Can Strategy and " " Coexist, Part II

[Jeff_Brauer]

I enjoyed the philosophical bent of that thread.  As much as I have heard this group discuss how wide fairways encourage options, has anyone discussed the following?

Can small to medium sized greens, more or less guarded by hazards promote second shot strategy?  Does it follow from the dictum of wide fairways is good, that larger greens, perhaps with central contours, or other devices, might more greatly promote different strategies and approach shot types, and thus are good also?

My reason for asking is a re-read of Simpson (no, not Homer) last night.  After discussing the various angles, etc. of tee balls, he states that the purpose of greens with surrounding hazards is to dictate accuracy.  Most examples show greens of about 6-6500 Sf - quite the modern standard, with a note that, generally, three bunkers should guard the green.

Do we accept that the second shot should be one of accuracy, not choice?  Or do we simply accept that the negatives, ie long, slow three putts, and increased maintenance costs mean we are ususally stuck with small greens?

Would the occaisional bigger green, perhaps heavily guarded one side inspire more bail out to the other increase the confusion and/or decision making of golf?

[Mike_Cirba]

Wonderful question, Jeff!

Frankly, I think that green sizes are one of the areas that most architects (live or dead) fail to provide sufficient variety in size and shaping.  I love to see courses with greens from 2,000 to 12,000 sq. ft., and not just in the typical formulaic patterns either (small green for short approach, etc.).  

I do recognize the possibility of additional maintenance considerations and expenses, but I think on the whole, a wider variety of very small greens (like 15 at Fenway) coupled with sizeable, flowing greens (#14 at Hidden Creek) present a lot of strategic interest and would ultimately be a wash in terms of additional costs.    

[RJ_Daley]

I think the idea of varying size of greens to offer a variety of approach strategies is great.  It ought to be done more on courses that don't have huge numbers of rounds per year played on them, so that the very small 2000-3000 sqft greens don't get worn out.  In those cases, it would be great if the architect could begin with the idea of an excellent location for a temporary or alternate green of equally small dimensions.  That way, it wouldn't be so difficult to take the green out of play for a time to perk it back up.  I wonder about Riviera #10.  I think they use a temporary for part of the year.  That is the big downside of the small green thing.  As for unconventional matching of a huge green with a par 5 or small green with a long par3, that should only be done on rare occasions when the land and hole corridor and terrain just screams for the occasional use of unconventionality.  But, not too often...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, the design downside to the very large green is the very real necessity of placing a sprinkler in the middle of the green, but don't ask me how I know that.

perhaps I should change the question to should all/signifigant number of greens be large to promote shot options other than accuracy on the approach?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I have a better question, one that maybe Mike already touched on.

Why can't small and large greens be part of the entire process, as seen fit for the paticular site and the options which exist?

[texsport]

Can't large greens also require accuracy? Large greens with protrusions or lobes guarded by hazards require greater accuracy in positioning the tee ball as well as the approach shot for a reasonable putt at birdie. Play safe to the middle and have a longer, possibly down hill putt out to the edge remaining.Multiple lobes allow different pin positions as well as requiring different club selections from day to day.

Small greens are demanding but their difficulty is often multiplied by the use of deep rough or shaved dropoffs surrounding the greens.

IMHO, large green designs are much more interesting day in and day out because of the variety. Small greens take away the ability to be aggressive, and are boring if used on more than a few holes, but are a great defense against scoring.

Texsport

[Jeff_Brauer]

Texsport,

Of course they can, with internal contours.  I suppose if I was looking for a particular response, yours would have been the one!  The basic question is do we think the approach should always be about accuracy?

Tommy,
I agree with variety.  Perhaps I am also asking the corrolary question - the a mix of wide fairways and narrow ones, again to suit the situation as the architect sees fit - would also be desireable, no?  Or do those always have to be wide, as seemingly expressed on this distinguished web site?

Another question....If I decide that this particular shortish hole needs a big green, but all of my short holes are on wooded or constricted sites, do I just take down the trees to make it bigger, for necessary variety, or do I make another small green, because the site dictates it, just like the other short hole green sites on the property?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is the part of the thread which I have to say rely on your best judgement. Quite obviously we all see things differently. There are even times when we see things the same, but ultimately we do have different visions of what we are seeing.

I guess I'm trying to say that this width-thing is good for the purpose of allowing options to the hole. That doesn't mean that at least once during the round you can't have something that isn't constricted either.

One of the most constricted holes I know of is at a mundane public course I used to call my home. Its owned by a Tawainese gentleman (let me rephrase that--man) that doesn't really put much effort into the course as far as maintenance, and the result is that the course suffers a reputation as being a horrible place. But strategy abounds at this course, and it has been a guide for me of sorts, because it has all sorts of options. Someday I will do an In My Opinion piece on the course--someday.

This constricted hole--the 9th, is a par 5 of some 520 yards, and its hard to believe that its even reachable for me on a good day. That is if I can place my drive with-in the left side out of bounds, and avoid any of the trees that have matured into play that line the right side, the entire length of the hole. Some 260 + yards out is a small pond that acts as a cross hazard and can make or break you. the rest of the hole opens up from there, but a certain death awaits anyone trying to play-up the right side. It is a hard angle to play-in from.

The fact is, I can play a five iron off of this tee and still get myself into trouble as much as playing a driver. In fat, many times I have seen, a Tiger playing Driver-three wood on to the green and losing the hole to a player that hit five iron-five iron-five iron, one-putt. The hole never ceases to amaze me. It is a total blast to play, and it's the only hole on the course that is grossly narrow. The rest are full of width and options as mentioned in the previous thread.

Still, in my experieince of the hole, I can birdie it one day and take a 12 on it the next, it is that menacing. Its an excellent match play hole, especially where it fits into the round when playing a Nassau, with automatic presses on 9 & 18.

If there was more holes like this on this course, it would be too much. But it fits perfectly into the variety of holes that exist throughout the course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

Thanks for the reply.  For once, I think we agree in total!

It seems to be a slow posting day.  I assume everyone else, like me, is over on the hockey sites to see what deadline trades are being made, no?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff, Right now, I'm currently trying to read three books + A manuscript at once.

-Evangelists of Golf
-Lost Links
-Golf Architecture-A Worldwide Perspective

All are phenominal books.

All of this because I'm having trouble stomaching what the Kings are doing and I'm going stir crazy, on a beautiful day like today (75 and clear) and I'm not allowed to have a golf club in my hand!:)

Well, its almost Baseball season! Go Dodgers!

[TEPaul]

There are so many ways to create approach shot strategy with green size, design, orientation, whatever as to be almost incalculable. Think of it--there could be 3-4-5-? different ways to get a ball to a particular pin (or conversely defend that pin) if one wanted to. And obviously all that strategic approach shot design could also back on out to tee shot landing areas with mutiple strategies which could create a huge extrapolation of other strategies all connected from tee to hole out.

So many things are possible. Then just make it drain well, look natural and somewhat maintenance friendly. No problem. Right!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

That is why I was so amazed at the Simpson book.  Granted, he gave several examples, but basically, the thought level went way down from tee shot to approach.  for the most part, he assumed greens should be about 6500 sf, well guarded, etc.

[Norbert P]

 More options can be available if the maintenance keeps the green approaches as near firm as the green as possible.

  My home course (Tri-Mountain - William Robinson - arch.) is a links style with good greens but the approaches often are too soft for the bump and run.  Thus the wedges have to be used a lot.  I find that boring.  

  Pin placement can determine the best line of approach.  Our par 5 18th has a wide green with bunkers front left and right.   If the pin is right, the best option, for me, is to lay up left and chip on between the sands, and vice versa.

  Our 1st hole (par 4) has sod hollows front right and back of a small green.  Easy bogey, hard par, with easiest double bogey if someone goes for the green.  I usually play short left and trust the chip.

  So, if I'm reading your question correctly, the green shape and contours are just as important as the size but the maintenance practices need be addressed for appreciation of architect's design intentions.    

  (BTW Green # 6 at Bayside in Nebraska is deadly fun learning experience. I've got to go back. As I remember it, it's sort of a Redan but with no large green landing area - takes an accurate shot on long approach to green or just as deft a touch to hold green from short chip from left as the green slants away from (seemingly) safe left approach.

[Mike Hendren]

I am totally enamored with this site's photo of the tiny 15th green at Fenway cited by Mike Cirba above.  Alternate greens could be an option when required by traffic, but as Tom Doak pointed out on a previous thread, there are not as many pinnable areas on two 2,500 sf greens as there are on a single 5,000 sf green.  

Strategy abounds on such greens, as one is forced to factor the best place to miss as well as the precision called for by the tiny target.  The key to such holes, other than the one-shotter, typically lies in the approach angle, which forces accuracy off the tee as well.  

I abhor large greens, but love the greens within a green concept.  Nothing worse than three putts after an indifferent approach shot finds the wrong interior green.  Alternatively, nothing more satisfying that negotiating an improbable two putt over hill and dale.  

Why not one of each in eighteen holes.

Regards,

Mike

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
As already stated, maintenance and traffic problems are the biggest issues you have to deal with for small greens.  The 15th at Fenway is simply amazing but on a public course (and even on some privates) it would be worn out in a few weeks.  

Even look at the wonderful 10th and 16th at Riviera.  Some one who plays there more often then I can comment, but those greens are both taken out of play quite often especially the 16th.  Nothing worse than playing there and finding out you have to play to the alternate greens for your round  
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

[Mark F. said:] "...maintenance and traffic problems are the biggest issues you have to deal with for small greens..."

But, not if you build two small greens as alternates.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest,
That may work at times like at Pine Valley's #8 hole but not so sure it works at the two holes I mentioned at Riviera.  Japan has many courses with "two greens" per hole and most of the time, one of them is usually much better than the other.  I know they do this for "turf/grass" reasons but the same logic holds true.  

Mark