[TEPaul]

On another topic RJ Daley was talking about various types of greens and I mentioned the extreme variety of greens and hole/green combos at NGLA. The only type NGLA doesn't seem to have is a long par 4 with a green that is very  "unaccepting" of a long second shot from a good player. It could have that if it wanted to make #7 a par 4 though.

TOC's Road hole must be the world's premier par 4 with a green almost totally "unaccepting" of all but a really unusual 2nd shot approach shot!!

Occasionally the great old architects mentioned throwing in an offering like this for variety (a long hole with a small and difficult to approach green, for instance) but it's a concept that would seem to be very fine-line between success and extreme controversial failure.

What is it or would it be about pulling of this very long par 4 with a green that's "unaccepting" of all but the very best approach shot? How can this be justified in the context of lack of "options" and such?

Or are holes like this basically thowbacks to a time when GIRs and par was not much of a consideration? Would the general mentality of golf accept a hole like this today?

[Ran Morrissett]

15 at Garden City, 13 at Crystal Down and especially 13 at Prestwick are three of the best examples that I can think of - given that most people won't reach these greens in regulation, why not make their up and downs as interesting as possible? Small, convoluted greens do just that!

Pity there aren't more being built today in this politically correct world (let's make golf fair instead  :-/) but at least Mike DeVries built what looks to be a very fine one at The Kingsley Club.

long par four + boring green = boring hole 95 times out of 100.

[TEPaul]

I can tell you that for most golfers three holes at Merion have sort of "evolved" back into this sort of thing because of significant added tee length on each.

The interesting thing about all three of these holes is none of them really look like distance and accuracy is needed because basically all three appear to have large wide openings! But functionally both distance and/or real accuracy considerations are necessary to play all of them effectively and the reasons why are different on each one of them!!

#5 due extreme right to left slope of the green and entire green-end, #6 due to an almost invisible but very effective "false front" and #18 due to huge perpindicular "rolls" in the approach area and also the side to side "crest" running across the green (back to front to the middle and front to back past the middle!!).

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I would throw in # 10 at GCGC and I think # 10, 11, 12 and 15 at NGLA could fit in the category you created.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You may be right about some of the holes you just mentioned strictly due to their greens but for some reasons I was also thinking of holes that had real distance demands too on the second shot even for very good players--but maybe I shouldn't have been.

[Gib_Papazian]

Every par four at Winged Foot West.

[Bill_McBride]

Every hole on a US Open layout which was a par 5 for the members and converted to par 4 by USGA.  The green was designed for pitch or to protect fairway wood 2nd shots, and the pros are expected to hammer mid to long irons onto those small surfaces.  I guess it's fair as long as the whole field has to do it, right?  But it's not great design.  

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Foxy.

[Frank Pasquale]

The 9th at Montauk Downs

[Tom Doak]

The 16th at Royal Cinque Ports, Deal.
The 17th at Royal Liverpool.
The 14th at Royal Dornoch, of course.

I am a big believer in this, too -- perhaps too big a believer for the tastes of many low handicap types.  To name just a few,

The 3rd and 8th (top tier) and 16th at High Pointe.
The 2nd at Black Forest, yikes!
The 16th at The Legends (Heathland).
The 13th and 16th at Stonewall.
The 5th at Apache Stronghold.
The 3rd and 16th at Riverfront.
The 2nd at Lost Dunes.
The 6th and 12th and 15th at Beechtree.
The 8th at Pacific Dunes, when the flag is to the left.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Unfortunately I don't know most of the holes you cited there. The ones at High Pointe were before my days of interest in architecture and I just don't remember them well enough.

However, I do know #13 & #16 at Stonewall and also #8 at Pacific Dunes. #8 PD (which I only actually played one time) and was into a pretty strong headwind was one of the more unusual cross bunkering schemes I've seen on a long par 4. I layed up in front of it playing it like a short par 5 but it's a hole that would be very interesting to play many times in many different wind conditions to get a better idea what it's real "playability" (options) spectrum is all about! It may be another good example of a wind induced half par like #4 which PD does as well as any course I've seen--the wind induced half par that is!

The two holes at Stonewall, however, #13 & #16, I don't look at in the category of long par 4s that are "unaccepting" of  a second shot! I look at both those holes as ones that just have a much different concept of how to play the ideal approach shot to the green.

I should preface by saying that holes like #13 & #16 are two that almost require the course to be set up with the "ideal maintenance meld" with firm "through the green" conditions and the greens themselves at that proper "firmness" at which point good players become unsure as to how an aerial shot to the green surface might react. If those two holes have that condition their extremely interesting multi-options really start to shine!!

It's interesting to me that both those holes are two of what I might call the "poster boys" in the Philly district of a new kind of golf hole requiring a different kind of approach and playability--which is basically the ground game bounce in shot!! They also happen to be two of the most controversial holes in the district because of it (or they certainly were). They were talked about all the time as holes that were dumb or unfair by a lot of the district's good players!!

There was a time at the Stonewall Fall Scramble that #13 became a real topic of discussion at the bar following the second day's round!  And it primarily involved my partner and the way he'd played the hole those two days.

He's a very good player, long, and hits everything high. The first day from right in the middle of the fairway he hit a really goodlooking 5 iron just to the front right on the green the ball kicked high and shot across the green and off it to the left. He just went ballistic. I hit something right and short of the green and got the ball on the surface--I don't think he even noticed that he was so pissed at the time.

The next day from the same spot he's out there grumbling about what a stupid hole this is and wondering what the hell he can possibly do this time if his perfect shot's not going to work. I told him to take a 7 iron and hit it right at the middle of that righthand bunker well to the right and short of the green. He looked at me like I was crazy but did that and hit a gorgeous high 7 iron that we couldn't really see land short and to the right of the green but we did see it appear and filter right at the hole and stop an inch away. He actually didn't say a word but later in the bar he talked about that shot and while he really wasn't going to give up the fact that the aerial shot to the green should have worked he did start to say how that shot he hit was pretty darn clever!!

I look at #13 Stonewall as the perfect example of a hole that's going to teach some of these good players around here what different shot options are all about--it's a hole that under the right conditions can force the good player into understanding this is their best option, maybe in some cases their only reasonable option--something they hardly ever see on any other holes in this district.

#16 is another one but different as you don't have to aim the ball away from the green to get the sideways carom kick--all you have to do on #16 is take about 2-3 clubs off of what you'd normally hit.

This almost forced carom kick or filter onto the green type option is the primary reason I like Stonewall. Under firm "through the green" and firm green conditons it can actually be used on almost half the holes if you want to and at least three of the holes you almost have to use it!!

It's the one and only course around here that has that and I think it's changing the way some of these guys look at options now--it's taken a long time but it's finally teaching them to stop complaining and try something else that can actually work.

#16 by the way has been talked about by the club as needed to have it's inline center ridge on the green softened or removed!! I hope you can stop that since you'll be back in the area. If you need someone to help you make the point on that hole not to do that as it will half gut a great European run-up option call me--I'll help try to convince them.

But again, I don't look at #13 or #16 or #6 either as holes that are "unaccepting" of second shots just holes that sometime "require" a different kind of shot--it's really not that difficult a shot but golfers have to recognize it first!

[ChipOat]

I don't like the concept - I believe green size should be relative to expected length of shot by a low handicap amateur.

Short hole - small green (or multiple "greens within a green" a la #'s 6 and 11 at National).  Long hole (par 3 or 4) - "largeish" green.

Some of the holes mentioned here seem pretty receptive to me (e.g. "Foxy" at Dornoch and #15 at Garden City) and I'm no great shotmaker.  However, 5's converted to 4's for "majors" can get ridiculous.

Tom Doak:

I'm afraid I agree you do, in fact, like this concept too much for my taste.  That's why bars and booze were invented - to "discuss" these issues at length!!

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

chipoat,

The main problem I have with the "long approach big green, short approach little green" philosophy is that, in effect, you end up with similar shot values (ie. you've got to hit equaly good shots, whether with PW or 4 iron, to land on respective greens.).  

In effect, it reduces variety.

To me, if the land dictates a little green, that's what I put in.  And vice-versa.  The length of the approach (for an arbitrary, narrow segment of the golf population) is a non-issue.

[ian]

#17 at St. Georges, particularly when the green was returned to the origional shape (5 years ago). The hole, which was a short 5 origionally, has the most interesting and intimidating approach on the course. The more aggressive the approach, the more penalized the miss becomes.

[Tom Doak]

Tom, thanks for trying to get me off the hook, but as you can see some players consider such greens "unaccepting."

Which is just fine with me.  Scratch players think the game should be tailored to them, but there's a large difference between the scratch player and a great shotmaker, and I think there ought to be one or two holes on any course which allow the great shotmaker to show why he's better.

Tom Weiskopf designs a six-iron green for a six-iron shot every time, and his work is pretty predictable nowadays.  

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Tom, that is interesting and I agree. however what features do you include for these holes(greens) to remain playable for the average 10 to 30 handicapper who is oblivious to these thoughts.

[Tom Doak]

John,

For the twenty handicapper all of the holes cited could be classified as the Britis used to as "bogey 5" holes.  They're too long for him to reach the green in two, but the difficult greens are good tests of his short game with third shots of 50-75 yards.  If he can pull it off, he may well tie or beat the scratch player who can reach them in two but get himself in trouble trying.

That's why I like them so much.  The average player may get excited over his five, while the scratch player may get frustrated.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Thanks Tom, I have only played Dornoch 14 and Pacific Dunes 8 and both were reachable for a modest player, but only on the ground or if on the fly with a 3 wood. That is what i was aiming for. Do you see the need for a ground entre for this type of hole or as you noted, the hole should be played as a short 5 for the higher handicapper and let his/her short game keep 4 in his/her range.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Please never sell #13 &#16 Stonewall short--or the concept of them which I would call holes (with the ideal "maintenance meld") that can almost REQUIRE a very different type of shot option! #16 is simply to land the approach short of the green and #13 is that and bit of what I might call misdirection (aiming slightly away from the green for the ideal carom!)

Forget about scratch players and the fact that those holes have been controversial with them! Those holes are talked about and opinions will come around--even with the scratch player. Go for this concept--it's a real education and that's not something that can be said about many holes today!!

#6's approach got through the controversy sooner of the misdirected short landing approach! The reason that it did may be because it's more obvious than #13! Holes that have valid multi-options--ones that really work that are enigmatic may be controversial a little longer but if those options really do work well they will get past the controversy.

#15 is going to need a little bit of tweaking though on it's options to balance them better!! Going right at the green does not work well enough to balance that carom shot and the carom shot needs just a bit more length down the left side to the left of the green before totally running out of room! The real estate is there it just needs to be tweaked!!

[Dan_Robson]

I am quite surprised that Ian chose 17 at Royal St George’s. It certainly is not an easy green to pitch on to with a long club, but I would rate the approaches to 4 and 15 as much less accepting. The slope at the front of the 4th green is more severe than on 17, and the top level of the green (where the pin always seems to be) is significantly smaller. The penalty for going long (or left) is also probably greater. The approach to the 15th is similarly unforgiving: Anything right will kick off the green, leaving a similar shot to being short of 17. A shot that pitches in the middle of the green is in danger of hitting the tier and going long. Pitch short and you are probably left with a 20+ yd bunker shot. Finally, from the back tees, 4 and 15 are respectively 50 and 60 yards longer than 17, so subject to wind, a player who can think about hitting 15 in two is unlikely to have more than a mid-iron into 17.

Two further holes for the discussion:

2nd at Royal Worlington & Newmarket:
Although a par 3, the shot required on this hole is very similar to some of those discussed above. It plays between 200 and 220 yards, but the green would be an unforgiving target from 100. "Pitching on a policeman’s helmet" (Patric Dickinson) is a fair description. I probably hit the par 5 first in two more often than I hit this green in one.

4th at Royal Worlington & Newmarket
Based on length it is more of a bogey 5 than a true par 5, a good drive often leaving a mid to long iron second shot to the green. The green slopes sharply away from the player however, meaning that it is usually impossible to hold with anything longer than a seven iron (and sometimes a wedge). An upslope short of the green means that it is also very difficult to run the ball on, most shots that pitch short of it staying short. The difficulty of chipping from short of this upslope means that there is a temptation to play to finish over the green in two. This can frequently backfire however as there is a stream (played as out of bounds) about 5-10 yards from the back and right of the green, and even if your ball stays in the rough short of the water, your chip may well be impeded by an overhanging willow tree.

[BCrosby]

My problem with long par 4's with "unreceptive" (isn't that the word we should be using?) greens is that scoring on them tends to be bunched.  They yield a very narrow spectrum of scores, for good golfers and bad.  

Scratch players will make lots of pars and bogies, handicap players will score a little higher.  Birdies will be rare because of the inherent difficulty of the hole.  Double bogies and "others" will also be rare because even scratch players tend to play long difficult holes conservatively.  No one can afford to take chances.

All of which is a sign that these holes lack interesting shot values.  The inherent difficulty of the hole dictates every shot.  There aren't many interesting temptations for the golfer.  Merely getting on the putting surface is a victory.

Maybe one long hole with an unreceptive green per course makes sense just for the sake of variety/perversity/quirk.  But they should be used very sparingly.  If at all.

Bob  

[John_McMillan]

I am a big believer in this, too -- perhaps too big a believer for the tastes of many low handicap types.  To name just a few,

The 3rd and 8th (top tier) and 16th at High Pointe.

I played High Pointe yesterday, and played a nice shot to the top tier of the 8'th green - which would have been even nicer if the pin hadn't been on the lower tier.  It's only May, and I've probably already made my best 2-putt of the year.

[TEPaul]

John MacM:

Isn't it a pisser when you hit these great shots to those super sucker pin positions and the pin isn't there?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()