News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« on: April 20, 2005, 01:11:26 PM »
I thought about this commenting on the Algie Miller thread, because the old Chardonnay course had so many deep but narrow greens, which would drive me crazy if I played them regularly.

Dave Pelz offers a set of diagrams in chapter 2 of his book, "The Short Game Bible", which show the scatter patterns of full iron shots.  Golfers tend to make a greater error on direction versus distance.  The pattern looks something like a pair of slightly tilted eyeglasses, with the right side of the dispersion a little shorter, which would account for the fact that pulled shots tend to go a little long, and pushed/sliced shots end up short.  Straight shots are often the correct distance.

In addition, he provides a scatter pattern of less than full shots (half wedges, etc.).  The "eyeglasses" scatter pattern is now rotated 90 degrees, with the error in distance being greater.

How does this apply to green architecture?  Do successful architects account for this, and build greens that have greater width than depth?  Does a narrow green work best on par 5s (or short 3s)?  Obviously, variety matters.

Thought this might be an interesting topic, one I had not seen here.  I won't, however, be able to particpate for a few hours.  Taking advantage of a rare sunny day (lately) in the great Northwest.

                 

johnk

Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2005, 01:20:09 PM »
I've recently come to think that the secret of Pasatiempo's difficulty is relatively narrow greens, usually angling away from the fairway.  Any back or middle pin requires very precise approaching.
#1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9 are examples.  Then on the back, he mixes it up by putting some greens laterally, but with a lot of back to front slope, which makes them very narrow targets.  #10, #15, #18 are of that format.  You have about a 3 yd strip in which a shot can land and be close, but not above the hole.  

Once you look for this pattern - you see it in a lot of places - especially MacK...

Jonathan McCord

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2005, 06:09:24 PM »
   Narrow greens should be the most appreciated feature on some golf courses.  Narrow greens can dictate the angle a golfer chooses to approach the green from, and can also make one angle more appropiate than another.

   Golf architecture is all about the angles the designer creates, this leads to risk - reward opportunities and added shot values which add to the variety and memorability of the course, all of which, we appreciate.

   Narrow greens don't necessarily have to be narrow in terms of yardage either.  One could have a 30 yard wide green bisected by a ridge or undulation of some sort making two 15 yard wide greens.  This creates a different hole depending on the type of teeshot and then approach that needs to be hit.  

   Architects may prefer these types of greens because it enhances the strategic aspects of any hole, where a golfer can get a better angle to the green if he takes the riskier route from the tee.  However, if one would take the safer route off the tee, it would leave a tougher approach shot.  Classic risk - reward strategy!!!!
"Read it, Roll it, Hole it."

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2005, 12:58:57 AM »
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

I know Pasatiempo well, and would add #14 as a narrow green, oriented from front left to back right.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2005, 07:23:23 AM »
John:

Wide greens are of course more playable for everyone.  But if you're going to choose between wide and shallow, or long and narrow, I'll generally vote for the long and narrow.  Everyone has a shot at the long and narrow green with an entrance, but some people just can't hold the wide and shallow green hidden behind a hazard.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2005, 09:36:49 AM »
John,

That Pelz chart is for Tour players, who always make solid contact (hence, good distance control) but are just as subject (hey, maybe more, given their swing speeds) to torque, getting clubface square at impact, etc. as average golfers.

If you look at the USGA slope rating guide, you will see that the shot dispersion pattern for 20 handicappers is quite different.  They require just slightly more width than scratch players, but they also require much greater depth (about 1.5 times)  to stop their shots, on account of poor contact, less backspin, etc.

Generally, I am designing greens to accomodate the shots of average players.  As such, I often design the green to be (as per USGA charts) 15% and 22.5% of the approach shot length I anticipate after a well struck tee shot of a 20 handicapper, playing from a tee that gets them to the first landing area.  As Tom Doak points out in his book, its impossible to figure just where "the average player" will actually be approaching a green from, so I don't obsess about hitting any width or depth precisely.

However, its a good place to start as a reality check, and as such, most of my greens with an anticpated 160 yard approach gets a green approx.  24 yards wide and 36 yards deep, plus or minus.  I adjust for prevailing winds, difficulty of hazards, slopes in landing areas, strategies, etc. (For example, if there is a downhill lie in the landing area, I probably will increase the depth of the green knowing that those shots are likely to come out lower than normal and with less backspin)

I also try to vary the greens so that some approach shots are more difficult than average, and others less difficult.  As Mike Hurdzan pointed out in his book, if all greens followed the USGA slope guide for sizing, then each approach shot would have exactly the same degree of difficulty, or shot value.

For example, I favor downsizing greens on the longest par 3 and 4 holes to test scratch players accuracy with longer clubs on the assumption that average players are approaching the green on the 2nd/3rd shot with a wedge.  Hopefully, they have read Pelz book, too, because the 66% green size for a scratch players 200 yard approach is wider than it it long, again because of their distance control.

Anyway, that is one gca opinion on how actual shot data from Pelz and the USGA can affect green size.  If you asked from the superintendents perspective, I would also note that greens can be too narrow - specifically greens that are less than about 45 feet wide or deep often don't allow them the necessary room to move pins from left to right/front to back, and worn spots result.

We have to figure that into green shape decisions, as well.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jonathan McCord

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2005, 10:03:46 AM »
   What are the dimensions of the 4th green at Spyglass?  This would be an example of how angles play a crucial role in gaining the maximum advantage for a shot.
"Read it, Roll it, Hole it."

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green Shapes - Wide or Narrow
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2005, 08:20:13 PM »
Jeff,

I recognized the flaw in my thinking about Pelz' scatter patterns earlier this morning, and was going to comment on it today, but you beat me to it.

At my two home courses, Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club, the greens seem to follow this formula rather closely.  The longest par 3s tend to have the largest greens, followed by long and medium par 4s, medium par 3s, short par 3s, and then the par 5s.

In general, I like larger greens, because I like a great variety of pin positions and short game opportunities around each green.  However, contrary to popular opinion, I believe that the public course at Pumpkin Ridge, Ghost Creek, is the superior course, and one reason is the use of several very small greens, quite unusual for a public facility.  In particular, holes 2 (medium 4), 6 (short 4), 8 and 10 (short 5s), 15 (par 5), 16 (little 3), and 17 (300 yards) are small for a public course.  Ghost Creek also has the two largest greens at Pumpkin Ridge, the long par 3s #5 and 14.

The little greens at Ghost Creek are generally deeper than they are wide, and angled to the player's approach.

Jonathan,

regarding the fourth at Spyglass, I haven't played it in a long time, but I'd guess the green is 12-15 yards wide, and about 60 yards deep.  I remember one day, with the pin in the front, hitting a perfect half wedge in there that looked perfect, as it trickled slowly by the cup, down the hill, and 8 seconds later came to rest at the back of the green.  3 putts from 110 feet.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back