.....by maybe designing a minimum of 3000 sq' or less of pinnable area integrated with 3000 sq' or more of apron or collar......hmmmmm......zzzzzzzzz.

duh.......yes .

Quote from: paul cowley on January 28, 2007, 11:05:14 PM

duh.......yes .

Paul, I am not trying to question the design aspects, but I do think a lot of superintendents might have a problem with the small amount of pin areas.

Paul, it obviously depends on if its public or private...and how many rounds....but 3000 sq' of pins should accomodate most.

James....you know you could always start your own thread instead of trying to hijack mine .

...no worries James...just fooling around.
Hey, why don't we get together and try to take this thread to 10 pages?
...but we need to add an additional challenge.....neither of us can write in any of our posts the word Mer**n.

OK?

Paul - How does this relate to the 10th at Merion? You need to get with the program.

Bob...you might be confused....I said 10 PAGES, not the 10th at Mer*on.

Mike...sorry, but I was suggesting to James that we don't use the word MerLIn.......not Mer**n.

....but stay strong with your program and you will find that these urges decrease more with each passing day.

What an interesting idea. I know just the place to try it out on at least one hole, Paul.

If you did something like that though, you'd have to leave some permanent instructions with the club that it was really supposed to be that way or 50-75 years from now some "Know-it-all" will restore the "lost green space".  

Paul:

How would you feel if that kind of thing tended towards the visually decepetive?

The reason i ask is---you know me I just hate that art priniciple of EMPHASIS if it means automatically focusing the eye on the most important part if that only means showing the golfer exactly where he should hit the ball.

Tom,

I understand the maintenance method, please expand on this very rare architectural method for "forcing the ground game".

Why "force" any particuliar shot?

Because it can take people away from their preferences, on purpose. In the USA, the preferred shot is aerial..almost always.

Joe

JES;

Well, there're some holes like Inniscrone's #15 or maybe even a couple at Oakmont where it's generally not a good idea to try to land the ball on the green even in moderate condtitions. Greens that severely run away from the approach is the reason. It seems like it's just a better and safer idea to filter the ball on somehow from off the green. There's a few like that at NGLA if the ground is relatively firm. Or at least that's the way I feel about them.

I guess my title was poorly descriptive of what I was envisioning at the time.....which was a smaller green whose design incorporated and utilized more of the surrounding 'ground' for effective play.....and by a variety of methods that some of you [the top shelfers], have already mentioned...filtering, run ons and off, both front and back slopes that require the use of areas outside the green to access areas inside, funnelling swales and bowls. Essentially allowing for decreased greens surface by using the surrounds as part of the shots play area. Whether these shots are low bumps or high aerials is up to the individuals skill set......just just subtly 'forcing' the player to use more of the surrounding ground as part his approach to a green.

Hey, call me crazy, but I just love to see balls running hither and yon and all around the greens complex.