A new TYPE of Golf course...

[Scott Macpherson]

It's brainstorming time.... let me float this past you....

Deep in the bowels of a St Andrews drinking establishment, it was suggested to me that some greens should be of such severity that a three putt is a good result. Indeed, on the Old Course, there are places on those greens where ‘getting down in three’ feels like a victory. But allowing for 3 shots on the green contrasts with the amount of strokes that the system of Par allows for. Could we reengineer our courses, and Par, so 3 putts are the standard?

There may be some implications on the design and cost of a green for 3-putt to be a good result. For instance, either the green needs to be severely contoured, large in size or both. But imagine a Par five in this reformed game. A player only has two shots to get to the green and then allowed 3 putts. What form would a par 3 take? Well the teeing ground would be somewhere on the edge of the green, and you have 3 putts to make par – simple. A course could still be par 72 though.

I imagine there could be benefits to this reconfigured model. Courses could be shorter and located on smaller parcels of land.  While greens may be bigger because of their greater undulations, this could mean courses overall could cost less to maintain.

Golf in this form could be faster. That is, rounds could take less time to play because one aerial shot has been removed from each hole and there are fewer lost balls (it’s hard to lose them on the green).

Other considerations;
-Maintenance costs may be about the same (less fairways are off-set by bigger greens)
-Club technology has less effect on scoring (because putting is a bigger component of a golfers score)
-Courses could be built closer to residential areas and on more sloping terrain (because courses require less land)

 OK, so this is a revolutionary idea. But is there not a kernel of inspiration in here somewhere? We could play 18 holes in less time, still smash our Pro V1's with our drivers and cavity backed irons (keeping the equipment giants happy), but length (and the effect of technology) is off-set by the skill of putting because it becomes a greater component of the game.

Hey, if somebody has the land, I would love to design this type of course...and be a member.

Would anybody else fancy a game on this type of course? .....or am I flying solo on this one?


Scott

[Carl Nichols]

I don't think I'll join you on your solo flight.  While I enjoy putting, I enjoy the longer shots (and the long walks) even more.  I don't currently seek out par 3 courses, and I wouldn't seek them out much more just becaue they have much harder greens.   

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'd need to think about the pros and cons Scott... But if you're going to make putting effectively 54 shots out of 72, then I'd rather dispense with the other clubs altogether and just play the Himalayas... Is there really a need for anything in between?

[Garland Bayley]

Not our game. There is a game for that. It is called miniature golf. Most variants on our game would lessen the dependence on putting, not increase it.

[Scott Macpherson]

This version is not at all mini golf – though at 4 of the 18 greens there would not be an approach shot, so those green would be like putting at the Himalayas. Out of a par of 72, 54 shots would be allowed for on the greens. That is quite a shift in percentage (i.e. 75% from 50%).

Maybe that weighting is too much. There would certainly be an impact on the amount of chipping and bunker shots that people have.

It's just an idea.... we're not splitting the atom (another Kiwi did that...)


scott

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

The core of golf is the playing of shots, not the stroking of putts. Your proposal moves to a game closer to miniature golf, whether played on the Himalayas or elsewhere.

Some of the golden age gcas proposed reducing courses to 12 long holes instead of 18 to eliminate what they felt was a problem with the game. That problem being too much dependence on putting.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think it was Ben Hogan who said that putting was not golf and should only count for a half stroke.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott -

as Dave suggests, I think it's a good proposal in the sense that it might 'open up' golfer's/designer's minds to the possibility of a new kind of 'template' for golf holes (and I'd say the first new such 'template' in many a decade) - to be used sparingly to be sure, but in skilled hands one more tool and avenue of expression by which and through which to work with nature/the site as it presents itself. 

Peter

[Scott Macpherson]

Thanks Peter & David for your feedback. My idea is an interesting concept in its own right, but it has no harm attached for others who don't like it. In fact, sometimes what a radical ideas does is cement in ones own mind their thoughts – which in this case is what a golf course is.

Garland, for this reason, your statement 'The core of golf is the playing of shots, not the stroking of putts', interested me. While in the counting of ones 'strokes' for the purpose of keeping ones score, there is no differential in whether the 'stroke' was a 'shot', 'chip, 'drive', flub', 'skull', sh_nk' ,or putt etc, I had not considered for any prolonged period of time that the core of golf was as an aerial sport. Could I twist what you said for this to be what you mean? Or are you just saying that you think the main action of golf is the 'hitting' of the ball and not the 'stroking'? If so, how do you define 'hitting'? Is it to do with Clubhead speed? Sometime a putter can be swung pretty hard...

Thanks for the comments... I am really clocking up some posts on this one!

[Chris Flamion]

While I feel an entire course of greens designed for 3 putts would wear thin rather quickly, I agree with Shivas as using these holes sparingly could be great fun.

Along the same lines is a course for chipping holes.  One of the local public courses has a small practice facility that includes a 9 hole chipping course.  You play the first practice hole, the entire 9 hole chipping course, the second practice hole, then the 9(or 18) hole putting course.  The entire thing ends up being a par 35 practice with lots of focus on where more than 50% of the games strokes are made.

I really love how thinking outside the box can lead to great ideas, keep them coming.

[Michael Rossi]

Some of the golden age gcas proposed reducing courses to 12 long holes instead of 18 to eliminate what they felt was a problem with the game. That problem being too much dependence on putting.

My father works at a course that tried the 12 hole formula in the mid to late 90's. The model did not work, the business struggled for several years, today has 18 holes and doing well as a business.

[Adam Clayman]

So why is lowering the number for par such sacrilege? Lengthening courses would be obsolete, if the par is lowered to 65. Tiger hitting wedge into the par 5's would be no big deal because they would be par 4's, or even 3's.

[Garland Bayley]

Scott,

I think the mention of old time gcas debating building 12 hole courses instead of 18 (to make the holes longer) pretty well defines what I mean by shots. I didn't mention whether they be aerial or otherwise, because it makes no difference.

[Tim Nugent]

That's what happens when you spend too much time deep in the bouwels of a St. Andrews drinking establishment.  I'm just surprised you remembered enough of the concept to render a post

[John Moore II]

I really don't understand how you could design a green that would require 3 putts. It just doesn't make sense. It would have to be wild to the point of stupidity. And if would make Eagles very easy to come by for those who can hit precise shots. Yeah, you show me a good course where this is done and I'll show you some ocean front property in Arizona. It just wouldn't work, not at all.

[Garland Bayley]

Actually JKM, I think the greens already exist. Just pin them on the steepest slopes. Presto! 3+ putting average.

[John Moore II]

Actually JKM, I think the greens already exist. Just pin them on the steepest slopes. Presto! 3+ putting average.

Yeah, Tobacco Road has a couple of greens like that. But that gets to stupidity and really impossibility. Its pretty much impossible to make a putt on a steep slope. So, that makes no sense to do that. People must at least be able to have a little bit of fun on the course and 5 putts per hole just wouldn't do it. There is no reasonable way to make a green that requires 3 putts. You could have a green that requires only one putt (just make it pan flat and have a hole the size of a trash can) but that wouldn't be great either. Three putts per green is just not a reasonable idea.

[Kyle Harris]

I really don't understand how you could design a green that would require 3 putts. It just doesn't make sense. It would have to be wild to the point of stupidity. And if would make Eagles very easy to come by for those who can hit precise shots. Yeah, you show me a good course where this is done and I'll show you some ocean front property in Arizona. It just wouldn't work, not at all.

It's only stupid to those that were brought up on the false sense of entitlement to having a reasonable shot at two putts once on the green.

[mike_beene]

We would finally see tennis recover.

[Sean_A]

I was going to say that we already have holes like this and people rightfully complain that the slopes and contours of those greens become stupid running at double digits, but running at single digits they don't have to be three putters.  That said, I like the idea if used sparingly and if it doesn't require cutting greens to linoleum height or other such crazy things like three bunkers and two trees stuck in the greens.

Ciao

[henrye]

I agree with JKM.  If the green is tricked up so as to result in 3 putts, then it would just end up being silly.  If seen tricked up pins so that 3 putts are tough, but even 5 putts are tough.  The only way I could see it work is that your only landing area on the green is at a great distance from the pin (in other words, you cannot shoot it close).  The first putt, then could only result in getting within 10 feet.

[Adam Clayman]

 It could also be done with a really funky twisting, amoeba-like footprint, so that you can't directly putt to any given pin from the majority of the green surface, coupled with putting obstacles, such as the bunker on #6 at Riviera or whatever.  

In other words, unless you absolutely stiff your approach to a very, very small target, your first putt is not going to be aimed at the hole; rather it will be aimed to a spot from which you can two putt (ie, a set-up putt).  

The 4th green at Spyglass comes to mind, albeit, without the serious twisting.

[Sean_A]

Better yet, if we want to see some wild putting, we don't need to touch the greens.  Just bring back the rule where balls can't be touched until picked out of the hole.  This would probably be the biggest encouragement I know to keep courses dry and thus eliminate the goofy mud putts.  Wouldn't that be weird?  In addition to wind changing the SSS, there could be a mudometer also in effect.  Imagine really wet days, windy days with a SSS of 82??

Ciao