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,

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

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  

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.