[David Schofield]

I recently returned from playing The Wilderness at Fortune Bay, The Legend at Giants Ridge and The Quarry at Giants Ridge in southern Canada northern Minnesota.  At the Wilderness we were confronted by some of the most daunting and enjoyable internal green contours that I've ever seen.  Unfortunately, I thought that whomever cut the cups that day did so in a way that took what I would consider a strongpoint of the course and made it into a liability.  

• Hole#2, Par 4, has a false front with a small chipping area just over the greenside bunkers.  The pin was placed less than a yard past the breaking point of the slope.  2 of 4 people in our group putted off of the front of the green.
• Hole #3, Par 3, has a huge green with two distinct levels.  The pin was placed on the upper level again less than a yard past the breaking point of the slope.  3 of 4 people in our group either putted off the top level or left a putt short from the lower level which rolled back to them.
• Hole #5, Par 4, has a biarritz green with a very narrow swale.  The pin was cut in flowline the swale.  I know this was discussed previously and the consensus of the treehouse is that these greens shouldn't be pinned in the swale (see: http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40981.0/).  All but one person made extremely long putts by simply getting the ball into the upper end of the swale and letting it feed back directly in the cup.

My question is, what is the best way for a GCA to provide any lasting directions on the setup of the course?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hmm, I wonder if I should answer this one?

The only one I will take on is that I can tell you I widened the bottom of the swale out on No. 5 specifically to allow the pin down there on a few days.

There is an argument to be made against putting any cup near the top of a tier in a green. The third was not meant to be that high, but we hit solid rock below and decided to follow natural contours. I don't think its the greatest green I ever built for a long par 3.  To be honest, the second is also a bit tough for a long par 4 but the overriding gca philosphy on that one was "Screw em.  They need to be able to tak a joke!"

Not really, but the overriding question really is whether or not a lay up putt, rather than trying to get it at least a foot past the hole in an effort to make it represents good design and/or cup setting?  You know, it probably isn't the best, but sometimes those cup settings happen, especially near the end of the season when they are trying to use lesser used areas of the green.  To have 3 of those settings in 4 holes seems a little insensitive, unless you are splitting the incidences into two posts, in which case I would agree there is a problem!

As to whether we as gca can really influence the cup setting, it has been discussed before and even if we leave a little guide to the first super, it has proven to be of little effect.  As a former cup setter when I was in college, I can attest that golf courses often assign that job the least valuble employee......

[David Schofield]

I stand corrected on pinning a biarritz green in the swale.  Perhaps I should have looked further than a single search/thread before coming to that conclusion.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jeff summed it up really, after the GCA leaves its over to the maintenance people. Just to add that not all pin positions are great pin positions and they do have to be rotated to spread the wear, so you should get a mixture in my opinion for normal play, if you are playing a course that has a tourney in the next 7-14 days, you can expect to get quite a number of not so good ones since the best 5 spots are going to be retained for the tournament.

[Adam Clayman]

It disagree that a pin cut close to an edge is poor gca, or poor set up. The fact that your group failed to execute putting, makes me read your question using "unfair" as it's subtext.

The 11th at Pacific Grove is a short par 4 hole  that has  a small green benched in front of a dune, with a false front. The rise couldn't be more than about 3 or 4 feet off the fairway floor. The leeward side of the false front has a slight contrary, sloping towards the rear. The shot options were plentiful, from pitching into the rise, to flopping it past the influence of the contrary. The putt back to the pin position that was just over the false front was always a challenge (as was the approach.

IMO, these subtle challenges are what define quality GCA and identify the sportsman that relishes these challenges. It also helps identify those who feel the need to  cry "unfair" blaming someone else for their less than stellar skills or awareness level.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adam I disagree with your disagreeing, but only in part, the principle of seperating the men from the boys is good obviously but many greens will have slopes wherby cutting the pin too close borders unfair, IMO having a six footer that if you miss you then go twenty feet past is Mickey Mouse and an architects intend would not be to have that pin in that place, whilst there are no rules the speed of the greens will reduce the pinning areas as speed increases, at a 10 stimp I would not like to see a pin with two yards of crest/tier and more ideally I think three yards.

[Adam Clayman]

Adrian, It does not surprise me my opinion on fair and unfair is a minority one. I will tell you that challenges of the nature that we are talking about, when conquered, give a satisfaction level that makes the game worth playing, for life. Without them, the game would be diluted into a boring slog with little to inspire anyone. The result is a culture that plays golf, versus a culture dominated by golfers.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not to sidetrack a thread, but I do think the general intent of most golf shots is to get closer to, or in the hole.  Most players would say that having the course take the ball away from the hole at least too often, is probably contrary to the spirit of the game.  My favorite quote is from Colt: "In no case should the green be contoured to make the putt run away from the hole like a swine possessed by the devil." (From memory, so it may be a few words off)

Then, we get into the whole issue of restoring greens.  While being taken to task for my renovations of some Maxwell courses, I have to ask, did he or any of the old guys ever write that "a bad putt should roll off the green?"  I doubt it, and think they intended most of the green to have cup spaces (they wrote about it) so flattening their greens may preserve their design intent as much or more than leaving the contours as is.  And of course, that presumes that they haven't changed over the years.

Of course, if David Moriarity reads this, he will argue that just because Ross, et al didn't specifically mention not putting off the green being suitable, it doesn't preclude them from having endorsed the de-greening of putts, and therefore, they wanted putts to roll off the greens, at least before November 1910..........

[Dan Herrmann]

Come on -who doesn't find it to be tremendously fun to hit to a tucked pin or a hole on a small ridge!

[Scott Szabo]

There was recent discussion about this very thing regarding hole #8 at Ballyneal, and Tom Doak mentioned the pin in question was not to be used very often.  I don't know how much input the architect would have - that would be an interesting one for all.  Do they have general discussions with the grounds superintendent and staff regarding pin positions, or on a more generic note, how they intend the course to play?  It's obvious at Ballyneal when the course was constructed it was intended to play very firm and fast.  But as for specific pin positions, I doubt that anything would have been discussed.  But I've been wrong before....

[Ron Farris]

This is a quite interesting thread, IMO.  Working with Tom Lehman at the Prairie Club, we worked extemely hard to get certain pin locations that were at the edge of the green.  And in some cases where the ball indeed would roll 50 to 70 yards or feet from the green.  Also, at the Sand Hills GC, this is quite prevelent.  So is it a good thing or a bad thing to have the ball run away from the hole if you miss a shot by a foot or so.?  All things in moderation?

[David Schofield]

...makes me read your question using "unfair" as it's subtext...IMO, these subtle challenges are what define quality GCA and identify the sportsman that relishes these challenges. It also helps identify those who feel the need to  cry "unfair" blaming someone else for their less than stellar skills or awareness level.

Adam, surely you would agree that there are unpinnable areas on modern greens, wouldn't you?

[William_G]

#8 at Old Mac was designed for front hole locations, but the front half of the green is not being used even though Tom Doak would like to see it play that way. The course guide book and pin sheet divides the back half of the green into left, center, and right 4COL. Mike Keiser must have some significant reservations about the front half being unfair or too diffficult???

Thanks again to Mike Keiser and Howard Mckee!

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Pin positions on a new course are always a garanteed debate at the clubhouse.

My greens are generally designed with strongly undulations with some obviously easy pin positions and - if one chooses - some very difficult.

However, especially in the early life of the golf course, the greenkeepers will place an excessively difficult pin placement – not necessarily intentionally but let’s say, “feeling out the green” to see where the pain barrier is.

The first to squeal are inevitably the seniors in their competitions – the seniors have plenty of time to voice their wise opinions and don’t hold back – then the blame game begins.

Usually I end up having  to pacify the situation.

I find the best way is to go round the course with the Head Greenkeeper pointing out my intentions and the “no-no” placements. Even though the Head Greenkeeper may deem this as unnecessary it always surprises me how much collective conclusions can be made to maximize the placement space available.

Just recently I’ve resorted to a colour code on a sketch of more controversial greens showing the intended pin placement areas – this really helps -  except for the colour blind.

As Napoleon once said “ Un bon croquis vaut mieux qu'un long discours »

[Sean_A]

I am not a fan of crazy greens, but I most definitely fall in the Adam C Camp on these matters with the proviso that because ball breaker pin locations exist on most greens doesn't mean they should be used often or in a large grouping.  Taken like any other shot, a poor putt can most definitely deserve to end up 20 or whatever feet away from the hole or even off the green.  For instance, one of the main reasons for a false front to exist is due to the ability to cut hole close to the edge.  Other than for engineering reasons, why else would the false front exist other than to tempt the player to challenge the edge?  One thing is for certain, it sure beats whacking in yet another bunker to keep the golfer honest.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I would bet that most false fronts are built on uphill holes, where at least part of their function is to assist the golfer in seeing some portion of the green.  I haven't surveyed every false front green, so I could be wrong on that one.

But you make an interesting point.  In many ways, on the approach shot, a false front simply provides frontal defense in place of a bunker.  Some say it's more unfair than a bunker, but a player might leave two or three shots in a bunker, or lose two or three shots when he degreens a putt from above the hole.  Why is one considered unfair more than the other?  Which gives a better shot at avoiding a large score?  For most golfers, it would be the false front, IMHO, and yet they complain about those because they are not "standard."

Not exactly related, but I have heard golfers complain that bulkhead walls between ponds and green are unfair. I think its because when they hit them and see the ball bounce backwards, they somehow think that a grass bank would have helped them attain the green.  I doubt it.  But, at the same time, I wonder if anyone ever gives a false front, and its short grass and fast rolling, any credit for having actually assisted their approach shot from getting on the green with more roll?

[Tom_Doak]

There was recent discussion about this very thing regarding hole #8 at Ballyneal, and Tom Doak mentioned the pin in question was not to be used very often.  I don't know how much input the architect would have - that would be an interesting one for all.  Do they have general discussions with the grounds superintendent and staff regarding pin positions, or on a more generic note, how they intend the course to play?  It's obvious at Ballyneal when the course was constructed it was intended to play very firm and fast.  But as for specific pin positions, I doubt that anything would have been discussed.  But I've been wrong before....

Scott:

In the particular case you've cited, I've played golf with Dave Hensley at Ballyneal, and looked at different greens with him on various occasions.  We talked about that specific hole location and I told him the same thing I said in the Ballyneal thread, that I was okay if he used it once in a blue moon but it wasn't really intended as a hole location [by me, anyway; Brian Schneider may have thought differently].  There was a similar spot on the 8th green at High Pointe, which I shaped myself ... it was only after I was finished that I realized you could put a hole on an intermediate tier that had been built just to tie everything in better.

On most of our projects I have spent considerable time with the superintendents -- a couple of times I've even lived under the same roof during construction -- so they've generally had plenty of opportunity to ask me about any hole locations they have doubts about.  That works just fine until they leave.  But, on paper, it's hard to be exact enough about how far toward the edges we think they should go, since the equation changes with the speed of the greens.  I would rather go out and hit putts with the superintendent, so he understands that the question is not just a function of placement but of how hard it should be to get from A to B.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Your "exactness" comment reminds me that the traditional hole locations for TOC rely on lining up on steeples and all kinds of things, at least from stories I have read.  I guess that would be harder at a place like Ballyneal.  And I doubt most of our American mindsets would cotton to such a thing, as compared to hundred year old traditions at TOC.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Interestingly, I've never been asked to go around and pick out 2-4 "tournament" hole locations for any of my courses.  I think that would be fun to do, within reason, but it would go out the window at Ballyneal if the wind turned.

I did go around with Mike Davis prior to the Curtis Cup at Pacific Dunes and look at the four hole locations they were going to use, and we adjusted a couple of them based on my suggestions.  They actually changed hole locations between the morning and afternoon matches.

[corey miller]

I am not a fan of "fairness" in golf architecture but it is a problem when pins are located too close to false fronts on uphill holes.  What kind of fun is it if

1.  a well struck put that essentially stops at the hole rolls off

or

2. a ball placed six inches below the hole rolls off

combined with

There is no was to get a ball to stay below the hole on an approach shot. 


Even if one would consider it plays the same as a bunker, a frontal hazard, I don't think I have even seen a hole cut on three inches from the top of the bunker.

It just isn't much fun.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()