Useless putting surfaces that are very useful

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played a golf course that had a number of greens that appeared to have putting surface areas that were largely useless, incapable of having the hole cut in them.

Yet, when viewed in a different context they provided excellent defenses against golfers who approached them from less than the ideal angle of attack.

On dogleg holes, those trying to reach the green, or take a short cut to the green, were faced with incredibly difficult approaches if they missed their mark.

The banks at the perimeter of the putting surface prevented balls from stopping close to the hole.

On the other hand, smart golfers were able to use those banks to direct their balls to the hole, especially when hole locations were extremely dicey and the prudent move was to avoid attacking them directly.

In addition, some of the banks created backstops for balls coming in from the ideal angles of attack.

This SYSTEMIC feature seems rare in most golf courses ?

Why ?

[David Schofield]

Patrick,

I too find these areas most interesting.  One course in my area has several "false backs" (rather than "false fronts").  At first, these seemed pointless to me, but after the second or third one I realized that the architect must have wanted balls that rolled through the green to continue to roll rather than getting caught in the rough just off the putting surface.  By making these shots continue an extra few yards the recovery was far more difficult, particularly because the rest of the green sloped hard back to front.

Great topic!

[John Moore II]

I would say that the most dominant reason for not seeing this type of green construction is cost. My course has nearly flat greens, I can think of only 2 holes that have distinct tiers in them. The cost of maintaining the additional footage of green needed to have large tiers and swales and such is likely enough to prohibit them from being built at many courses. It is also difficult to maintain these slopes in the greens, to a certain degree. I can say that while these features are interesting, they tend to be left out for sake of cost at less than high end facilities.

-Pat--I would imagine the course you played was rather up-scale? Or am I completely wrong?

[John Sheehan]

I played a couse yesterday that had greens just as you described.  In speaking with one of the managers, he mentioned that they had a tough time finding hole locations.  He said that those who played the course regularly complained about the hole locations being so repetitive.  This, combined with the cost that JK Moore referenced, could be another reason why we don't see them often enough -- because I love them. 

As you say, even though some of the surface areas might not work as hole locations, they do play into the strategy and defense of the hole.  In addition, they add a thrill that you just don't see on vanilla greens. 

In addition to making the approach shots more challenging, these were possibly (I say possibly because I cannot make this judgment from one round with any certainty) the most challenging sets of greens I have played on which to recover.  Getting up and down on a missed shot that was anything short of being in the perfect bail-out spot took a great recovery shot.  It took some great imagination and thought to create them and it took some equally strong imagination to make those humps, bumps, swales, contours and slopes work for you instead of against you.

[Jeff_Brauer]

With the cost of bunker maintenance these days approaching the cost of green maintenance, AND the fact that the top players are getting more accurate, I think internal green contours as hazards make a lot of sense.  A green like Augusta 14 is just as effective a frontal hazard as a series of bunkers, and as a change of pace, more interesting.  Lastly, for the average golfer, the recovery is more interesting and less scary, while still holding great interest for the good player.

I also design a lot of kick plates behind and to the side of greens, usually just outside the green at fw height, but the last 10-12 feet of transition slope are in the green - where they don't really reduce pin spots that much.  To me, offering the option to get near a pin without ever closely challenging a green side bunker is fun, creative and strategic.

[BCrosby]

The 5th at ANGC was designed with the Road Hole in mind but without a greenside bunker.

In lieu of the Road Hole Bunker, MacKenzie designed a crazy swale in the right front portion of the green, almost all of which is unpinnable.  Brilliant stuff.

Bob

[Wayne_Kozun]

I recently played a golf course that had a number of greens that appeared to have putting surface areas that were largely useless, incapable of having the hole cut in them.

Is this not also the case at TOC?

[TEPaul]

"In addition, some of the banks created backstops for balls coming in from the ideal angles of attack.
This SYSTEMIC feature seems rare in most golf courses?"


Pat:

It may not be that common but I wouldn't call it all that rare. Interestingly green area that is not pinnable that's capable of filtering the ball to pins also functions more effectively as green speed increases. Some of the best greens I've ever seen may have 30% or less of total greenspace as basically pinnable. As long as the pinnable spaces are spread out it's a lot better than if localized around the same basic area.

[Dan Herrmann]

Our #2 is a large green without a lot of pinnable locations.  But, believe me, it's a fantastic green complex.  Just because you can't pin a spot doesn't mean you won't need to to put over that spot.

Just getting to this green in regulation, as hard as it can be, is just the beginning.

Here's a pic from our website - I'll try to get a better pic of the green itself soon:

[Chris Cupit]

Below are three images.  The first two are from my 13th hole.  I think they show an excellent example of "useless green space" that "makes the hole".  #13 used to be 352 from the tips, two fairway bunkers on either side ad then a pitch to a smallish green surrounded by three deep bunkers.  It was a piece of cake for good players and since it was a little uphill and surrounded by bunkers it was a killer for ladies and seniors.

The new hole pushed back (only) the tips to 375 and eliminated the left fairway bunker.  The tee ball sloped hard right to left and before the longer hitter could drive past that feature to a level lie--not really any more.  The better player now must either play tight to the right bunker or have a slightly uphill lie with the ball above his feet.  In the middle of the fairway are three small pot bunkers about 45 yards short of the green--the view of the second pic is from there.

Now the weaker player can run up a shot although they usually leave it short.  But whereas in the past they were stuck in the bunker(s) for a while, now most can get down in no worse than 3 strokes asssuming they putt or chip the ball to the upper level.

"Good" players are confounded by the hole as the slightly awkward lie and the fact many go ahead and hit driver thereby leaving themselves an awkward yardage makes it a tough shot.  Plus many have come up short or spun wedges back off the front that sent the ball screaming back down the fairway.  Most play a little "safe" long and to the right where putts can be interesting.




This view shows the false front if you were 45-50 yards short of the green.  Usually you would have 100-120 in.  The false front is large enough to "scare you" from the fairway--first timers can easily see the challenge of getting the ball to stay on the top level.



The second hole, a reachable par 5 has a number of unputtable areas that are designed to feed the ball either toward or away from the hole depending on if the player has layed up or left themselves the right angle.  This view is from behind the green. A player going for the green in two who misses hole high left (right in this pic) will have a hard time holding the green with their next shot.  The best angle is along the right (next to the creek that runs the length of the hole) in order to pitch into the slope and use it as a backstop.

Laying up short and way left leaves you behind a huge hill with a bunker built into it--blind shot to a green that slopes severely left to right and into you.  Lastly the bunker built into the hill is about 37 yards short of the green.  Players considering going for the green really only have to just carry the ball over it and the ball funnels down the "ramp" onto the green.  Of course coming up short leaves a terrible bunker shot, too far left feeds into a bowl left of the green (not visible in pic) and right the ball can go in the creek.  I think its a fun hole with lots of choices thanks to the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would say that the most dominant reason for not seeing this type of green construction is cost.


What kind of costs, construction or maintainance or both ?

With push-up greens I don't see cost being a factor.[/color]

My course has nearly flat greens, I can think of only 2 holes that have distinct tiers in them. The cost of maintaining the additional footage of green needed to have large tiers and swales and such is likely enough to prohibit them from being built at many courses.

I don't agree with that.

Why do you have to have large tiers and large swales ?

# 1 green at NGLA is a perfect example of a small green with multiple tiers and bowls.[/color]

It is also difficult to maintain these slopes in the greens, to a certain degree.

I don't believe that the incremental cost involved in providing TLC to those greens is significant.[/color]

I can say that while these features are interesting, they tend to be left out for sake of cost at less than high end facilities.

You'd have to define what a "high end" facility is.  But, generally, I'd disagree with your assessment.[/color]

-Pat--I would imagine the course you played was rather up-scale? Or am I completely wrong?

I don't know that you're completely wrong, but, I don't know that I'd define that particular course as being a "rather up scale" club.  You'll have to define "up scale" and "rather up scale" in order for me to context a more specific reply.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played a golf course that had a number of greens that appeared to have putting surface areas that were largely useless, incapable of having the hole cut in them.

Is this not also the case at TOC?

Wayne,

I don't see the deflection areas at TOC like I saw at this club.

I'm talking about side or rear kick plates/banks that are uncupable, but serve another function, that of favorably or unfavorably deflecting the ball, depending upon the angle of attack and the trajectory of the shot.

BCrosby,

I don't see the function on # 5 at ANGC.

I also asked the caddies how often holes were cut into the lower tiers on # 5 and # 14 and they said, almost never.

If holes were cut there, then the banks would serve the purpose I'm referencing.

[John Moore II]

I would say that the most dominant reason for not seeing this type of green construction is cost.


What kind of costs, construction or maintainance or both ?

With push-up greens I don't see cost being a factor.[/color]

My course has nearly flat greens, I can think of only 2 holes that have distinct tiers in them. The cost of maintaining the additional footage of green needed to have large tiers and swales and such is likely enough to prohibit them from being built at many courses.

I don't agree with that.

Why do you have to have large tiers and large swales ?

# 1 green at NGLA is a perfect example of a small green with multiple tiers and bowls.[/color]

It is also difficult to maintain these slopes in the greens, to a certain degree.

I don't believe that the incremental cost involved in providing TLC to those greens is significant.[/color]

I can say that while these features are interesting, they tend to be left out for sake of cost at less than high end facilities.

You'd have to define what a "high end" facility is.  But, generally, I'd disagree with your assessment.[/color]

-Pat--I would imagine the course you played was rather up-scale? Or am I completely wrong?

I don't know that you're completely wrong, but, I don't know that I'd define that particular course as being a "rather up scale" club.  You'll have to define "up scale" and "rather up scale" in order for me to context a more specific reply.[/color]

--Pat-how many golf courses use push up greens anymore? 5% at most? Or am I wrong??

--#1 at NGLA can be small because of the play at that course. Does NGLA do more than 10000 rounds per year? At a course that does 35000 or more, a small green with 30-35% unpinable area will suffer greatly.

-Perhaps the slopes on the greens themselves do not require a great additional cost, but the slopes around the green would. Large hills and swales that must be flymown require large amounts of labor to maintain.

--I would define up-scale as any public access course that charges more than $75 for a round and most truly private clubs, i.e. ones that allow no unaccompanied play.

---Just a question--Could a course that handles 50,000 rounds a year have a green that is a total of 5000 sqft with 30% of the green unpinable? I do not think it could.

[Patrick_Mucci]

--Pat-how many golf courses use push up greens anymore? 5% at most? Or am I wrong??
You're wrong.[/color]

--#1 at NGLA can be small because of the play at that course. Does NGLA do more than 10000 rounds per year?

I wouldn't know the exact figure, but, I think the climate and soil conditions would accomodate well in excess of 20,000 rounds per year.[/color]

At a course that does 35000 or more, a small green with 30-35% unpinable area will suffer greatly.


Not necessarily.

Plainfield and a good number of clubs in the Met area have some small greens that hold up very well to heavy play[/color]

-Perhaps the slopes on the greens themselves do not require a great additional cost, but the slopes around the green would.

That's not true at all.

You're thinking one dimensionally.
Slopes don't always go down.[/color]

Large hills and swales that must be flymown require large amounts of labor to maintain.

Not at all.
Again, you're thinking one dimensionally.
The hills and swales can be routinely cut with fairway or rough mowers[/color]

--I would define up-scale as any public access course that charges more than $75 for a round and most truly private clubs, i.e. ones that allow no unaccompanied play.

Many, if not most private clubs permit unaccompanied play, despite the Haverhill case.[/color]

---Just a question--Could a course that handles 50,000 rounds a year have a green that is a total of 5000 sqft with 30% of the green unpinable? I do not think it could.

Could you name me ten (10) courses that handle 50,000 rounds a year ?
Ten private courses ?
That's an unrealistic perameter, one that deliberately seeks to justify your position by going to an extreme.

How many private courses do 50,000 rounds per year, with and without unaccompanied guests ?[/color]

[Chris Cupit]

FWIW, my course did 37,000 rounds last year.  Our greens are "USGA" with a sub-air system, a blend of A1 and A2 bentgrass and we core aerify three times a year and aerify (lightly) every week and whenever else I can get away with it

We also aerify and top dress the approaches on 5-6 holes that most lend themselves to running approaches.

Our greens average 6200 square feet with the largest at a little over 10,000 sq. ft. and the smallest at around 4200 sq. ft..

Below is a pic of the smallest green.  #11 is a short par 4 (302 from the tips).  The green has a lot of movement and is surrounded by lots of bunkers and swales.  A creek runs down the entire right side of the hole.  The green has held up nicely although I did have some sleepless nights our first year!  The first pic is from the left rough just short of hole high and the second pic is from the tee above on the next hole but it does show some of the movement.

Last year was a horrible year weather wise in GA (record drought and 10 consecutive days of 100+ temps) and was our first year open after our renovation.  I think you can have affordable private golf, interesting greens and good conditions.

[Jim Nugent]

Chris, any chance you will do a "My Home Course" profile? 

[Tim McManus]

I recently played a golf course that had a number of greens that appeared to have putting surface areas that were largely useless, incapable of having the hole cut in them.

Yet, when viewed in a different context they provided excellent defenses against golfers who approached them from less than the ideal angle of attack.

On dogleg holes, those trying to reach the green, or take a short cut to the green, were faced with incredibly difficult approaches if they missed their mark.

The banks at the perimeter of the putting surface prevented balls from stopping close to the hole.

On the other hand, smart golfers were able to use those banks to direct their balls to the hole, especially when hole locations were extremely dicey and the prudent move was to avoid attacking them directly.

In addition, some of the banks created backstops for balls coming in from the ideal angles of attack.

This SYSTEMIC feature seems rare in most golf courses ?

Why ?

My home course has multiple large greens with unpinnable areas that add value in the ways you describe in your initial post.  The course was built in the last ten years and fortunately club leadership thus far has been steadfast in resisting any changes to the green complexes, which are rightly regarded as our primary asset.  But, there are a lot more people who can ask the following question, than there are people who can intelligently answer it:

"Why are we paying so much money to maintain the left side of number 10 when we can't put a pin there? "

Before long, it becomes a truism at clubs, and some greens get altered.  More often I guess, architects and developers anticipate the questions and decide it is not worth the hassle.  Thankfully, there are still some architects out there that go ahead and do it anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I think you've hit on an issue that will become a greater problem in the future.

As more and more clubs move further from their roots, and as more new members with no previous golf club experience become a greater percentage of the membership, these special features, which few understand, will be at risk.

It's interesting that many people who join a club because they like it the way it is, want to change it to suit their perceived needs the moment they join it.

I think the battle to "preserve" will become more difficult, especially for features that aren't understood, aren't "fair" or present a higher degree of challenge.

High turnover has to be one of the greatest enemies of good to great architecture.

[John Moore II]

--Pat-how many golf courses use push up greens anymore? 5% at most? Or am I wrong??
You're wrong.[/color]

--#1 at NGLA can be small because of the play at that course. Does NGLA do more than 10000 rounds per year?

I wouldn't know the exact figure, but, I think the climate and soil conditions would accomodate well in excess of 20,000 rounds per year.[/color]

At a course that does 35000 or more, a small green with 30-35% unpinable area will suffer greatly.


Not necessarily.

Plainfield and a good number of clubs in the Met area have some small greens that hold up very well to heavy play[/color]

-Perhaps the slopes on the greens themselves do not require a great additional cost, but the slopes around the green would.

That's not true at all.

You're thinking one dimensionally.
Slopes don't always go down.[/color]

Large hills and swales that must be flymown require large amounts of labor to maintain.

Not at all.
Again, you're thinking one dimensionally.
The hills and swales can be routinely cut with fairway or rough mowers[/color]

--I would define up-scale as any public access course that charges more than $75 for a round and most truly private clubs, i.e. ones that allow no unaccompanied play.

Many, if not most private clubs permit unaccompanied play, despite the Haverhill case.[/color]

---Just a question--Could a course that handles 50,000 rounds a year have a green that is a total of 5000 sqft with 30% of the green unpinable? I do not think it could.

Could you name me ten (10) courses that handle 50,000 rounds a year ?
Ten private courses ?
That's an unrealistic perameter, one that deliberately seeks to justify your position by going to an extreme.

How many private courses do 50,000 rounds per year, with and without unaccompanied guests ?[/color]

Does all discussion on this site have to be about private clubs?? I can't name a private club that does 50k rounds per year. But I can name 10 public courses in South Florida and NC that do at least that number. PGA Village does 175k a year for 54 holes. I have a friend who worked at a club in Jacksonville, FL (the name of the club escapes me) that did 135k rounds a year on 36 holes. Pinehurst #8 does near 65k a year for one course. One of my instructors ran a club in Dayton, OH that did 36k rounds per 6 month season. And I would certainly say that many of the muni's in Florida (and anywhere for that matter) do 50k plus a year on 18 holes.  Oh, and I seem to recall reading in Golf Digest the Torrey Pines does 60k a year. So 50k is not an extreme, more like upper median, at least on the public side. So, I have named 10 courses that do more than 50k rounds.

-I am simply saying that on a course that gets a large volume of play, large amounts of putting surface space that is unpinable is not always a good thing, at least if the green is not large. Now on a 10,000 sqft green, can you have 30% unpinable and it be ok on a high volume course? Certainly. But can a 5,000 sqft green work? I think not.

[Steve Kline]

Pinehurst #8 does 65k a year? Wow, I'm stunned. It's never been that crowded when I've played it. Which is good for me because I like the course.

[Ian Larson]

Chris, what course is this?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does all discussion on this site have to be about private clubs??

No, but, they do have a unique place in the history of American GCA.[/color]

I can't name a private club that does 50k rounds per year.

That would seem to support my position[/color]

But I can name 10 public courses in South Florida and NC that do at least that number.
PGA Village does 175k a year for 54 holes.
I have a friend who worked at a club in Jacksonville, FL (the name of the club escapes me) that did 135k rounds a year on 36 holes.
Pinehurst #8 does near 65k a year for one course.
One of my instructors ran a club in Dayton, OH that did 36k rounds per 6 month season.
And I would certainly say that many of the muni's in Florida (and anywhere for that matter) do 50k plus a year on 18 holes. 
Oh, and I seem to recall reading in Golf Digest the Torrey Pines does 60k a year.
So 50k is not an extreme, more like upper median, at least on the public side.
So, I have named 10 courses that do more than 50k rounds.

I believe that you only named three (3) courses that are alleged to have 50,000 rounds.
You refered to another in Jacksonville and stated that many muni's in Florida and anywhere else do
50K rounds per course per year.  So, you're still seven (7) shy.

Based on your presentation 50,000 rounds is the extreme, not the median.

If a club was doing 50,000 rounds per year, since there fixed costs are nearly identical to a course doing 15,000 rounds per year, they would have three times the revenue stream to sink into the maintainance budget, which would address any wear and tear issues.[/color]

-I am simply saying that on a course that gets a large volume of play, large amounts of putting surface space that is unpinable is not always a good thing, at least if the green is not large.

That's akin to presenting a self fulfilling prophecy.

I doubt that an architect would create 3,000 sq/ft greens for a course targeted for 50,000 rounds.

I don't know the number of rounds that Pebble Beach gets, but, there greens are relatively small.

# 4 at Spyglass has a good amount of unpinable areas, yet the green remains a spectacular green from the perspectives of approach, recovery and putting.

Essex County West has a Biarritz that has a good deal of unpinable locations, yet, as a public course, it's maintained quite well.   The Knoll also has a Biarritz and many greens with a good deal of unpinable areas, yet, they too maintain them without burdening the budget.

Hence, I'm at a loss when it comes to your stating that the maintainance costs prohibit the introduction of these types of features

Kick plates and land forms that are part of the putting surface that are not intended for hole locations add variety, challenge, fun and quirkiness.   There's no overburdening cost associated with their construction and maintainance when comfortably fitted into the land form.[/color]

Now on a 10,000 sqft green, can you have 30% unpinable and it be ok on a high volume course? Certainly. But can a 5,000 sqft green work? I think not.

I can't imagine that some of the greens at Pebble Beach are more than 5,000 sq/ft.
# 7 immediately comes to mind.
Everytime I've played PBGC it's been booked from sun up to sun down.[/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--Maybe in the north its difficult to understand the idea that clubs can have more than 50k rounds, but where I work, its not. 50k rounds a year is not an excessive amount. Its simply a fact that if a green has less pinable space it will wear more quickly than one that has a large volume or pinable space. There is no way to explain how 4500 sqft of space will wear slower than 9000 sqft of space, unless play is far lower.

--Again, using Pebble and Spyglass is akin to using a private club, even though they have public play. Their maintenance budgets I would say are 8-10x higher than the average club.

-That, Pat, is what you fail to see. The simple average club. The muni or the daily fee club. Pebble charges $500 a round. The muni charges $50 at most (btw, Bethpage (Black), Torrey, Chambers, etc do not count, they are not nearly AVERAGE municipal clubs). The reason the AVERAGE club (Which is the clubs I mostly think about when thinking of architecture) doesn't have large putting surface spaces that are not pinable is that they simply, based on play volume, could not survive, IMHO. A place such as NGLA, Pine Valley, etc, can afford to have small greens because they do not host a large volume of play. Pebble and Pinehurst can afford such greens because they get $500 per round and have a huge budget. With enough money, nearly anything is possible, but for the local club that operates on a maintenance budget of $300,000 per year, its simply not practicable to have small greens with unpinable areas.

--The golf world exists outside the small area of ultra-high end resort and private clubs, yet so many people on this site seem to think it does not, especially you Mr. Mucci.

[Chris Cupit]

Chris, any chance you will do a "My Home Course" profile? 

Yes.  Last night I finally set up a photobucket account and I can now post pics pretty easily.  BTW, it's free, easy and I wish I had done this earlier.

Now that I can do pics I am working on a "My Home Course Profile" from the perspective of an owner/"wanna be" designer who had the good sense to hire a professional and who had the good fortune to tag along every day during the process.   And, since all my checks cleared, I got to have some input as well!

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
You said, "With the cost of bunker maintenance these days approaching the cost of green maintenance, AND the fact that the top players are getting more accurate, I think internal green contours as hazards make a lot of sense.  A green like Augusta 14 is just as effective a frontal hazard as a series of bunkers, and as a change of pace, more interesting.  Lastly, for the average golfer, the recovery is more interesting and less scary, while still holding great interest for the good player."

You are not suggesting that a green contour can be a type of "hazard" are you    Some of the Philly boys are going to jump all over you