Is this hole conceptually good? Narrow Green on Crosswind Hole

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like Jim Bearden on another thread, I love discussing the ideal concepts, knowing full well that nothing is absolute in golf design, you must fit the land, blah, blah, blah, etc.  However, design is often about matching playability ideals with a somewhat moldable green site, and rarely is it about discovering breathtaking natural holes that just cry out to be one specific way.  With that as a given, here is a question.

Most good golfers I know would think that physics should affect the design (as in Larry Nelsons edict of no uphill shots from downhill lies, esp. with long irons)  Others think targets should bend with the wind to assist in shaping shots, etc.

Geo. Thomas favored long, narrow greens in downwind situations, figuring that the golfer wouldn't have to hit the ball so hard, and could concentrate on accuracy.  In essence, he used physics (the combined green shape and wind) to assist the golfer and produce a doable shot, as opposed to one that is very difficult to do.

The first course I helped design was Kemper Lakes, home of the 1989 PGA won by Payne Stewart.  The sixth hole there is a 200 yard par three.    Killian and Nugent (distancing myself here, in case the answer to the question is no!) used a long, skinny green, (pinched in the middle to about 45 feet wide) bunkered on both sides on a hole running west, and generally with a cross wind, slightly in the golfers face.  In theory, this adds to difficulty by magnifying the required fade, whereas a trailing wind might help straighten it out.

This was mostly an design and/or artistic decision, as the ground was fairly flat and there was room to do most anything.  Now, knowing that, and assuming you were a design consultant on that project, what would you have recommended?

In general and IDEALLY, is a long, narrow green in a crosswind good conceptually, or should the green have been wider, to account for the wind?

If generally acceptabe to you, what conditions might affect your decision as architect as to when to use this type of green (hole length, par, place in round).

Discuss!

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  I've noticed Coore & Crenshaw pretty much always build a green complex to take into account the prevailing wind in any crosswind situation ... their greens for left-to-right winds almost always favor a fade approach, with hazards on the right and fairly open on the left.

Sometimes I forget that rule myself because I'm too busy looking at the landform that's there ... 17 at Pacific Dunes has a L-R headwind but I still built the Redan.  Actually we started with a long skinny green there and a steep drop-off to the left, but decided that was much too difficult given the prevailing wind and the elevation change; you would have had to aim out over the low area and hope the ball blew back onto the green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

After the US Open this year, isn't that the correct way to play the modern redan?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Sure, that's why I opted for the Redan ... it fit the natural slope of the land (R to L) and yet the banking up of the green along the back edge allowed someone to hold the green with a big wind-assisted fade.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff, I hope this isnt stating the obvious, again. But wouldn't severral holes at pebble beach be the poster child for your concept, here?

BTW, the 6th and 7th at Kemper were the sites of my first back 2 back birdies, ever. Both chip ins  

[BCrosby]

I don't think of Redans as being narrow greens. Wider than deep maybe, but not particularly narrow.

Jeff - From your description of the 6th at Kemper, I vote no. A tight-waisted, narrow green at 200 yards exposed to winds from the vast western plains seems a little over the top. Retain the angle, but widen the green. Use pin positions to match up with wind conditions day to day.

Bob

[Tommy_Naccarato]

The Greatest Par 4 in Golf--Riviera #10.
(Gerry, there is your challenge!)

LACC #15 could be considered a narrow green/crosswind hole.

What about shallow greens with the prevailing wind, or better yet, contours that strategically work with these same types of winds?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

What are the winds on 10 at Riv? L to R if hitting a tee shot in and in your face with a short approach?

As to shallow greens downwind, "conventional wisdom" would be that these are better into the wind, since after accounting for the extra club to counteract the wind, at least it adds spin and stops your ball quickly.  Downwind, I would lengthen the green a bit to allow some roll out from reduced spin shots, unless I provided some good landing area just short of the green, a la White Bear 12th.

How exactly would the contours work strategically with the wind in your other example?  At 6 Kemper, would you bank up the right side, for example?

[John_Cullum]

Perhaps Pat Mucci (or is it Patrick Mucci?) can extol the virtues of the 17th at Semiole on this thread.

From the back of the tee box, I suggest you should just play for 4.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jeff,

At my home club, this feature comes into play on the shortest par 4 (374 yards-a short hole by 21st century standards). Water left, and a tree in the middle of the fairway at the 100-yd marker often encourage players to bail out into the right rough and take their chances with a few trees. The green is roughly 150 feet in length, and 40-50 feet in width, flanked by deep bunkers. The prevailing wind is right-to-left, and the centreline of the green runs down the right hand portion of the fairway. When players miss right, and they often do, the narrow approach is further limited by the angle into the green, and the quartering wind. On a green of such narrow dimensions, simply opting for the centre of the green is not possible, and one has to play on an angle to the deepest portion of the green. If the approach misses the green to the right, the shallow recovery shot from the deep bunkers (downwind) is often played away from the pin, because it is likely to travel into the bunkers on the opposite side of the green. Toughest hole on the course, and the majority of it's strength lies in the narrow green, whose difficulty is amplified by the prevailing wind.

TK

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tommy,

What are the winds on 10 at Riv? L to R if hitting a tee shot in and in your face with a short approach?

As to shallow greens downwind, "conventional wisdom" would be that these are better into the wind, since after accounting for the extra club to counteract the wind, at least it adds spin and stops your ball quickly.  Downwind, I would lengthen the green a bit to allow some roll out from reduced spin shots, unless I provided some good landing area just short of the green, a la White Bear 12th.

How exactly would the contours work strategically with the wind in your other example?  At 6 Kemper, would you bank up the right side, for example?

Jeff,

Mike McGwire has pointed out to me that this is my 5000 post. I better make it an accurate one.

At Riv, the prevailing wind is obviously coming in from the Pacific, unless its a Santa Ana condition which would them mean   it would be coming from the east. The situation of green @ #10 is somewhat confronted with it as a "quartering" crosswind from either direction, but considering the green specifically slopes right to left in its front half--more then a perfect example of your conception or question in this thread. (I do believe that the green is probably pointed more in the direction North-Easterly then it is North. Whatever it is, its perfectly situated. Or at least I think it is!

The approach shot required into it is a cut, get it to bite quick so it can become gravity's darling and roll and stop as close to the hole as possible. Any kind of right to left or counter clockwise spin to it, and its going to bounce of of the sublte slope and run down the crown off the green.

The 15th at LACC is more or less the same only opposite directions with the very same wind.

It requires more of a draw into the green, which by today's standards have been somewhat bridled thanks to less then fast & firm surfaces of this day.  (Blame Toro & Rainbird. )

Unfortunately, I don't know Kemper, so it would be somewhat difficult for me to answer there, but one of the first that comes to my mind is the 1st at NGLA. Just the thoughts of all the pin placements on that green with the prevailing wind.......Fahgidaboutit! While the green may not be narrow, my point was that the contour does influence the strategy in the wind and with the pin placement by the hand of narrow  and shallow corridors created by that hump.

And those sausage and peppers? Fahgidaboutit! You callin' me a chooch? ? ? ? ? Fahgidaboutit! Am I here to entertain you? ? ? ? ? Fahgidaboutit!

[Philippe Binette]

Isn't it 13th at Muirfield...

Every time somebody ask, is it good to have this or that configuration, I always say to myself:

Here's somebody who is putting limit to his design, (by trying to be too fair) and if he does that, he is going to design every course the same, because there's too many limits...

With unofficial limits like that, most of the great holes on this earth would not exist...

[Don_Mahaffey]

In crosswind situations I like holes that give the average guy somewhere to land the ball off the green and bounce it on, yet rewards the expert player who has the skill to hold the ball up against the wind. Thus, if the prevailing wind is left to right some room to the left of the green to kick the ball is nice, but the green itself probably will also have a L - R cant making it difficult to get close if you put too much bend on the ball. The expert player can then use the slope of the green and the wind to hit a draw close to the hole, but with most of the trouble on the right he's punished if he doesn't pull it off. Obviously, golf would be boring if a formula like this went into every crosswing hole but I do think if your in a windy area you should leave some room to come in from the side on crosswind holes.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
I started thinking about it some more, and this I think must be realized...

#10 at Riv is a drivable par 4, yesterday and today.  The fairway is so wide--as you know, so what is the defined line to the hole? (Personally, I think its straight at it. Especially in this day and age.  Trying to say its into the wind would not be correct, because there are just so many options to the hole for every imaginable player. So try to say, "It's cross wind on the drive and into the wind on the approach wouldn't be accurate. That's just part of the brilliance of the hole--it supports every type or style of play, all in the most strategic sense.

Now if you wanted to say that the alternate green was as you described, you would get no argument from me other then the trees shading and protecting the superintendent's area, which I'm sure an cut into a some what breezy day for that paticular green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Isn't it 13th at Muirfield...

Every time somebody ask, is it good to have this or that configuration, I always say to myself:

Here's somebody who is putting limit to his design, (by trying to be too fair) and if he does that, he is going to design every course the same, because there's too many limits...

With unofficial limits like that, most of the great holes on this earth would not exist...

Philipe,

Its great that our minds run to the exceptions that prove the rule (great holes) but my mind often runs to the exceptions that made the rule in the first place!

My old boss used to say you could break the rules every once in a while, but do it too often, and at some point you cross over from good quirk to just plain goofy.  I agree.

While some great holes do exist that have narrow greens in crosswinds, I think of the myriad of courses across America that were designed by amateurs or even professional golf course architects that play terribly, simply because they had no idea that certain configurations caused nearly insurmountable problems for either good or even poor players (ie, repetitive forced carries)

In the case of the hole I described, I think its fine, since its the only example of a narrow green on the course, even if it is in a crosswind, but if I was faced with that shot 14 more times, it would not be as highly rated as it is, nor as much fun.

Since golf course architecture is the arrangement of the land for a specific human purpose, doesn't it make sense to look at it from that perspective, rather than say "The land gives me this" whether it makes for good golf or not?  The ideal is obviously a blend of both, but when there is a need to mold, I like to mold to create certain shot, most of them readily achievable unless the golfer hits a real stinker.  Bascially,  my philosopy mirrors what Don M said, and said well.

[Philippe Binette]

My thinking is not to break every possible rule on every hole, it's just that some people could change something really cool, just because it doesn't fit in a so-called rule...

Best example: Have you read Golf Course Design by Muir-Graves and Cornish. Great book for learning about the technical and management aspect of course design, but the book, in the design section is full of rules that would kill variety and character to a course... The fact is, I'M sure and hoping that the writers are not following all their rules or principles in their design...

If a hole happens to be there. Let it be...

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

Since I've never seen that long narrow (waisted) par 3 green at Kemper Lakes and have no idea what the bunkering or the land on either side of it looks like this is a recommendation in a bit of a vacuum but from a strictly "concpetual" standpoint here's what I would recommend be done on that hole anyway to somewhat fix the problem you seem to sense.

Just take those green-side bunkers on either side of that green (for no good reason I'm sort of assuming they are tight up to both sides of the green) and just move them out at least 5-7 paces away from each side of the green surface and just have closely mown area between them and each side of the green surface. And perhaps not just that but use the top edge of the bunkers as "grade" to perhaps create a bit of a roll juxtaposing either side of the green space. What could that do? It could create a bit of a "filtering in" effect if the shot was within the parameters of the original green space and it could also create some interesting and multi-optional playablility if the ball ended up in the area of close mowing between the sides of the green and where the bunkers are moved to farther away from the green.

The primary reason I think of this is to create the additional playable width on either side of that green (you said you think it's too narrow for the wind conditions) in mown area and also to create a really interesting playablility if a ball goes far enough right or left and gets in one of those bunkers that are farther out on either side. For some reason I just never forgot Tom Doak's statement in "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" that greenside bunkering separated from the greenspace (by closely mown area) is an interesting and neat concept to have sometimes.

[ian]

Tommy,

re: 10th at Riviera

Is by the hole now a legitimate strategy for some?

[Tom_Doak]

Oooh, Jeff, I just changed my mind.

The 12th at Sebonack is a narrow green on a crosswind par-3 of about 160 yards ... the green is inspired by the Postage Stamp at Royal Troon.  So, Jack and I have both endorsed your concept.

[Gib_Papazian]

It seems to me that #17 at Shinnecock falls into this category as there is trouble on both sides to a narrow green with a crosswind. I suppose the Redan also qualifies but that does not illustrate my point:

I do not care a bit when presented with a narrow putting surface in a crosswind as long as there is a kickpoint in front of the green that allows me to chase the ball onto the putting surface.

In theory, I agree with the C&C philosophy of orienting their putting surfaces to encourage approaches that ride the prevailing wind . . . but #17 at Pac Dunes gets the wind from both directions depending on the season and weather - changing the hole and appropriate shot entirely.

Every time an architect insists on pinching the front of a putting surface with bunkers on a long hole - demanding an aerial approach - it betrays a lack of creativity and visualization on the part of the designer.

Any putting surface configuration (IMNSHO) is valid as long as it allows - no, strike that - *encourages* several different shot shapes and strategies.

Think of a Biarritz . . . . . . the most interesting and satisfying long approaches introduce strategic arrangements where a clever play in the wind - using the contours of the ground to direct the ball - can overcome  an opponent who uses aerial brute force.