Is Defending Par at the Green a bad idea ?

[wsmorrison]

Offset greens that dictate angles of play back to the tee are a good method to identify proper strategy and the ability to execute that strategy. Courses in the UK if they have offset greens at all, tend to have one or two.  Offhand, I can think of 3rd at Muirfield, the 16th at Nairn, 17th at TOC, 13th and 15th at N. Berwick and the 13th at Prestwick.

Among some US architects this feature seemed to be used in greater numbers.  Some examples include:

Merion (it has offset tees, too) has the 3rd, 6th,  left rear of 9th, 10th, 12th, 15th and right rear 16th; Bethpage Black 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 13th; Old Course at Homestead 2nd, 6th, 8th, 14th and 17th; Cascades 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 12th and 13th; Baltusrol Lower 8th and 17th; Winged Foot West 5th, 6th, 15th; Oakmont 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th; Pinehurst #2 1st, 2nd, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 17th; Pebble Beach 3rd, 8th, 11th and 17th; Atlantic City CC 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th and 15th; Pine Valley back left 3rd, 12th and 13th; Leatherstocking 3rd, 7th and 9th; TCC Brookline Composite 2nd, 4th, 10th, 12th, 15th and 16th; Westchester CC 2nd, 3rd, 8th and 16th; Newport CC 10th, 14th and 17th;  St. Louis CC back right 1st, 4th, 8th, 11th, 16th and 17th; Shinnecock Hills 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 16th and 17th.

I think the use of several offset greens on a course, especially firm and with proper maintenance practices in fairways and run-ups, are beneficial to interesting and challenging play.  It seems to me they are a characteristic of some of the best courses in America and are instrumental in defending par.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
     
   Your favorite #5 at Rolling Green seems to be an answer to Pat's question. The angle and internal contours of the green coupled with the protecting bunkers provide a challenge for the better golfers. The higher handicap players can layup to a flat area on the left leaving a manageable pitch.

     Making the slope in the back of the green into fairway would add to the better players challenge and rarely affect the higher hdcpers.

[wsmorrison]

Yes, the 5th at Rolling Green is one of my favorite level par 4s.  It has a ridge that once again with the new back tee really is a risk reward.  Hit driver to the back side of the ridge and get tremendous roll or hit 3-wood to the left side for control and position.

The green is one of my favorites.  I consider it a complexity of slopes (thank you, Ron Forse) rather than internal contours.  It really is one of the best examples I know to demonstrate what the concept of complexities of slopes actually is.

As to a chipping area behind the green, it isn't a bad idea but there are others I would consider that would subordinate this one.  Tell you what, return the 1st green to an island green surrounded by rough (unique and as planned) and I would endorse your chipping area behind 5 green in a heartbeat.  I do see a few examples of Flynn using fairways extended around greens on multiple courses.  It is an interesting feature.  I wonder how early it was used by others.

[mike_malone]

 Wow! Wayne did not call me a knucklehead

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a course that has narrow fairways, deep rough, numerous fairway bunkers, and relatively flat and slow green complexes will produce a much much much much much larger difference in score between the good player and the dub than a course that has wide fairways, short rough, few fairway bunkers and fast greens with wacky contours and difficult recovery areas.

[BCrosby]

Michael -

Agreed. Dubs will have a much tougher time than pros with narrow set-ups vs. wide set-ups. But if I might respond for Pat, that misses the point.

The appropriate measuring stick is a group of similarly skilled players. With that as the starting point, you should (in theory) get the best of all possible results with wide set-ups.

With good players, there should be a wider scoring spectrum (both at the low and high end). Again, because good players will be more inclined to take risks with wider courses. Assuming the course has reasonably interesting greens and green surrounds.

With dubs, there should be a narrower scoring spectrum. That's because there will be fewer triples and quads (the course is more forgiving) but there will not be a lot more low scores (because these players just aren't that skilled).

A narrower scoring spectrum for weaker players is a good thing because it makes the game more fun for them. Big numbers are less likely. Just striking the ball well is challenge enough.

For good players, a wider scoring spectrum is a good thing because it means that they are being asked (or induced) to stretch their games.

Width is the most fascinating, complicated and misunderstood concept in gca.

Bob

[Michael Moore]

But if I might respond for Pat, that misses the point. The appropriate measuring stick is a group of similarly skilled players.

You are responding to Mr. Mucci, not for him - he was inquiring about "proportion" and "advantage".

Interesting response. Scoring spectrum has always been a good topic here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"But, I ask you again, what happens if your survey comes back and it's really bad for golf or your golf course?"

Ok, Pat, since you're asking a hypothetical question, why don't you give me a couple of hypothetical examples of what you obviously hypothetically have in mind?

"What do you do?"

Give me a couple of hypothetical examples and I'll answer you.
For starters:

Your membership wants to eliminate certain bunkers, make others shallow and flatten some of the contours and slopes in your greens.

And, there is now a group of members who are aware of the survey results who are actively pursuing these objectives.
[/color]

Sending out a survey is akin to opening Pandora's Box.

Clubs elect leaders, not poll takers and followers[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Noone knows the formula for success, but surely, the formula for failure is to try to please everybody."

Patrick:

That remark of yours is just another of your completely bullshit general remarks on here that you must think simply sounds good.

That remark is as tried and true as it gets.[/color]

What does a remark like that really say? Does it say that you know better than a membership what they like? Or does it mean you don't really care what they like or just don't care to hear what they like? Or does it mean you just assume most all of them are idiots and that what they like might be somewhat different from what you want?

It really says that you can't cater to all interests.
It implies that leadership is more valueable than poll taking.
In the majority of the cases the membership's don't know what's in the golf courses best interest agronomically and architecturally, that's why they elect or appoint leaders to fill those positions.[/color]

It sure sounds to me like it's one of those things.
That's why I clarified it for you.[/color]

What's the formula for success? That isn't easy to say going into something but it's probably not that hard to say if you take the time to listen to a membership, if you take the time to really try to educate a membership into various architectural and maintenance principles and when a project is done most all of them tell you they're delighted with it and that it's made the course much more fun, challenging and interesting for them to play.

If you listen to the membership, you'll almost always disfigure your golf course.

You seem to feel that they have some kind of higher intellect that comes to them through collectivism, when nothing could be further from the truth.[/color]

Of course you should never expect to please EVERYONE----that's not the point, and that basically never will happen but you sure can find logical and valid ways through valid architectural and maintenance principles to please a very large slice of them.

Sure it was the point.
Each faction within a club has their own pet peeves, architecturally and agronomically/maintainance wise, and if you try to cater to them, INSTEAD OF TO THE GOLF COURSE, you're doomed to failure.[/color]

I'd call that a formula for success, wouldn't you?
Perhaps, in theory, but, not in practical application.[/color]

If one treats their membership like an enemy, as you seem to constantly do, they'll very likely act like an enemy. Perhaps you've spent forty years on green committees and such, as you've said on here, and you've never understood that rather obvious and commonsensical fact of life!  

Experience is a great teacher.... you should try it.

It's not treating the membership as the enemy, which is a convenient thing for you to say in light of your advocacy of surveys, it's treating the membership as a body of individuals from different walks of life, who admitedly know very little about architecture, agronomy and maintainance.

It's viewing your role as one of a curator, and all that comes with that position.

You don't feel the need to tell children or adults not to play with a priceless artifact that can't be replaced.
You'd rather take a survey to see how the artifact should be handled, taking your chances that the majority of the respondents might propose a course of action that would result in the damage to or destruction of that artifact.

The other problem with your survey theory is that everyone doesn't answer them, and thus the conclusions you draw aren't from the entire membership, only from those who responded.

At many, if not most clubs, it's the naysayers and the fiscally conservative who oppose projects.  They are often labeled the vociferous minority, and they are the ones most likely to respond, distorting what the "membership" really wants.

Let's face it, this is one of your BAD ideas.
But, don't take it personally, you've had some good ones as well.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

God knows why you've all of a sudden launched into some litany about me proposing taking surveys of the opinions of memberships for all kinds of things. I never mentioned anything of the kind. That's just another example of you going off on some tangent and attributing it to someone else. The only survey I've mentioned is gcisinc.com the Crystal Downs/Michigan State greenspeed survey.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom, it seems to me you have been advocating for a process of surveying the membership to determine what they percieve as optimum green speed, and then setting that speed...in writing...stating that the green speed will not exceed that optimium speed..

[TEPaul]

That's precisely right Patrick---it says GREEN SPEED and nothing more than that. Obviously you not only fail to read properly you don't even read properly the things you quote. It says GREEN SPEED and nothing at all about surveying a membership for every other part of a golf course. That was only what you came up with on here---not me. As others have said to you on here you tend to come up with these ideas on your own about what others have said and a few posts later you try to make it look like they really did say those things. They didn't and you should learn to stop trying to make it seem like they did! But I guess for someone who likes nothing so much as just arguing with people there really is no other way!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom, it seems to me you have been advocating for a process of surveying the membership to determine what they percieve as optimum green speed, and then setting that speed...in writing...stating that the green speed will not exceed that optimium speed..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig:

That's true, I have advocated such a thing. The ultimate purpose of proposing such a thing is to attempt to insure that in the future there is less inclination (within my club or any club) to think to recontour putting greens in the name of increased green speed.

TEPaul,

My computer disconnected when I tried to post these earlier.

First you advocate surveys, then you disclaim advocating surveys and now you're advocating surveys.

I believe you advocated surveys of memberships on other topics.   When I have the time to look for them, I'll post them.

You believe that everyone's voice at a club should be heard, that democracy should rule.   Equal dues = Equal say.
I'm not a proponent of that philosophy.
I'm more in favor of dictatorships.

How does your concept of democracy and surveys work at Pine Valley, Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, Hidden Creek, Seminole and other clubs ?

Members join a club because they like it the way it is.

Surveys encourage change where none may be necessary.

Surveys are a sign of weak leadership or being out of touch with the will of the membership, and, as I stated before, a survey can be dangerous in that you may get more than you bargained for.

This is one area in which we are in total disagreement[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You're COMPUTER disconnected, did it, when you tried to post these things earlier??

Is it any wonder really? I suppose that means you've sunken to such ridiculous argumentation on this website recently that even your computer is having a hard time taking it too!