[Mark_F]

There are a few courses with these type of greens - Crystal Downs, Sand Hills - and the feature seems a bit strange to me.  

After all, boomerang's aren't exactly common in other parts of the world, are they?  

So why does the feature work on golf courses overseas?

Do they really fit into their surroundings and work?

Are they interesting and fun to play, as a general rule?

Are there many other courses which have them, or something very similar?

[Sean_A]

Mark

I like boomerang greens.  They may seem a bit gimmicky at first, but where is it written that because one is one the green that they should have priveledge to an unimpeded putt across the green?  In truth, this happens a load around bunker shoulders.   The only two I can recall playing are #6 at U of M and I think #15 at Tobacco Road.   Both are small targets to hit if a three putt or tricky pitch is to be avoided and both are decidely fun.

The TR hole is decidedly more difficult because of the possibility of blindness for the approach.  The drive is clever because the instinctual shot to hit is a fade around the corner, but I think more often than not, if one wants a view of the pin for the second the drive should be hit left which appears a daunting carry, but isn't really isn't, treating the hole like a 90 degree dogleg (sorry, that sentence construction is very Faulkneresque).  The green has to be at least 40 yards long and sits nearly perpindicular to the fairway with a bit of a curl heading around a messy mound about 2/3s from right to left fronting the green.  This mound causes havoc if one was hapless enough to hit the left side when the pin is on the rights side.  A fun hole for sure.  

The U of M hole is totally different because it is driveable for many.  It is straightaway with everything in sight.  There green is on a very slippery slope from back to front.  I see many more bogeys there than pars and birdies combined.  Due to technology, the hole basically has no point with the pin up front except for the challenge of trying to drive it.  The pitch is very difficult from either side, but especially from the right because a bunker sits on a straight line from the lower left of the green to the upper left.  If the pin is on the back, it is a great little hole because it is driveable, but I am not sure this is a smart play.  The target is narrow for a wedge let alone a driver.  

The folks at U of M do mess the hole up a bit with severe rough around the green.  The hole would play better with a band of fairway around the wings, this would encourage more people to have a go and when they get it wrong the experience of chipping/putting around this green may make their day.

Man, if they could get the bunkers sorted out, I think this course would certainly have a chance for top 100.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

The only real boomerang green I've ever seen is Crystal Down's #7, and it sure is a true boomerang. Gimmicky? I don't know. Is that supposed to be slightly synonymous with unfair? If so, I don't think so.

It's fun and interesting to play to and play on, in my opinion. And the way it's built and appears in its natural situation on that particlar golf course is very inspiring to see.

I played that hole perhaps a half dozen times about six weeks ago to both front and back pins. The back pin is the more interesting one to me because to get there seems to require some local knowledge. Each time I hit what I thought was a good shot and I hit the greenspace ridge between the front and back and went back onto the front section.

On unusual greens like Crystal's #7 I think it's the little things that make it so special. On that one the fact that both front and back sections are basically elongated bowls makes the hole somewhat more foregiving to approach than if it wasn't that way.

My jury is still somewhat out on what you face if you are in the wrong section from the pin and what to do. I wouldn't want to consider chipping off greenspace on that green. I did manage to two putt though twice to a back pin from the front section but only because I wasn't all that far right on the front and the pin on the back wasn't all that far right.

I don't think Crystal's #7 is gimmicky although it sure is unique. Some do think it's gimmicky though, and probably in about the same way they might think some of the greens that're definitely "greens within a green" at NGLA are gimmicky. Gimmicky or not I wish the world of golf architecture had more of them.

[T_MacWood]

There is one at Dye's Crooked Stick...I suspect U. of Michigan was the inspiration.

[Mark_F]

Sean,

It's written nowhere, of course.  They just aren't a very common feature - except, perhaps oddly enough, on two of the best courses in the world - so I wondered what they played like, and whether they worked.  

There are a few greens on Gunnamatta where, if you short side yourself, you might have to hit a pitch thirty metres left into a hill to let the slope bring the ball close to a hole.  

Or, you do if you possess my short game imagination and wizardy.

Tom Paul,

After an early chastisement from you, I know better than to bandy about the word 'unfair.'  Unfair in golf only applies when the horny barmaid finishes her shift at the same time as you finish your round.

I think the feature would be interesting, and really make you think about a myriad number of options, if you end up in the wrong place - it just doesn't seem that common a feature, and I wondered why.

Are there few landforms that lend themselves to it?

Is it that 'out there' a feature that many players would be infuriated by it, no matter their prediliction for innovation on a golf course?

Or is it just hard to do properly?

The photo in Ran's new review of the one on Sand Hills is what got me thinking - it sure looks interesting.

[Mike_Sweeney]

The photo in Ran's new review of the one on Sand Hills is what got me thinking - it sure looks interesting.

Here is a gimmicky one from Stone Harbor. Muirhead was doing a fish swallowing a minnow concept visually. It is at the end of a Par 5 third hole. The problem is the "fish" bunker takes alot of the options out of playing to the green in two. Take the fish away, and it would be pretty good.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
After an early chastisement from you, I know better than to bandy about the word 'unfair.' "

Mark:

I don't remember ever chastising anyone for floating the word or idea of "unfair" about golf or golf architecture. It's just an issue I hope can be constantly looked at and reanalyzed.

"Unfair in golf only applies when the horny barmaid finishes her shift at the same time as you finish your round."

Don't you mean to say when the barmaid's shift finishes at the same time as the horny golfer finishes his round? If both of them are really horny my faith in "Life's little fates" tells me they probably would hook up on the fly as she leaves through the clubhouse's back door and he ALMOST but not quite simultaneously walks off the 18th green!

(I am one of those people who truly does believe if you turn right instead of left at various significant times your entire live will be very different).  

[TEPaul]

Mike Sweeney:

I don't know if that fish is still trying to catch that minnow in front of the 3rd green at Stone Harbor, but the last I played that course (about a year ago) playing to that green and playing on that green is remarkably strategic.

As odd as that course looks there is a couple of instances of high and interesting strategic ramifications there. The next hole (#4) albeit another odd looking and unnatural looking hole just happens to be one of the most interesting and most complex par 3s strategically I've ever seen or played in my life.

[RJ_Daley]

MIke, I really have to see that Stone Harbor someday!

13 at Rustic is more or less a boomer.  Boomers I've seen have been presented in varying orientations.  Crystal is lengthwise too the line of play.  Others like 8 Sand Hills, 17 Tobacco Road and 13 Rustic have the boomer bunker feature in the middle presenting the distinct green flanks to either side.  

Tommy had a neat photo of one on a daily fee executive length course in the L.A. area that was quite a boomer.

I'm not sure, but I think somewhere there is a double plateau Raynor hole that is fronted by a grass depression instead of a bunker that is essentially a boomer green.

I think that the incorporation of a boomer green should be dictated by a land feature.  I like the Crystal Downs one best because it is dictated by the high encroaching mound from the right.  When Dan Proctor and I were looking at a piece of land in Nebraska, I found a natural green site that screamed boomer to the max.  I think it would have been one of the most exciting greens ever.  But with that perfect of sand hill rolling terrain, you could almost design 18 boomers if you wanted.

[Ken Fry]

The beauty of Crystal Downs' #7 is if you do get the ball on the wrong level of the green, the contours allow you to putt from one level to the other successfully.  You may not get the putt close to the hole, but it follows your approach shot should have been better!

The green on Crooked Stick's #15 is a boomerang shape but I always felt it was two separate greens.  My understanding from the 1991 PGA is they never used the top level during the tournament.

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

I hope they are not because I've built a couple, and I've got a couple more which are not yet open:  the 16th at Sebonack and the 7th at Ballyneal.

The latter is a doozy, a short par-4 with an extra back placement beyond the boomerang (sort of like a script E shape), and a severe bank cut at fairway height all along the left side of the green.  If you hit your drive to the right you can bank your second into the right section of the green, and if you leave your approach in the wrong part of the green you can always putt up off the green to the left and let it come back to get around the bunkers which cut into the right hand side.

Some may think this hole is gimmicky, but I think it will be great fun.  I do think it's essential to have some way to putt from any part of the green to any other part ... if you'd have to chip to get closer than 15 feet from the hole, that's not going to work out very well.

[TEPaul]

Ken Fry:

You're right that it's impossible to putt the ball that close to various pins at Crystal's #7 from the other side of the boomerang.

I can live with greens like that where you can't get the ball near the hole from various positions on the green but I do feel if there was some way to get the ball close to the hole from all positions (even if highly complex and highly demanding of exact execution) holes like that would be even better.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have built a few, and I like them.  I call them greens that make you go "HUH?"  As noted the key to keeping the complaints down - from both golfers and the super - is to provide some way to put around the corner.  Like Tom, I have built them with collar height backstops left and right so the creative player can put it up the slope and let it roll down.  I am doing one right now where I didn't have the room for that, and created a little swale on the inside point of the boomerang, so gravity can gently guide putts from front corner pins from the other side of the green.

The other key is to use them wisely.  At CD and SH, they are on short par 4's.  There, or par 5 holes would probably be best.

I don't consider the two MacKenzie U of M greens boomerangs in the true sense of the word.  More like a "Z" for Zorro type of green, but you can putt to different levels.

Pete Dye did one at the 9th at Harbor Town, as well.

[RJ_Daley]

I haven't had the pleasure to play Crystal D many times, so local knowledge isn't in play for me.  However,  the one day I did, we spent some time after holing out, experimenting on #7 boomer.  We found that there were at least 2 ways to play a putt from one level of the boomer to another, and after various experimenting, we were able to find a finesse putt that would at times get a ball very close to a potential pin on the opposite tier of the green.  Tobacco Road 17, which is much more wide sweeping and larger green, allows a big banked racetrack sort of transition from one part to the other, but not the same alternatives that we found at Crystal.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer and Tom Doak:

I certainly agree with your sentiments that on greens such as these (boomerangs)---or frankly any kind of greens, it probably is best if the architect can somehow provide slope or contour (even if it is banking off fairway or chipping area height grass) some way for golfers to get from all points on the green to any pin position---even if it's difficult to recognize and toughish to do in execution.

However, when you do design and build greens like this please do not forget that it becomes far easier to transition the ball from any point on a green to any pin position if the greenspeed is at the higher end of the spectrum. You may not like to hear that or agree with it due to intransigience or some philosophical objection to the higher end of the spectrum of greenspeed but it is a fact and a reality, in my opinion. I've been experimenting with this type of thing in play for about three years now (due to my officiating tournament venues during tournaments) and it's basically undeniable.

For any architect to actually accomplish what you two seem to want to accomplish this way (which I certainly applaud) you will need to not just consider greenspeed but probably a differential in greenspeed of at least a two foot spectrum on the stimpmeter. My suggestion would be to consider a two foot differential of from 9 to 11.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

As it happens, that is about exactly the range I consider - I figure most greens will be 9's for everyday play, and may go to 11's during competitions (or some funky times of year, depending on grass) and design for 9, but so that putts won't "de-green" at 11 or so.....

[BCrosby]

I think boomerang greens are terrific, for lots of reasons. Strategy, aestheitics, but most importantly, humor.

Mack took the Eden concept and stretched it into a boomerang at no. 4 at ANGC. It's gone now, but it must have been a trip to play.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

You can certainly overdo this.  I wouldn't use the concept on a par 5 hole, because players going for the green in two would often come up on the wrong side.  (Both the Sebonack and Ballyneal holes are short par-4's.)

At the same time, if it is always possible to get it close by putting from the one side of the green to the other, then the impact of the strategy of the hole is muted.  You could say the same thing about the approach to the tenth at Riviera.  Some would consider it unfair that it's almost impossible to keep a shot on the green from 40 yards out to the right, but if it wasn't impossible, then the strategy of the hole would be all for naught.

Tom P:  The thing I like so much about the Ballyneal green is that it isn't so dependent on green speed.  It has a huge bank at the one side (it's probably seven or eight feet above the putting surface at its peak), so there is no problem coming off the bank to the far side of the green if you need to.  Getting from the front right to the far back is tougher, because you have to play off the slope and stay under the bunker at the back left; but, hey, then you missed the hole by 40 yards on a 100-yard approach!

[Mike Nuzzo]

You can certainly overdo this.  I wouldn't use the concept on a par 5 hole, because players going for the green in two would often come up on the wrong side.  

Wouldn't that be the risk of going for the par 5 in two - to wind up on the wrong side?

I'm working on a short par 5, that has a green complex / land form similar to Crystal Down's 7th.  I'm not convinced to try it yet, but I'm exploring.

Would you please help me understand why it isn't a good idea?
Thank you.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I think the boomerang - assuming they're properly designed - works best on par-5s for just the reason Tom says he would not use them.

What better way to reward thought, planning and accuracy than to offer such a simple risk-reward scenario as a boomerang where a 2nd shot to a par 5 missed short pays such a big price? Especially if a more conservative or shorter player lays up on the proper approach side.

And if the hole is well designed, a good boomerang should reward a well placed tee shot as well.

#1 at Riviera is so fresh every time you play it because there are so many different looks and possibilties. Though with today's good players approaching with 6-3 irons, there is less of a chance of players missing on the wrong side of the bunker. But for the average guy hitting a hybrid in, this element of danger caused by the boomerang makes it quite a compelling hole.

The disapperance of the boomerangs is a product of the fairness mindset, the demise of width and the lack of interest in strategy from modern architects. I wish every course had two or three of them!

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  The thing I like so much about the Ballyneal green is that it isn't so dependent on green speed.  It has a huge bank at the one side (it's probably seven or eight feet above the putting surface at its peak), so there is no problem coming off the bank to the far side of the green if you need to.."

TomD:

No problem there at all. If an architect designs in a possiblity like that regardless of greenspeed, I say so much the better. All I'm saying is architects can and probably should let the high end of the greenspeed spectrum be their ally and not their enemy if the alternatives otherwise are limited.

[Larry_Keltto]

I saw the Ballyneal green last week, and it's going to be fun and memorable. The bank on the left side that Tom describes reminds me of the banks at #12 at Royal Cinque Ports. The difference with the Ballyneal green is that it's banked on only one side and is tightly bunkered. I can't wait to attempt the putt from front right to back right.

Another interesting element to the 7th green at Ballyneal is that the back opens up to the 4th fairway. With that in mind and with tongue in cheek, someone told me last week that he's figured out how to approach the 7th: by bombing a drive over the green and approaching from the 4th fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike and Geoff:  

You guys are welcome to build your boomerangs on the par-5 holes if you want to, but don't be surprised if they are panned by the better players if they get on the wrong side too often.   They won't object if it's on a short 4 where they have to have hit a bad second shot to get on the wrong side, but they'll bitch like hell if they "hit two good shots" and then have a circus putt.  

I personally wouldn't want to have it come into play so much that good players are tempted to take a wedge off the green.  If I'm only going to use that shape once per round, I'll save it for the short 4 instead.

[Neil Regan]

... but they'll bitch like hell if they "hit two good shots" and then have a circus putt.  

   If a short par 4 is definitely drivable, such as Sand Hills #8, then it can be equivalent to the second shot on a reachable par 5. If a player on the par 5 has "hit two good shots" and is left with a "circus putt", then he has not really hit two good shots except in the same sense as a golfer who drives the green on a short par 4 has hit a good shot even if he also has a "circus putt". Count me as one who thinks the concept can work well on a par 5.

  Also, is a "circus putt" a bad thing ? If so, it's bad no matter what club was used to hit the green.



 

[TEPaul]

I must say that's a pretty interesting philosophical difference of opinion amongst a bunch of good architectural analysts.

If such is the case, building such a green at the end of a par 5 would seem to be what MacKenzie (or Macdonald) looked at as controversy to be welcomed.

This brings up a few points and questions:

1. If a good player hit two shots to a par 5 green that looked good in the air or something because they traveled something like 550 yards should that be what's looked at as "two good shots" even if the second shot left him on a boomerang green with a "circus putt" that was difficult to impossible to get close? It may be two "good looking" shots in the air but were they two smart shots?

2. This is an example of precisely why Tillinghast seemed to believe in what he called the "Three shotter"---a par 5 hole that was virtually impossible to reach in two shots. His rationale was an architect could not serve two masters with a par 5 green design. His rationale was a real three shot par 5 needed a green designed to receive a shortish third shot, and consequently he could not also design a green at the same time for a long shot (be it in any number--eg two or three).

I like the way Coore and Crenshaw did this anyway on the short par 5 17th at Easthampton. Here's a hole that's not even 500 yards (at first I thought it was a long par 4 ) where the better player may have a long to medium iron in his hand on the second shot but the green is so narrow and dangerous he just can't decide to try to hit it with that long second or lay up and hit it with a short third. The idea was to just put some pyschological pressure on the better player because the hole is called a par 5 (and not a par 4).

I guess the idea of it is to emulate the psychological pressure the better player always faced when just at the cusp of being in range of ANGC's short par 5 #13.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()