Punchbowl Greens and fairways

[TEPaul]

Neil Regan:

That truly beautiful photo of #17 from that high perspective also shows why it would very likely be a complete abomination if the club took Patrick Mucci's advice and moved Macdonald's Gate and the driveway app. 50 yards to the north to make room for about 50 more yards of tee length on #18! I didn't realize until looking at your photo what that would've looked like. You would have gotten 50 more yards on #18, of course, but you'd also be looking right at a black-top road directly behind #17 green on what just may be one of the most impressive golf hole vistas in all of golf! This is just another good example why NLGA should be left exactly as it is and why the club should never, NEVER, EVER listen to the recommendations of PATRICK MUCCI!    

[Neil Regan]

Tom,
 Thanks for the kind words about the photos. I took them with a strong zoom at the right time of an autumn afternoon, and used Photoshop to touch them up.

  Here are 2 more photos of the punchbowl fairway on #16. I agree with you that they make the hole superb. When talking about holes that give options for every shot for every level of player, this is the hole that I name.

The fairway right side punchbowl on #16


The shot from the fairway left side punchbowl on #16

[Mike_Sweeney]

A couple more angles of 16 from George Bahto and myself:

From the tee:



From behind the green:






George did some weed wacking to get these:

[Neil Regan]

Punchbowl, Machrihanish #5. There are several punchbowls on the hole, including greenside as seen in this view.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

# 11 at Plainfield a punchbowl  I dont see it.

Adam Clayman,

So you intentionally pull or push shots do you.
You must be better then the PGA Tour Pros.
Most golfers aim AT the target with allowance for their usual ball flight.  They don't aim left or right of it, and then hope to push or pull the shot.  If you don't have a keen eye and ear I can see how you wouldn't know if another golfer hits a good or bad shot.  But, years of experience has taught me to recognize a clunker when I see or hear it.

Do you ever push or pull the shots you're trying to push or pull, thus over accentuating the shot ?  

The words push or pull imply that the shot was not hit on its intended target line.  You should know that.

TEPaul,

But, the road, in its current location is clearly visible.

By moving it 50 yards north it would disappear beneath and behind the tall fescus.

Sometimes great ideas are resisted because some don't understand the concept and the benefits.
I'll explain them to you, on site thursday, June 24th.
Perhaps Chipoat can act as my interpreter.

I do think that the fairway bowls in combination with the punchbowl green make the hole quite unique, and enjoyable, time after time.

[A_Clay_Man]

So you intentionally pull or push shots do you.
Yes, I do
You must be better then the PGA Tour Pros.
I suppose I am,in many ways
Most golfers aim AT the target with allowance for their usual ball flight. Is it therefore the only accepted practice?  If you don't have a keen eye and ear I can see how you wouldn't know if another golfer hits a good or bad shot.  But, years of experience has taught me to recognize a clunker when I see or hear it.whether a ball is struck cleanly, or not (and I do know) has nothing whatsoever to do with where it ends-up, save for the aerial assault chocolate pudding mush fest golf game, you usually refer to as, "the aerial game".
Do you ever push or pull the shots you're trying to push or pull, thus over accentuating the shot ?   All the time, Why do you think I'm not on TV right now?

The words push or pull imply that the shot was not hit on its intended target line.  You should know that. Pat, I allow the ground to dictate what shot I'm gonna attempt. On a flat or level lie, I am screwed.

Pat, I will ask you again, because it does appear you have this "better players" approach to golf. Can you see the game through my eyes? Have you ever met someone who actually calls his shots, specifically stating exactly where, in my minds eye, I am aiming ?

The difference is perspective. That was, and is my point.

You start this thread asking about everybodies perceptions. I give you mine, and somehow your able to tell me I don't know my golf game (or all those golfers I've met and watched)

 I too can spot a wancker, and more often than not, they are very good players.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who gets to decide what constitutes good over bad?

This was your initial question, and my answer is, that if you've been playing with someone, and have reasonable powers of observation, decent eyesight and hearing, you usually know a good shot from a bad one.

With respect to my perspective, I see the game through all eyes, with the possible exception of the PGA Tour Pro.
Having worked my way from a 36+ handicap to a + 2 handicap, and having a reasonable memory, I can relate to all levels of golfers.  Hence, I think I'm qualified to evaluate the broad spectrum of golfer's when it comes to playability and strategy.

[A_Clay_Man]

To get back on topic, the unpredictableness
(and enjoyment)
of getting a good bounce,
from a bad shot, is more important,
 in my views on the sport and it's architecture,
 than the whining of tour pro wannabes,
 because they missed their spot,
 by a foot, or less, from 198.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I think you're missing the point with respect to Punchbowl greens, especially # 16 at NGLA.

Bad shots are often, incrementally rewarded far beyond good shots.  There's an architectural corrective factor that serves to assist the golfer, and this contributes to their uniqueness, as well as the enjoyment of playing them.

When you see a great shot hit at the pin coming to rest 10 feet from the hole, and a bad shot, hit ten yards or more left of the green ending up three feet from the hole you'll understand what I mean.

[TEPaul]

"By moving it 50 yards north it would disappear beneath and behind the tall fescus."

Aahah! Very fine idea! I like that a lot. In that case I might have to rethink resisting the moving of the gate and the driveway. You must be in that rare 2% phase!

[Neil Regan]

Pat,
 Is this something like your idea for moving the gate and extending the tee ?

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci;

You can act as cheerleader for NGLA if you want, please just keep your shirt on and limit the height of your leg lifts

Any photo I have ever seen of NGLA has always made it seem a really special place - the fact that a golf course is there is almost 'irrelevant.' Neil's photo's of 16 make it appear to be a hole you would play 18 times and not worry about anything else you have missed out on, or how 'unfair' (if at all) the hole may be.

I guess you would not have seen Mike Clayton's "Inside the Ropes" book he published here late last year, but in it, he said NGLA would be at the top of his list to play.

[Mark_F]

TE Paul;

I don't mean to sound finicky, but what on earth does "... there really is so much more of a dispersion that will basically result in the same thing" mean?

[A_Clay_Man]

When you see a great shot hit at the pin coming to rest 10 feet from the hole, and a bad shot, hit ten yards or more left of the green ending up three feet from the hole you'll understand what I mean.

PAt- I mean no disrespect and
 I have no tone to my point.
But, with a statement like this,
 I don't believe you will understand my point.
 However, in the spirit of open discourse
I will try again to splain'.

As I understand your point,
a ball that is struck directly at the pin,
is abetter shot than one that is not.
I find this premise to be inherently flawed.

In my world,(meaning)
the shot that ended up closer,
was the better shot.
No matter what was intended,
planned or how well it was crisply struck.
By your defiinition, only balls fired directly
at the pin should be considered "good'.

This is fundamentally the crux of the
 "middle mentallity" that has permiated the game,
 and ruined a sport.

Just my Opinion Pat,
from years and years of experiencing
 and watching how the expectations
 of the golfers, is more often than not, let-down.

[corey miller]

As someone who has a pretty good punchbowl hole on my home course,  and plays often with others that  are not as astute architecturally  as many on this site, I have some observations.

The hole is despised by many because a "bad" shot is often rewarded.  Hell, even a good shot that uses the natural terrain is often seen as "lucky".  Who rolls the ball up?   I also believe our punchbowl is not maintained properly which even exacerbate the problems and perceptions people have of this hole.

We also lengthened the hole and it is now a par 5, or as the membership like to say "a weak par 5".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Neil,

Great work, that looks fabulous, I can see TEPaul initiating the fund raising his newest project, "move the gates north"

Mark Ferguson,

He means that the shot dispersal pattern, off of the club face is corrected, in transit, by the topography and architecture, creating a minimal difference in the results of the shots, as viewed in comparison to how they would fare at the inception of the shots.

Adam Clayman,

You're at a distinct disadvantage because you don't understand the topography, architecture and the play of the  16th hole at NGLA, because you've never seen it.

NOONE, and I'll repeat NOONE aims 30 yards left of target at
# 16.   If you'll look carefully at the pictures you'll see the unpleasant features, such as the lofted bunker and steep terrain, usually covered in fescue, that await such an errant shot.

You're mistaking small incremental variances for huge variances.

Having played the 4th at NGLA, we understand aiming away from the hole location and using the TEPaul turbo boost to get our ball to the hole.

But, # 16 isn't  # 4.

And, NOONE deliberately aims/targets anything but the flag, if you can see it, or your general perspective as to the whereabouts of the center of the green.

A good shot receives good results at # 16.
A bad shot CAN receive good results at # 16.
A bad shot CAN receive BAD results at # 16, so why would anybody deliberately aim in harms way ?

You can't be serious when you equate the quality of a well planned and executed approach shot that is 10 feet from the hole, from a pull hook that hits 30 yards left of the green and ends up in the some position, based solely on the ball coming to rest 10 feet from the hole.  If the same pull hook didn't get a special bounce and was stuck in the tall fescue or lofted bunker, would you equate that with the perfect approach

Is a shot that goes out of bounds, hits a house and ends up on the green to be equated with a perfectly struck approach that's on the green ?

If you say yes, then do you play that hole by aiming at the house in future rounds ?

The answer is NO.
You play the most prudent shot possible, within your capability, and on # 16 at NGLA, that's at the flag, if possible, not at some point 30 yards left or right of the flag.

This is what you don't understand due to your unfamiliarity with the architectural and playability specifics of the 16th  hole at NGLA.

It's not your fault, it's just that you don't have the knowledge afforded by playing and studying the hole in person.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak & Jeff Brauer,

I understand the external drainage issue, but, again, with all of the earth moving techniques at your disposal can't that problem be easily solved.

.

Pat,

To answer your earlier question, if too much water drains across a green from outlying area, that extra drainage in combination with the stress the green is placed under due to short mowing heights and traffic, seems to have an adverse affect.  Its compounded by the extra stress at the edge of the green, brought on by the raised edge (and its drying) and the dailey cleanup pass of the mowers.  Tje last six feet of the green is the only area that gets mowed one direction instead of six.  The area that gets the most walk on and walk off traffic suffers even more.

So, we can grade anything we want, but it may not be as practical.  And, its still really a drainage issue.

As I said, I have built them, with extra tiles near the edge, and I have also graded them so that surface water collects in little inlets just off the green surface.  But, then the balls don't reliably go towards the green as much as the roll to the basins.....

On one punch bowl, a spring sprung out of the hill behind the green a year after opening!  They fixed it with tiles, etc.  

Anyway, its a neat idea, and could probably work reliably on any low play course.  Whether it works maintenance wise on a high play course is another question.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I've seen the effects of maintainance on the perimeters, but, isn't the trade off that that area experiences very little traffic, since it's uncupable ?

The center seems to take the brunt of the traffic.

And, with the earth moving conveniences at you disposal, can't the surrounding areas be shaped to ameliorate the problems you mention.

I understand the sandy nature of the soil at NGLA, but, if the concept works so marvelously well there, can't it be duplicated elsewhere ?

[Mike Hendren]

I suppose the oft-maligned 7th at The Honors Course could be considered a punchbowl fairway.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Either water drains on the green, and balls roll on the greens from surrounding slopes, or water doesn't drain on the green and balls may not roll/kick/carom off the banks onto the green.  No amount of earthmoving changes the law of gravity!  

Punch bowl greens are designed to take a lot of surface water.  The more that runs across the green, the bigger the problem.  Perhaps you could clarify your question for me.....

You are right that the middle of greens take a lot of traffic.  Its just that the edges take more mowing stress, and because they are uncuppable, we often take liberties to contour those areas more, and would in a punchbowl.  Generally, the more severe the slope on a green, the more wind it recieves, the less water it holds, and it tends to dry out, as I am sure you know.

Many greens have traffic funneled on in one small place.  There, the traffic is the heaviest.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat, I can't believe you wasted time
 typing all that nonsense about me not
 understanding the 16th hole at NGLA,
 because I've never been east
 of Tom Pauls house.
The concept of the punchbowl is the same,
wherever. So I do understand.
I also can't believe I have wasted typing
 all these keys just so you could possibbly
be exposed to a different approach,
my approach.
 You obviously cannot, or will not,
 and I will stop trying to get it through to you.
 I will however, consider taking better aim, at the flag. TY

[Bill Gayne]

Below is a picture of the 18 on the Golden horseshoe Green course. The hole is a par five and the fairway landing area is punchbowl. It's a very pretty hole from standing on the tee and the picture really doesnt do justice to the slope of the hills on the side of the landing areas. The problem with the hole is that the cart path runs up the left side and the slope of the punchbowl is so severe that the hole stays cart path only at all times.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam Clayman,

I think you would find that the 16th at NGLA is a unique punchbowl green.  To imply that if you've seen one punchbowl green, you've seen them all, and that they all function identically is inaccurate.

Certain holes are unique and need to be seen and played in order to be fully understood.

Jeff Brauer,

Let me try to clarify my statement by breaking down the category of green surrounds, to immediate and distant.

You are so correct, as water flows, so rolls the ball, but my comment was directed, not at the immediate surrounds, but at the distant surrounds, which have a strong influence on the general flow of water, and its volume.

Bill Gayne,

I think fairway punchbowls are neat but seemingly rare features.  My NJ club has a neat, semi punchbowl fairway on hole # 12.

I wonder if # 16 is unique in that it has two deep fairway bowls seperated by an elevated spine.

George Bahto,

Have you seen this feature anywhere else ?

[Steve Wilson]

Neil Regan,

I have to echo TEPaul's comments on those photographs.  No, I'll go beyond.  Those are as close to pornography for golfers as any photos I've ever seen.  Of course, that they are of NGLA contributes to the prurient interest.  NGLA is in all likelihood forbidden fruit for me, and those sumptuous captures of 16 and 17  only serve to whet my appetite for that fruit.  I can almost smell the grass.  Great job.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Neil Regan & Brad Klein,

Has anyone mastered the ability to photograph greens such that the contours, pitch and elevation changes become more discernable ?

[Tags:]

Tags: