[Doug Wright]

Several thoughts and questions on this subject:

First, greens come in all shapes and sizes. I was thinking about Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes, two adjacent courses with vastly different greens done, of course, by two different architects (Kidd and Doak). Bandon's are large, very large; Pacific's are smaller, have much more undulation and are far more interesting.  How does an architect come up with his green sizes/shapes, and why are they different? Is it like any other architectural pursuit, ie what his personal preferences and education/experience  are?

Second, the GCA course description of Bandon Dunes says some of the Bandon greens are too large. Why are they "too large," and if in fact they are what would make the architect do that? Eg, Bandon Dunes #17 is as big as a football field, far bigger than even the other large greens on the course. What made David Kidd do that?

I'd appreciate any and all responses to any or all of the foregoing.

All The Best,

[Dan Kelly]

I'd like to add one question to Doug's:

Are Pacific Dunes's greens markedly different from Bandon Dunes's in part to purposefully differentiate the two courses?

In other words: If Pac Dunes had been there first, might Doak have gone with greens more like the current Bandon's? And then might Kidd have gone with greens more like the current Pac's?

In still other words: How much does the ground dictate the greens to the architect, and how much does the architect dictate the greens to the ground?

Oops. I think I've added more than one question.  

[texsport]

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
  The length of the approach shot has a lot to do with green size and shape. Beyond that, I'd have to think that the amount of play expected on a set of greens would influence the architect. (When Tour 18 in Texas built some smallish greens, like Augusta #12, they didn't realize that such a small green couldn't stand the traffic load they experienced during the course's early burst of popularity as an oddity. They had trouble keeping some of them alive through the summer)

SPECIFIC GREEN CONSIDERATIONS:
   The architect's vision for the course difficulty,the strategic way to play each hole, and the number and variety of pin positions desired might be guides for shaping details into a green.

INTERESTING EXAMPLE:
   Champions Golf Club, built by Ralph Plummer for two pretty fair country golfers, Jimmy Demaret and Jackie Burke,Jr. has huge greens averaging 10,000 sq. ft. This was partially required by the length of the course being par 71 and over 7,200 yds.
   They created a lot of pin positions and variety in difficulty by designing lobes projecting out around the perimeters of some greens, protected by sand, grass traps or water. The centers of many greens are higher than the edges, allowing pins to be tucked into the hazard protected corners. The prudent shots to these pins is toward the centers of the greens which gives many downhill, scary  putts out to the perimeter lobe pin positions.
    This feature of the course allows them to make the pin positions as easy or challenging as desired.

[TEPaul]

If Pacific Dunes's greens are a good deal smaller than Bandon Dunes I didn't really notice--I wouldn't consider PD's greens small at all though. Some of them are on the narrow side (#6, #16) and may not be that large in overall square footage but I was surprised that in one way or another there was some very deceptive depth to the greens of PD and I think that creates a very interesting strategic dimension to the course.

I was surprised at the depth of #2 green and most of the others although some of them are angled but still have some real depth to them.

As to depth the one that is most fascinating to me is #13. That green is probably 40+yds deep and I felt that at least another 20+ yds should have been or should be added to the back of it. At the back of the present green surface it appears the ground crests and starts going down from there and narrowing some.

#13 is a good hole as is and a great approach shot with the enormous natural dune right and the ocean left and I think another 20+ yds to the back of that green would be an awesome look and an awesome playability with a pin back there. In concept and playability it would not be unlike Pine Valley's #1 and would take real guts on the part of the player to challenge a back pin at all with all that's going on to each side (like PVGC's #1)!

#13 is a good hole but I feel not adding about 20+yds to the back of that green is a real architectural opportunity lost. Adding that green depth could make #13 one of the most talked about holes anywhere! Think of it! About 60+yds of green depth on that one! That would be about 6 clubs in potential selection--also extremely strategic because of that!

[Tom Doak]

I have yet to build a green 60 yards deep.  It would look like a caricature, and no one in the world enjoys trying to two-putt from more than 100 feet.

The architect dictates the sizes of greens.  Yes, if David Kidd had zagged, I might have zigged, although a few of them such as 6 and 16 had their size predetermined by the landform.  

At Pacific Dunes, we tended to make the southward-playing holes with slightly larger greens, and the northward holes with smaller ones, because it's easier to stop your shot into the prevailing wind.  As it is, the greens at Pacific Dunes vary in size from 4500 square feet to just over 9000.  Those who have played Lost Dunes or The Legends know that their greens are much bigger than Pacific Dunes, though not as big as Bandon's.

I have said several times that it's not just the size of the green that matters, but the entire green complex, in relation to the shot.  Many older courses have 5000 square foot greens throughout, but on the longer holes there is a bit more leeway around the greens or to one side.    

[Dan Kelly]

Tom Doak --

You write: "No one in the world enjoys trying to two-putt from more than 100 feet."

Allow me to disagree. I might be the only one (after all, I am a member of a party of one!), but ... I DO enjoy trying to two-putt from 100 feet. And the more twists and turns enroute, the better!

Putting from monstrous distances is fun! Every kid does it! Why shouldn't it remain fun?

Am I the only one who thinks this, guys?

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

No, I also agree.  

While I would hardly argue that courses with 8,000 sq. ft. greens are consistently interesting, I believe that the odd gargantuan green here and there (if it fits with the scale of the hole and surroundings) can be tremendously fun, not to mention strategic.

I can still remember pushing an approach WAY left on the second at The Old Course (I'm left-handed), only to be shocked when my caddie said, "you're on".  

Yes, I was, but I was much closer to the 16th hole location than the second, and had a putt of probably 40-50 yards, and could only see the top of the flagstick behind elephantine mounds that are part of that wonderful green complex.  

I was enormously proud of my three putt, as I had to work hard for bogey.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

I really don't know if #13 at PD would be 60yds deep if you added 20yd to the back of it (although I think I did walk what's there now and came up with nearly 40+yds).

Personally, I don't believe at all that green would look like a caricature at that length particularly due to the height of the green and the topography of it (cresting slightly in the back). At the very least the area behind the putting surface now seems more interesting than the front and could maybe be used as green space instead of the front 20yds or so if you really think it would be a caricature at that length.

As for golfers not enjoying hitting a putt of more than 100ft I think that rationale is somewhat ridiculous and is part of the whole reason for the strategic point I'm making! If they don't enjoy hitting putts of that length then they should just hitch up their pants and minds and hit a couple of more clubs to get farther back in that green so they don't have a 100ft putt.

This idea and concept and strategy is exactly the essence of what makes a very long and progressively more intense and dangerous green (towards the back) like PVGC's #1 such a wonderful and world class green! Nobody really enjoys putting from the front to the narrowing back of PVGC's #1 either, I'm sure, but I'm also sure that if a good portion of the back of PVGC's #1 was removed as green space they would also lose some respect and admiration for that hole!

You can rationalize not doing it anyway you want to but I'm not going to buy it! I think adding to the back of that green one way or the other would make that hole (a very good one), better than it already is, in fact!

If you rationalize that presenting basically public golfers with this kind of strategic and architectural offering is just too much for them to comprehend and play I guess I can understand that but to me that's a concession to public golfers at the expense of a really interesting and quality architectural offering.

[Doug Wright]

Tom Doak,

I'm interested in the concept you mentioned that you sized the greens to some extent based on the prevailing wind, which it sounds like is from the north at Pacific Dunes. A couple of questions--is this standard operating procedure for you? For other architects? Also, I thought I'd heard that the PD winds shift to the south during some of the year--true? In any case, I guess playing PD with a south wind could be [slightly? significantly?] more difficult due to the green sizing you mentioned. I suppose too that--and I think this has been covered before--the prevailing wind has a lot to do with other facets of the routing so that playing in a reverse wind would naturally make the course play more difficult.

TE Paul,

Good point re the 13th green at Pacific Dunes IMO. In fact, I found myself back there during one of the rounds I played and thought that narrowing area would be really cool as an extension of the greensite--talk about a "Sunday pin!"  As it was, though, it was a very fun chipping area too.

All The Best,    

[TEPaul]

Doug Wright:

Glad you agree that the space behind the back of the green at #13 PD would be awesome green space (Sunday pin, as you call it).

Frankly, I don't think it takes all that much vision to see that would be an incredibly interesting hole to have green space back there.

Doak has said a few times on here that he would like to see much more incisive and decisive architectural opinon on here instead of generalities and opinons on personalities and such.

Well, here it is and he responds that the hole would look like a caricature and players would not enjoy a 100ft putt. That's a poor answer and #13 PD without the green space back there is a great architectural opportunity lost, in my opinion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()