[Sean_A]

The quote below grabbed my attention.

"It's funny you should mention trajectory.  I probably do the opposite of what you suggest.  I like to build greens on long holes where a running shot will be helped to the hole by ground contours, while a high lofted shot may be deflected away, or at least not stopped predictably.  Presumably, the really good player could choose to lay back off the tee and hit a longer club into the green to take advantage, or else hit a deliberately lower-trajectory approach ... but most just complain about why the high shot is penalized!"

I am struggling to understand how this may play out - that is contours gathering for flat shots, but repelling for lofted shots.  Are there any good examples of this?  What do folks think of intentionally rewarding trajectory with contours?  Does this mean once and for all the idea of random design is at the very minimum misleading and likely bogus?

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

The quote below grabbed my attention.

"It's funny you should mention trajectory.  I probably do the opposite of what you suggest.  I like to build greens on long holes where a running shot will be helped to the hole by ground contours, while a high lofted shot may be deflected away, or at least not stopped predictably.  Presumably, the really good player could choose to lay back off the tee and hit a longer club into the green to take advantage, or else hit a deliberately lower-trajectory approach ... but most just complain about why the high shot is penalized!"

I am struggling to understand how this may play out - that is contours gathering for flat shots, but repelling for lofted shots.  Are there any good examples of this?  What do folks think of intentionally rewarding trajectory with contours?  Does this mean once and for all the idea of random design is at the very minimum misleading and likely bogus?

Ciao

I like the idea of rewarding low running shots, especially since that may be the only way shorter hitters can reach the green. A Redan green comes to mind as a good example. However, I'm curious to see an example of how contours can deflect a high shot.

[Scott Warren]

I think upslopes short of the green work well at stopping a shot landing short from a great height landing short accidentally and allowing a shot deliberately played low with the aim of running it up to run on.

The sort of holes I'm thinking of are 9 at St Andrews Beach, 10 at Barny Dunes, 12 at Fishers Island, 6 at Dornoch, 13 at NSWGC.

[Steve Kline]

Whether the shot is high or low you still have to get the right weight on it and the right spin. Both of those are just as important as the height. Like Sean I am struggling with this quote.

[archie_struthers]

   ;


Let's say you have a green  with a downhill cant on the front but a gentle slope leading into the green.  A high towering iron shot favored by most pros that lands on the green is repelled to the back. Similarly if this shot was to land just short it may fetch , leaving a difficult chip to a front pin. this can cause then wailing and gnashing of teeth and the "fairness" moaning lol!    The  preferred shot is a lower trajectory play !  

With equipment being what it is today, very few players hit these shots, preferring the bomb and gouge techniques that serves them so well at most venues. While Tom thought I didn't appreciate his use of same, it actually separates the best architects IMHO.   His work clearly shows these skills, I just want more!

I think this has contributed to the resurgence of the Europeans, who have to deal with the vagaries of these shots more than our boys and thus develop superior skills when conditions get gnarly.

[Andy Stamm]

For me, this scenario calls to mind the 14th at Cruden Bay, site of the bathtub green. The normal play is to land the ball 50 yards short, and it will run on to the green somewhere, but it's impossible to control where. The green is small, so anywhere on it is ok, but a good birdie chance is left to fortune. The landing area for this shot is very wide and particularly easy to hit because it means hitting to an area 50 yards short of the green, so it is typically played with a short club.

The aggressive play is to carry the ball all the way to the green, where one can hope to purposely hit close to the front, middle, or rear of the green as needed to get close to the flag. The danger being that the green is narrow and the sides severely sloped so missing right or left will cause the the ball to go somewhere unpredictable, but likely on the green. If on misses the bathtub altogether right or left, significant problems lurk. The other (and really fantastic) problem is that while a ball well short will reliably settle on the green somewhere, a ball just short will land on the significant down slope close to the green and go over.

The strategy stretches back to the tee, because the hole is not long (particularly when landing the second 50 yards short) so many players lay well back to the wide part of the fairway. A player wishing to take the aggressive route will want to drive further up to a narrow, sloping area protected by bunkers, leaving a short club all the way to the green. I've never seen anyone play all the way to the green with a long club.

I think this is a lovely hole because it's unique and because conservative play can yield an easy par, while well played aggressive play is needed for birdie. But, there's more danger with the aggressive play.

As an aside, I've driven to the top of the hill and elected to hit a '25 foot' put from 50 yards that takes the slope and finishes on the green as opposed to pitching all the way there because I was afraid I'd pitch short, hit the downslope and go over. That play was unconventional but safe and effective, especially considering my position in the match.

[Steve Kline]

 ;


Let's say you have a green  with a downhill cant on the front but a gentle slope leading into the green.  A high towering iron shot favored by most pros that lands on the green is repelled to the back. Similarly if this shot was to land just short it may fetch , leaving a difficult chip to a front pin. this can cause then wailing and gnashing of teeth and the "fairness" moaning lol!    The  preferred shot is a lower trajectory play !  

And how far are you playing said shot from? Do you know the control, skill and luck it would take to play that shot correctly and have it end up anywhere other than where the high trajectory shot would end up. The high trajectory shot is the by far the safer shot because the distance it will go is more well known to the golfer. The golfer can almost guarantee par if he just makes sure he gets it past the pin so he can putt uphill.

I honestly can't think of any contours that make me change my trajectory if I am more than 75 or so yards away from the green.

[archie_struthers]

 

Steve that's the whole point of the illusion and contour. We don't want you to hit the same shot alll the time , as is so often the case.  Just sending it up in the air as high and soft as you can on every shot just isn't cool!   

Remember that higher handicappers players tend to hit the ball lower and shorter so holes that accept running shots work better for most of them. They actually hit more low "skippers"than the experts , albeit unintentionally at times. HOwever a low running five wood from 170 yards might indded be a better shot relative to handicap than a wedge from 125 out on the hole I am talking about.

When I get a little more time I can give you some real world examples where the architecture has tried to bring the ground game into play , such as the second shot on #4 Pine Valley , where a new tee has been built to achieve this result.

[Steve Kline]

I've played PV #4 sans new tee. I would not think of hitting a low runner in there. We're talking about taking an extra club or two to swing easier promoting a lower ball flight with less spin abd chasing it on the green, right? So, instead of a 7 iron you take a 5 iron and smooth it with no spin so it lands short and rolls on? I agree that holes are better when they accept this type of shot because it allows all players access to the green. However, I think it is done more out of necessity or due the length of shot and not because the player chooses too bring it in low. Perhaps I just don't see it because I'm low handicap player and the problem is with me.

[George Pazin]

Steve that's the whole point of the illusion and contour. We don't want you to hit the same shot alll the time , as is so often the case.  Just sending it up in the air as high and soft as you can on every shot just isn't cool!   

This is especially true with recovery type shots, imho. If you're hitting from the rough, the aerial distance becomes much less certain, as does spin (obviously). To be able to use the ground contours in such an instance is just great.

[archie_struthers]

 

Steve , when you see how #4 at the Valley plays when it's firmed up for the Crump Cup you might appreciate it more. If you play in the tournament, my apologies. From the new tee you have  to nuke it pretty good to have 5 iron in .  

The whole postulate is to take away the easier shot for the expert to some extent, and tempt them to play the more creative one. Some will some won't but just getting them thinking might be enough to cause a ripple in confidence.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The quote below grabbed my attention.

"It's funny you should mention trajectory.  I probably do the opposite of what you suggest.  I like to build greens on long holes where a running shot will be helped to the hole by ground contours, while a high lofted shot may be deflected away, or at least not stopped predictably.  Presumably, the really good player could choose to lay back off the tee and hit a longer club into the green to take advantage, or else hit a deliberately lower-trajectory approach ... but most just complain about why the high shot is penalized!"

I am struggling to understand how this may play out - that is contours gathering for flat shots, but repelling for lofted shots.  

Sean,

I also had a difficult time grasping and visualizing the concept in practice, so I asked Tom Doak to provide some examples.
Unfortunately, he hasn't responded.

Perhaps it was just a theory of his or something he'd contemplated rather than an underlying design principle that he's actually built.

I don't know how you'd make it easier for a long running approach versus a long aerial approach and was hoping Tom would identify the holes where he did this so that we could look at them on Google earth or with ground level photos.[/size]

Are there any good examples of this?  

The only thing I could think of was a fronting feature/contour that funnels the ball to the green, with a green with a spine or slope that would deflect balls that arrive aerially, but, I can't recall seeing that configuration

The only configuration I could think of was the 5th ole at NGLA and the right side "turbo boost" feature that feeds balls hit short and right, onto the green


What do folks think of intentionally rewarding trajectory with contours?  Does this mean once and for all
the idea of random design is at the very minimum misleading and likely bogus?

[archie_struthers]

 

Pat think of the 10 th at Sand Hills.......great example of the concept.  It really is fabulous , I just couldn't wait to hit that second shot to the green.   At Twisted both #'s 2 and 11 are examples.


If you have seen the 4th at PV in  firm and fast( Crump Cup) mode you see how the spine running across the middle of the green causes the same effect. You don't even have to play the new tee to understand .  When it is crusty, the only play to the back right pins is to skip it in, it's just really hard to gauge the weight.   Many times the play is to just hit it over and chip back , as foreign as that may be to smash and gougers. On an aerial golf course , it's a wonderful anomaly!

[Adam Clayman]

If it was Doak that made the comment, the many greens at Ballyneal might qualify as an example. However, the firmness of the green is the key component to this phenomenon.

Sean, I wouldn't call real randomness bogus, I'd call it dead. In the Ashkernish thread there's an example of it's demise.

[Sean_A]

Archie

It sounds like you are saying a misplaced aerial shot is bounced away.  Wouldn't that same slope veer a misdirected bouncer? 

Adam

I don't know Askernish, but I think even at the far end of the topic, random could really mean using already existing land forms.  If an archie uses that land form or anything else for that matter, can it really be called random?  Afterall, he has the choice not to use that land form or to eradicate it.  I would think it an insult to an archie if someone were to say his courses are random.  This implies the archie really didn't give the work much thought.  I spose that could be true, but likely not and likely still insulting.  What do archies say?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I believe it takes a long approach to make the reverse slope force the running shot, a la 14 (?) at Oakland Hills.  Whenever I have done a reverse slope green on a shorter hole, good players just use more spin, and average ones just roll over the green.  But, in the PGA a few years ago, all the players I saw actually did try to run the long shots on the green there.

So it seems odd, but I feel the best place for a reverse slope green (or flatter one) is on long par 4 holes.  For a long time I did it the other way around, making the up slope steeper to help hold shots on long par 4s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I agree, the same slope that would deflect a ball from an aerial descent would deflect a roller.

[Tom_Doak]

Sorry, I've been busy the past couple of days, no time to respond here.

The hole where I first tried this was the third hole at High Pointe [see The Anatomy of a Golf Course].  Long par-4, uphill approach, small crowned green -- really a par 4 1/2.  If you are approaching it with a three-wood, you're just trying to bounce it up the slope in front, and it might very well work if you get the weight right.  But if you are a long hitter and approaching that green with a 7-iron, you are going to have to hit a very precise approach, the slope in front will just stop your shot dead in its tracks.

Links courses have a lot of these sorts of approaches, which the average player fails to comprehend.  All those swales and ridges in front of the greens on The Old Course are perfect examples ... if you land a lofted club just short of the green, you might get a really "unfair" kick forward or the ball might stop too fast, but if you land the ball IN FRONT of those contours with some momentum the ball just rolls up and over or down and through them without much effect at all. 

We've tried to integrate the same idea on some of our own links courses, but it's very hard to plan ... I suspect on the old links, most of these things are random instead of thought out.  Pacific Dunes has a little of it, Barnbougle and Old Macdonald a bit more, and Ballyneal probably the most.  Stonewall actually has a lot of holes like this, too.  By the way, it's the one linksy concept which Sand Hills really doesn't emulate at all ... they just didn't choose green sites just behind a contour like I'm describing, if there were any out there to be found.

[Sean_A]

Tom

It sounds like you are saying a misjudged aerial approach can be shunted forward or stop dead.  Compared to a long running shot or even quite a close putt from off the green, yes, its short or longer aerial conterpart requires a more precision based landing spot and usually lots of experience (or good fortune if the experience is lacking).  My thoughts on this are the aerial guy has to be good at controlling spin to take on his shot, otherwise its often safer to keep it on the ground, but hard to get close to the hole this way.  Of course, for the longer shots, the shorter hitters don't have a choice!  In any case, I get what you mean now.

Ciao 

[archie_struthers]

  ::

Tom , I distinctly remember that the 10th at SandHills allowed for the run on , it was my favorite hole there. 


It's really a fabulous feature !   Funny that I also remember that in the open at Oakmont (mid 90's ?) they had the place so firm and fast the 1 st hole was actually exhibiting this trait..    it was so fast front to back you had to land it short and gauge the run out.  itnwas quite befuddling to the best players in the world!

[Steve Kline]

Tom - could you give a specific example or two from Ballyneal where you tried to do this?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Doesn't a slightly raised front portion of the green help in accomplishing this situation ?

Balls hit just short (aerially) remain short after landing on the upslope, whereas, balls running along the groud will continue up the slight slope onto the green.

I noticed that C&C incorporated this feature on almost every green at Hidden Creek.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I have yet to see Hidden Creek, but yes, a small rise at the front of a green can be all it takes to do what I'm describing.

Walter Travis was especially prone to building greens with these sorts of features ... I've seen several of them at places like Hollywood.  Garden City, of course, has many fallaway greens, but none with a ridge just in front as I'm describing.


Archie:

Sand Hills has many greens where you can run the ball onto the green, but none that I recall where it's a particular advantage to do so.  The tenth falls away to the right, but I don't remember if it has anything just in front.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()