[Patrick_Mucci]

Have you ever watched a football game and noticed that some players wear what appears to be a foam or rubber neck collar around the back of their pads ?  A collar to protect the player.

Well, I noticed the same feature on many of the greens at Fishers Island.

The back half or back third of many putting surfaces were raised, collar like, to protect the golfer's ball from going over the green.

In many cases this "collar" redirected the ball toward the center of the green.

This seemed to indicate, especially on a windy site, that the architect intended play to be along the ground, or as a defense mechanism to perhaps help counter the effects of the wind.

How many courses and how many greens have these semi-circular collars at the edge of the back half of the putting surface ?

And, with increased green speeds, are they an asset to the golfer that has gone mostly overlooked as the game became more aerial ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Considering that a very high percentage of approach shots, aerial or ground-hugging, end up short rather than long, are these collar features highly relevant?

And if my premise is flawed and many more shots end up skirting these features, is it a concession on the architects part to keep the course from being too difficult rather than a strategically functional feature?

Joe

[Brett Hochstein]

One must also consider that if a shot is really poorly played, in this case really long, the penalty can be exacerbated by having to play over a 'collar' and towards a likely downslope.  In this case, the good and the marginal are both helped, but the bad is decidedly punished.  This is a consideration to take in the hierarchy of 'reward' in the schemes of shot value and strategy.

[Jay Flemma]

Have you ever watched a football game and noticed that some players wear what appears to be a foam or rubber neck collar around the back of their pads ?  A collar to protect the player.

Well, I noticed the same feature on many of the greens at Fishers Island.

The back half or back third of many putting surfaces were raised, collar like, to protect the golfer's ball from going over the green.

In many cases this "collar" redirected the ball toward the center of the green.

This seemed to indicate, especially on a windy site, that the architect intended play to be along the ground, or as a defense mechanism to perhaps help counter the effects of the wind.

How many courses and how many greens have these semi-circular collars at the edge of the back half of the putting surface ?

And, with increased green speeds, are they an asset to the golfer that has gone mostly overlooked as the game became more aerial ?

I don't like when courses grow the rough around the collar so those sideboards that were built in dont work...

[Brett Hochstein]

Jay,

Does anyone, besides the financial statitician at the club?  It isn't necessarily just rough that is wrongly grown there; many of these areas were actually supposed to be a part of the green.  I am thinking of Belvedere here, with its great tie in areas that are mown as collar and not green, and Wilmington Municipas as described by Ran in his profile.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Considering that a very high percentage of approach shots, aerial or ground-hugging, end up short rather than long, are these collar features highly relevant?

Joe, very much so when the hole location is toward the back of the green.
Remember, they also function well on recoveries when all of those approach shots you cite that end up short, leaving them with a dicey recovery to a back hole location.  

And if my premise is flawed and many more shots end up skirting these features, is it a concession on the architects part to keep the course from being too difficult rather than a strategically functional feature?

I don't believe so, I think it's an architectural aide to be used by those who are in tune with its existance and function.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One must also consider that if a shot is really poorly played, in this case really long, the penalty can be exacerbated by having to play over a 'collar' and towards a likely downslope.  In this case, the good and the marginal are both helped, but the bad is decidedly punished.  This is a consideration to take in the hierarchy of 'reward' in the schemes of shot value and strategy.

Isn't that how you'd like the feature to function ?

Why wouldn't you punish a bad shot ?

It's a rare case when I see a "bad" shot go over the flag and green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jay Flemma,

You'd like Fishers Island, the perimeter of the greens is cut down to fringe or fairway height, thus feeding errant shots down into deep bunkers.

[Jay Flemma]

Jay Flemma,

You'd like Fishers Island, the perimeter of the greens is cut down to fringe or fairway height, thus feeding errant shots down into deep bunkers.

Oh I love that....I had soem of that at National too...there are a few bunkers there that are MUUUUUUCH larger than their size:)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Considering that a very high percentage of approach shots, aerial or ground-hugging, end up short rather than long, are these collar features highly relevant?

Considering their redundancy, I'd say yes.

I've also seen variations of the collar at many other courses.
I'd imagine, since the game has become mostly aerial, that the flanking aspect of the collar has been eliminated.

And if my premise is flawed and many more shots end up skirting these features, is it a concession on the architects part to keep the course from being too difficult rather than a strategically functional feature?

I think architects have three basic choices, create the flanking mound, keep the perimeter flat, or round the putting surface and area immediately adjacent so that it feeds balls into the flanking area.

Where there's trouble long, such as at FI, the collar makes good sense, especially when you factor in the winds that sweep the golf course and their impact on play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()