Depends...some are much worse, ala Jones at 9 and 18 at Spyglass.

Miss the green, can't see the pin or the surface. Very hard to make the recovery shot anywhere close.

With Ross and Nicklaus, you have a chance, although a difficult one at best.

There are holes that become brilliant because of the elevated green.  Among a few great ones are #3 Teeth of the Dog, #4 Southampton, #13 Piping Rock, #15 Creek, #9Garden City CC (#12 old routing), #4 Soboba Springs, #13 (Tournament#4) Westchester(Though the effect is currently compromised by the stupid pines framing the back of the green--actually makes for an easier shot--though this is an extremely difficult green to hit). To negotiate them successfully, usually requires some thought and precision with the drive.  Though a few current architects seem to elevate almost everything but do not seem to design their greens with optimal approach angles.

As in most things related to golf course architecture, I believe that variety is essential and thus elevated greens are not inherently better.  Most elevated greens limit ground game options and thus are often preferred by players who are capable of caarying the ball to the target with sufficient spin to control distance.  As such they can be viewed as more challenging.  On the other hand, on windy sites they can limit options.  Moreover, imposing elevated greens on terrain more suited for those at ground level can appear unnatural and break the flow of certain sites.  Accordingly, I don't believe there is an absolute response to your question; it depends on the location and nature of the particular hole.

I prefer greens built at grade which lets the lay of the land determine the heighth.

SL Solow & Ed Getka,

Doesn't the non-elvevated green offer fewer dimensions ?

Mark Brown,

Ditto ?

JES II,

How would you classify the 10th and 11th greens at Shinnecock, in the category you put # 9 in, or the category you put # 7 in ?

Cary Lichtenstein,

Then I take it that you're not a fan of any redans.

Doesn't the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th at Seminole unravel your theory regarding Ross ?

I could go through a hole by hole at Plainfield and
Pinehurst # 2 if you'd like additional examples.

Why must one be entitled to a view of the green if they hit errant shots.

# 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, and # 8 would be examples of greens where the putting surface would not be visible, or even the flagstick, if you missed the green.

Patrick...I have eliminated all the posts that, although pertinant, weren't serious enough by your standards.

 As one who is immersed 7 days a week in GCArch, I find a little levity relaxing and it is one of the reasons I come here.
....it also helps to keep from taking oneself to seriously  

Paul,

I've been thinking along similar lines. To me an elevated green can mean something like those at Pinehurst #2 or just a green that sits above the approach shot.

I am guessing Pat meant the former, but some clarification would help.

I know of many downhill approaches to elevated greens in the game.

Kyle

Yes small elevations like many greens at Dornoch or St Andrews surely offer more options than grand elevated greens like the 2nd at Pine Valley or 8th at NGLA.

PS
Patrick mentions Plainfield.  But for me, maybe the most interesting approach on that course is at the 7th, which has a kind of shallow, saucer green.

JES II,

Two of my favorite approaches in the game go in the "Above the approach" category. The ninth of the Toomey Nine at HVCC and the second on the C Nine, yet, while those greens are interesting, I wouldn't call them elevated above their immediate surroundings like the fifth on the C Nine at HVCC, around which there are many interesting pitch and chip shots to be had.

I think both are viable to discuss in the context of this thread, but don't want to steal Pat's thunder, as it were.

Patrick,

I greatly prefer when elevated greens are elevated naturally by using a hilltop as a greensite, as opposed to a simple pushup created above the natural land using fill.  It fits the eye much better.  If you can't do it completely naturally, I'd prefer at least part of it be natural (typically the front or part of the front and one side)  Just plopping down a 5' high mound of dirt 50' across and growing bent grass on it is really no different from the artificial mounding created around greens and course perimeters to hide cartpaths and busy roadways.

Its not that it can't be done right when it is done artifically, but not everyone is Donald Ross, and 99% of such elevated greens created fail miserably in my opinion in an aesthetic sense.  And watching a hacker try to chip onto a small pushup is like watching a 4 year old try to get the ball in the clown's mouth of the 18th hole at a putt putt course.  Hit it up, miss, watch it roll back down again...

Paul Turner, et. al.,

How much elevation?  Just a small plateau or rise?  Or more substantial?

My initial thoughts were elevation created by man, irrespective of the degree.

Then I thought of other greens that sat on plateau's, but, for purposes of this discussion, let's confine it to man made elevations of any height.

I'll start another thread on greens that sit on natural, elevated sites.

A great study might be the old and new green at # 18 at Seminole.[/color]

Paul Turner, et. al.,

Quote from: Paul_Turner on April 12, 2005, 10:16:52 PM

How much elevation?  Just a small plateau or rise?  Or more substantial?

My initial thoughts were elevation created by man, irrespective of the degree.

Then I thought of other greens that sat on plateau's, but, for purposes of this discussion, let's confine it to man made elevations of any height.

I'll start another thread on greens that sit on natural, elevated sites.

A great study might be the old and new green at # 18 at Seminole.[/color]

Patrick

So if we limit to man made elevations.  I think that above perhaps 10-15 feet of elevation for the green there are likely to be less options available.  Of course the shot demanded can still be exciting and more demanding than a level or downhill shot.

I suppose the opposite of a sharply elevated green is a pure punchbowl green.  By pure puchbowl, I mean the kind of greens that always gather to the centre.  The kind that B Darwin and others became critical of when writing about some of the earliest links holes.  With a pure punchbowl, you have almost infinite options from lob to putter, but it's an easy shot... the ball always gathers.  Which is why these holes were often redone.  (9th at Hoylake is a relic that survived).

Or how about a comparison of the 9th greens at Pine Valley?  Maxwell's slightly raised green is certainly more challenging than Alison's gathering lower green.  

Do you find the 11th at Hidden Creek to be inherently better than the 14th?