Why Have Some Golfers/Architects Become Enamoured With More Pin Positions?

[Mark_F]

I viewed on the weekend a Masterplan for a wonderful golf club, in which, amongst other things, the architect was proposing that many greens - including those on the four best holes - have their surfaces expanded to create more pin positions, which should result in greater variety of approach play.

The greens in question, whilst admittedly modest in contour and size, nevertheless suit the course perfectly, and such is the rolling nature of the fairways, one's approach shot is rarely going to be the same from round to round anyway, especially when the vagaries of the wind are added to the equation.  

It just seems a very one dimensional theory on architecture that could wreck a fantastic course.

[John Moore II]

The number of pin positions depends on the amount of play. I knew a guy who had been a professional at Liberty National; he told me they had 4000 rounds played in the 2007 golf season (first season open, I understand). With very limited play like that, you don't need to have many pin positions because there is going to be almost no green wear. However, I had another friend who worked at a 36 hole facility outside Jacksonville, FL that got 135,000 rounds per year spread over the two courses. They need a bunch of pin positions in order to keep the greens in decent shape. So, the "obsession" might be related to just wanting more positions for sake of having more or it could be related to a projected number of rounds played and the need for more positions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I suppose its so there can be good turf around the hole locations, as John Moore alludes.  Most turf manuals say turf repairs from the foot traffic in about 14-21 days, depending on turf type, season, etc.  On low play courses, it might be only a week because the hole locations aren't seeing 200 rounds a day.

So if the greens in question don't have at least 14 distinct pin locations (at least 3 ft radius around each hole) the turf has less chance to repair itself.

Does it really ruin a course to expand a green back to where it was?  The mid pins are just the same distance from the bunkers, etc.

[Carl Johnson]

No rule in golf about green size, of course.  What about the massive greens at the St. Andrews Old Course?  How many "pin positions" can you have on those greens?  And what are the implications for other courses?  Just asking the experts here. . . I have no idea.

[Mark_F]

Jeff/John,

I understand the implications of the turf wear problem.  I wouldn't think this is a problem with the club concerned.

I'm sure the greens aren't being expanded back to where they once were - they are being expanded to offer more pin positions for variety, but in the process, the green shapes and complexes will have different playing characteristics to what they now have, and that would be a shame. 

They are terrific as is.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

There are some practical reasons to have ample green space, mentioned above.  And a lot of members like the increased daily variety.

However, I think the trend also contains a little bit of the implication that a more complicated course is a better, or smarter, design.  Or, what an engineer would call "feature creep".

[David_Tepper]

Mark F. -

I don't know the course you are speaking of or its age, but certainly many courses have seen their greens gradually shrink in size over the years for a variety of reasons. A number of courses that undergo some sort of restoration have made their greens larger but that simply is taking the greens back to the size they used to be or were originally.

The restoration of the Meadow Club, north of San Francisco, is an excellent example of this.

DT

[Bill_McBride]

Mark F. -

I don't know the course you are speaking of or its age, but certainly many courses have seen their greens gradually shrink in size over the years for a variety of reasons. A number of courses that undergo some sort of restoration have made their greens larger but that simply is taking the greens back to the size they used to be or were originally.

The restoration of the Meadow Club, north of San Francisco, is an excellent example of this.

DT

The Valley Club of Montecito just finished the same process, so that's two Mackenzie courses in California.

I'm not sure going out to the original green pad dimensions adds a lot of pin positions.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Any view from Winged Foot?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'll guess you can trust your instincts and wreck might not be the best word to use.
Over-design or over-engineer might be the better term to combat the green changes.

How are the other changes?
What is the reason for the Master Plan?
How good is the architect's past work?

Cheers

[Mike Nuzzo]

p.s.
I saw a presentation once where the architect showed how after renovating the new green shapes were much more interesting - more pin positions.
The old ones were all circular.

Problem was the presentation was just on the projected shape, not the contouring.
There was no way to tell how they were shaped or what was better - by my standards.

Most of Coore's greens look like circles from above.

[Kris Spence]

Mark, what you describe is something Ive included in recommendations many times.  Mostly what Im trying to achieve is anything but one dimensional.  The expansion of the surface to reclaim lost areas along the edges of  greens allows for  hole locations to move outward toward the bunkers, front edges, back or protruded corners and vertical fill slopes.  To me it adds greater variety, 5 steps further left of right especially on a green with some angle to it will challenge a bad angle to a greater degree and or require a more strategic line off the tee to achieve the best angle.  The surface contours may or may not come into play, most of the time they are a continuation of the existing green back into an area it once occupied.  What Im referring to has nothing to do with softening green contours to gain more pinnable location.  Many a player have told me that the restoration of a great hole location in a back or front corner completely changes the way they play the hole when  the hole is located there.

[Mike Nuzzo]

reclaim lost areas

Kris
He stated later these aren't lost areas.

He is inferring that the architect is following a popular trend, and one that may not fit his course or some of the best holes.
Kind of like all those lacey bunkers out there.

There is a time and place for everything.
Now is not the time Cato!!!

Cheers