategy involved in playing our course well. As an architecture dork, I definitely stand over some approach shots thinking "I have an advantage over <my competitor> here, because I know that a shot 3 feet left of today's pin is absolutely screwed so I'm gonna play this a little right and he's gonna fire right at it."


Our course just doesn't have the space or artistry of shaping that truly "great" courses have. But it does have solid architecture that makes it fun to play round-after-round, and it's taught me that all a course really needs is a variety of different shot demands, a reasonably interesting set of greens, and the ability for a smart player to gain some advantage by selecting good targets and managing misses. I might not feel that way if we didn't have a bold superintendent, though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()