A penalty only intended for the better player ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

On a great many courses, especially golden age courses, I've noticed a feature that is both subtle and fatal to shots mis-hit, by mostly, the better players, offering relative immunity to the mis-hits of the higher handicap.

I speak specifically of the slightly raised front of the green.
That subtle elevation, sometimes almost invisible from afar, that causes a mis-hit shot, or an underclubed shot to remain short of the green.

Shots that are hit significantly short of the green are not effected.  Bladed or thin shots are not effected, but a slightly mis-hit shot catches that rise, and either stops, or backs up a few yards.  This becomes even more punitive when the green is exceptionally well contoured.

Has this feature been lost in modern architecture, or is it alive and well ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Is it possible that this is just coincidental to the habit of many a golden age architect, including many of the great ones, of choosing green sites based on high points on the property?

[TEPaul]

One of the best examples of this type of feature imaginable exists near the front of Merion's green #6! Since the approach in front of the green is extremely close cropped the approach area looks like it's part of the green from the vantage of the golfer hitting his approach and this area looks like it's well on the green. Of course it isn't or it's the very front of the green and is extremely deceptive for the approaching golfer.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't know that such designs were intended as you describe, more likely they are merely an artifact of a raised green where the surrounding land has been left alone but the greensite was built up by the architect.

I do like the idea of penalties that affect the better player moreso than the poorer player, but other than what you describe, I'm hard pressed to think of good examples.  I tend to go more along the lines of a theory that penalties that only affect poorer players should be used judiciously and sparingly.  I hate seeing courses that have 2' unmaintained grass in areas where a 20 handicapper's slice will go, when there isn't any real maintenance or environmental reason for letting it grow to that length.  It just makes the game more frustrating for them and slows play.

My home course provided a great example of this, as the cumulative effect of about 10 years' worth of minor renovations to green sites, fairway bunkers, fairway contours, mowing patterns, etc. was to take away a lot of difficulty that only affected the higher handicap golfer and replace it with difficulty that on the whole affects most everyone pretty equally.  I'd still make a few changes here and there if it were up to me, but they've got the course about as tough as it gets for one that has no OB, one water hole and very few "sure lost ball" areas (74.1) but is still fair and playable for higher handicappers, even if ego or peer pressure causes them to tee it up from the tips.

[Pete_Pittock]

John Fought uses it a lot, even on 470 yd par 4s where it velcros my third shot.

[Jim_Bick]

Nicklaus also used it frequently on my home course.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Patrick

The key is to build a swing that ensures that your misses are slightly thin rather than slightly fat.  Go see your local PGA pro.

[TEPaul]

There was a really good article in the 1920s by a Boston architectural writer, A. Linde Fowler, reviewing the recently opened Kittansett G.C. and how it was one of the first and best examples of the scientifically designed course to both accomodate the less accomplished player and at the same time put real pressure and challenge on the very good player.

Fowler mentioned the exquisiteness of this idea and that it was not formulaic, although he did use the word "scientific".

Flynn and to an extent probably Hood were responsible for the course and we're still trying to figure out the actual details of how that was done although there's little doubt to us that it was done!

[BCrosby]

Courses that present special problems to scratch players that are not presented to the bogey player is at the heart, I think, of why Golden Age courses are so special.

Raised edges to greens is an example.

Another example is the relative rarity of greenside water in Golden Age courses. It is a hazard that - since it is greenside - must be carried. It affects bogey players more often than scratch players.

Ross, Flynn, Tillie, etc. understood that. They had the imaginations to find other ways to make problems for the better golfer without burdening the bogey guy.

Too many modern archtitects haven't figured that out. I still don't understand why not.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I just couldn't possibly agree with you more!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

In many cases the rise is slight but effective.

In other cases it may be more pronounced and clearly visible from a distance.

I'm not referencing substantively elevated greens, although they have this feature in more dramatic scale.

More often than not, it's an elevation of anywhere from 6 to 24 inches, either gradual or more compressed.