[Tony Ristola]

...with little of the green usable for hole locations?
Let's say 60% or less.

[Patrick_Mucci]

# 1 at NGLA

[Tyler Kearns]

#16 at Pasatiempo

[JESII]

Not to be a pain in the ass, but I doubt any "cool" green can have pinnable area approaching 50% of the total area. I do like the topic, but at a stimp of 10 feet there only needs to be a mild slope to keep the ball moving. Also, keeping the hole 10 or 12 feet from the edge of the green eliminates a good chunk of the area as well.


But...to your main point...

Pine Valley #2, #3, #5, #9, #15, #16.
Merion #3, #5, #9.
Huntingdon Valley #6, #9, #10, #16, #C-3, C-8.

[George Freeman]

Almost all of Oakmont's...

ditto for Pinehurst #2??

[Ed Oden]

Shinnecock #11
Plainfield #11

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

In reality, most mid size greens are about 60% pinnable to start with.

Take a circle green of 6500 sf. It has a radius of 45.5 feet (46x46x3.140

Take out the 9-12 feet away from the edge where you can set a pin, and reduce the radius to 36.5 and the max pinnable area to 4183 sf.  That's only 64% to start with.

So basically you are asking for great greens that use 4-5% of their cupping areas for wild contours instead of pin locations?

[Rich Goodale]

The 4th at Dornoch.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

This begs the question - how big is a pinnable area - for one pin location that is?

[Dean Stokes]

#7 Friar's Head. A four putt haven

[TEPaul]

In my years in golf I think the hole that had to have had the lowest percentage pinnable area to total greenspace was the green at Apawamis (home of the USSGA) that was called something like "Eleanors Teeth" (I believe it's #4). From playing that course a number of times that green could not have had more than 10% pinnable space. It was a very narrow band along the very front of the green. It was so low that I think Gil Hanse finally came in and recontoured it

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

C-5 at Huntingdon Valley would probably qualify, don't you think?

[JESII]

Wayne,

Sure, for the low pinnable space part, and it is even a green I really like (especially on that hole), but I would hardly call it a "cool" green.

Did you see C-6 when it was initially re-opened? Now that was cool.

If Ron Prichard is listeneing maybe he'll chime in with his input on #6.

[Matthew Hunt]

The big putting green at RCD

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tony,

In reality, most mid size greens are about 60% pinnable to start with.

Take a circle green of 6500 sf. It has a radius of 45.5 feet (46x46x3.140

Take out the 9-12 feet away from the edge where you can set a pin, and reduce the radius to 36.5 and the max pinnable area to 4183 sf.  That's only 64% to start with.

So basically you are asking for great greens that use 4-5% of their cupping areas for wild contours instead of pin locations?

50% is the more accurate figure, greens rarely have a width of 91 feet, 60 -70 feet is more of an average, so the 9-12 feet is more of a bite.

[Tom Huckaby]

Isn't a huge cool green with very little pinnable area something to be utterly cryit downe, rather than celebrated?

That is, I look at Pasatiempo #16 - which I believe has to be the poster-child for this, great call by Tyler - and rather than applaud, I weep.

The green is FANTASTIC now in terms of shape, size, contour... but it's absurd in terms of current green speed and the resulting tragedies and comedies that occur on it due to this speed - the end result being the only possible place to put a pin is the back back tier.  So I look at it from afar and applaude... then I play it and weep, wondering how cool it would be if they left the speed at 8 or 9 and thus made the whole damn thing pinnable (save the sides of the tiers, of course).

Or am I missing the point here?

[Sean Leary]

Prairie Dunes #2. It is being altered slightly to get one more hole location.

[JESII]

I don't know Tom, I don't mind a green like that on occassion.

Let's put it this way, I prefer a green like that at 10 or 11 feet once in  awhile versus all greens at 8 feet all the time. To me, there is just something missing when the greens are that speed.

[Steve Verde]

16 at Merion has actually very limited space where the pin can be.  I could be wrong, but I think the pin can only be placed on the back 50% of the green.  The front of the green is completely unplayable

[Jacob Erisman]

here are some modern examples, all from Coore/Crenshaw,

Bandon Trails #5
Kapalua Plantation #4 (they keep the greens nice and relatively slow)
Plantation #6
Plantation# 8
Sand Hills #2

[Jed Peters]

Isn't a huge cool green with very little pinnable area something to be utterly cryit downe, rather than celebrated?

That is, I look at Pasatiempo #16 - which I believe has to be the poster-child for this, great call by Tyler - and rather than applaud, I weep.

The green is FANTASTIC now in terms of shape, size, contour... but it's absurd in terms of current green speed and the resulting tragedies and comedies that occur on it due to this speed - the end result being the only possible place to put a pin is the back back tier.  So I look at it from afar and applaude... then I play it and weep, wondering how cool it would be if they left the speed at 8 or 9 and thus made the whole damn thing pinnable (save the sides of the tiers, of course).

Or am I missing the point here?

But Tom, isn't 16, albeit a brilliant hole design wise, now ultimately about the green? A bunt driver or good 4 wood yields a wedge to 9 iron approach (for me) unless you stay well back on top of the hill.

Shouldn't you be able to get at the pin with a short iron? Isn't that indecision/scared to not hit it at the pin now the beauty of the hole/design?

Just a thought....

Oh yeah, I played the green at tournament speed (in the Member-Collegiate tournament) and the pin was located on the middle right tier. I hit one knockdown 9 iron at the pin from 125 into the wind, and it went over the green. Dropped another ball (it was a fun tournament) from the same spot (of course declaring it a provisional, hehe) and hit a full wedge to about 5 feet.

My thought was never on the drive, and never has been--it's always my nervousness hitting into that green on the second shot, much like on number 11....

[JESII]

16 at Merion has actually very limited space where the pin can be.  I could be wrong, but I think the pin can only be placed on the back 50% of the green.  The front of the green is completely unplayable

Interestingly, I think #16 has at least as much pinnable space as many of the greens. The front right area (probably 30% - 35% of the total area) is out, but the rest of the green is small humps and bumps that could house a hole most days, I'd think.

[Steve Lapper]

#7 Friar's Head. A four putt haven

Baloney!!!

#7 has plenty of pinnable areas. Yes, it's easy to three-four jack it there if you space out and don't think your way through the approach and the relative placement of the pin(s). The green is huge with lots of room to create laggable two putts to any pin. If your mind goes lazy, then who's fault is that?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I did not see the 6th green before it was redone in its present state.  It wouldn't be hard to imagine it being better than what exists today, sad to say.  Are there any photos of the former green on the present site?

[Tom Huckaby]

JES:

My tears here are only for wildly contoured greens, like those at Pasa, particularly 16.  Oh absolutely - flat greens running 8 are boring.  But wildly contoured greens where the ball won't stay near the hole simply due to gravity are to me absurd.

Jed:  you're a way better player than I am - I find 16 to be as much about the tee shot as anything else.  If a 230 yard shot to a hogback sloping off both sides with hazard left and OB right means a simple bunt 4wood, then great, the hole is all about the green for you.  I can assure you it is not such for me, and dare I say anyone I've ever played with there.  But in any case, you are right that if one succeeds in the tee shot, one does have a shortish iron in - but it still plays up hill, and particularly to a back pin - which is really all they can use if the green speed is over 9 - it plays at least 1.5-2 clubs longer than the listed distance to the middle.  So I can tell you the shortest effective shot I've ever had into that green is 140 playing more like 160, which is a hard 7 iron for me.  So in the end, no, I don't think that green requires any sort of the tricking up you are alluding too because it plays easy and short, as it plays neither of those things for me... and again, dare I say anyone I've ever played the golf hole with!   Nope, the green is a fantastic one that would be incredible at 8-9, but is quite stupid and useless at 10-11 and over.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()