[Patrick_Mucci]

the distance issue.

Rather than circular like greens, wouldn't greens with pronounced extensions, and tiers offer a more prudent and more dfficult challenge.

Wouldn't they place a greater emphasis on tee shot placement ?

Today I was observing some of the hole locations at Mountain Ridge and I noticed some that presented a very difficult approach from certain sides of the fairway.  Now Mountain Ridge has very generous fairways and on most holes you can see where the hole is located prior to playing it.

Since the greens average 7,500 ft, locating a hole near the perimeter presents a unique challenge.
Play safe and you're left with a long to very long putt on greens with plenty of contour and/or slope.
Greens that are typically at 11 and firm.
Miss on the short side and you're left with a very difficult recovery.
Miss long or on the long side and the recovery is equally difficult.

To provide context, think of the difference in the greens at Baltusrol Lower and Winged Foot West, both great AWT courses.

But, miss a green at WFW and it's very difficult to recover, whereas, at BL, it's much easier.

In my mind, I find about a 5 shot difference in the play of the two courses due to that playing feature.

So, rather than roundish greens, greens that might look like a marble in two dimensions, wouldn't greens that look like popcorn better thwart the golfer's efforts at scoring, no matter how long the hole ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Hopefully you do not want every green to look like the 18th at Whistling Straits ... a four-leaf clover of silly hole locations.

[Brad Klein]

Pat, there's a big-name architect out there who seems committed for now to developing not greens but "quadrants of greens." Last I looked, most golfers have trouble hitting the 6,000 square foot target, let alone the tiered 1,500-square foot ones. And even the PGA Tour has a stat for GIR, not QIR.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

Maybe, but wouldn't you have a much easier time hitting to a 1500 sq. ft. green segment with a PW from the fairway but not perfect angle vs. a 7-iron from the perfect spot? Height and spin takes away much of the need for that perfect angle and allows you to access otherwise hidden locations. I think that your earlier post about coming up with ways to make it difficult to get below the hole but still in close proximity is more effective. That's why I like greens that are canted side to side or even better front to back.

[Steve Kline]

Obviously there are unique shaped greens that do not have to look like the 18th at Whistling Straits. You could have L-shaped, triangular, etc. The first at PV has a unqiue shape. Having uniquely shaped greens with creative slopes and surrounds would seem to be more flexible and less costly than maintaining the extra tees and length. You can adjust the difficuly day to day throungh unqiue greens pretty easily. But I still do not know if it would do anything to stop today's pros.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Basically what you're suggesting is a variation of the old idea of short grass around the green to deflect the less than perfect approach. In your case the short grass would be "very short grass" and could be putted from. So I think your variation might actually play easier than the classic run-off style, where the recovery would have to be a chip in most cases.

Also, with the "classic" style you can go much wilder on contours, because no one can complain about unputtable greens

Ulrich

[Ally Mcintosh]

Patrick, one thing to remember here is that you need to be able to reach every pin position on the green from every other portion of the green using a putter (unless you want divots on your green)... You can argue that the use of short grass surrounds should not stop balls having to putt off the green to come back on and I'd agree but if the surrounds are that smooth, then haven't you just got a more uniform shaped putting surface anyway?... Greens shaped liked popcorn make the above quite difficult in most cases...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, one thing to remember here is that you need to be able to reach every pin position on the green from every other portion of the green using a putter (unless you want divots on your green)...

I don't agree with that at all.

Look at MacKenzie's 9th at Augusta, Pete Dye's crescent green at Crooked Stick.
I know an inordinate number of greens, great greens, that prevent the golfer from putting directly to the hole from every location on the putting surface.

You can argue that the use of short grass surrounds should not stop balls having to putt off the green to come back on and I'd agree but if the surrounds are that smooth, then haven't you just got a more uniform shaped putting surface anyway?... Greens shaped liked popcorn make the above quite difficult in most cases...

That's the point !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Hopefully you do not want every green to look like the 18th at Whistling Straits ... a four-leaf clover of silly hole locations.

I've never played that hole, but, I wasn't advocating for winged greens as a universal

Greens with wings provide a unique challenge not offered by circular greens.

Irregular shaped greens would seem to hold more interest, more tactical demands and more demands on putting

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, there's a big-name architect out there who seems committed for now to developing not greens but "quadrants of greens." Last I looked, most golfers have trouble hitting the 6,000 square foot target, let alone the tiered 1,500-square foot ones. And even the PGA Tour has a stat for GIR, not QIR.

Brad, shouldn't failure to hit one's approach or recovery to that quadrant result in a more demanding putt.

And, if they should miss the green entirely, a more demanding recovery.

As opposed to boring circular greens that present little in the way of tactical challenges on the approach and little in the way of a putting challenge for playing safe.

Don't diagonal greens offer a similar challenge ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Basically what you're suggesting is a variation of the old idea of short grass around the green to deflect the less than perfect approach.


No, that's not what I'm suggesting.

In your case the short grass would be "very short grass" and could be putted from. So I think your variation might actually play easier than the classic run-off style, where the recovery would have to be a chip in most cases.

Also, with the "classic" style you can go much wilder on contours, because no one can complain about unputtable greens

Ulrich

[Ally Mcintosh]

Patrick, one thing to remember here is that you need to be able to reach every pin position on the green from every other portion of the green using a putter (unless you want divots on your green)...

I don't agree with that at all.

Look at MacKenzie's 9th at Augusta, Pete Dye's crescent green at Crooked Stick.
I know an inordinate number of greens, great greens, that prevent the golfer from putting directly to the hole from every location on the putting surface.

You can argue that the use of short grass surrounds should not stop balls having to putt off the green to come back on and I'd agree but if the surrounds are that smooth, then haven't you just got a more uniform shaped putting surface anyway?... Greens shaped liked popcorn make the above quite difficult in most cases...

That's the point !

Patrick,

I'm not well enough familiar with the two greens you mention but are you sure that there are pin positions that cannot be reached from other areas of the putting surface?... I don't mean the putt needs to be straight. I just mean it needs to be a possibility. If you want a popcorn shaped green with lots of different pinnable spurs, this is quite difficult to achieve with varying concepts on a regular basis.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

It's not  uncommon for a golfer not to be able to putt to every hole location from everywhere on the green.

Not that you have to go to extremes, but, it's quite common that a golfer, near the perimeter, can't get to other hole locations.

Any green with a bulge protruding into it would be a prime example.  Any kidney or crescent shaped green would be another example.

[Sean_A]

As I think Ally is suggesting, I don't think its clever to have greens where one can't putt to a hole location.  For sure the rule can be broken here and there because if done well it will be a small percentage of people caught out.  Once on a course is probably all that any archie could justify.  I recall Tobacco Road having two (8 & 11) and I was caught out on both on the same day!  On the 11th I actually thought it was bad architecture because the pit COULD have been in play while ON THE GREEN if one wanted to put from front right to back right.  Instead, Strantz just deemed it impossible to get at the hole.  I recall that Southern Pines had at least one, maybe two of these as well.

Pat - in general I think you are right.  Odd shaped greens with hangin bits is at least interesting. 

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Most L shaped greens have that feature.

The 6th at Winged Foot West comes to mind.

The 8th green at Mountain Ridge has that feature.

If the hole is cut back right and you hit your ball short right, you won't be able to putt directly to the hole and vice versa.

It's a feature that rewards a well executed shot, a feature that places an emphasis on long distance putting should you play overly safe

[David_Madison]

Looking at all the suggestions and answers, I'm not seeing why odd shaped greens are an answer to increased ability to hit the ball a long way. Sure the different shapes and small landing areas are harder than round monolithic greens, but it seems to me that the closer one can get to hit to these smaller, odder shaped areas, the better chance you'd have to handle the challenge. Distance, along with height and spin, would seem to trump attaining the perfect angles of play. It might even be the case that uniquely shaped greens exasperate the problem and increasingly reward length. Uniquely shaped very firm greens might help as they could reward playing the right angles, but they'd have to be so firm that height and spin don't really matter.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Most L shaped greens have that feature.

The 6th at Winged Foot West comes to mind.

The 8th green at Mountain Ridge has that feature.

If the hole is cut back right and you hit your ball short right, you won't be able to putt directly to the hole and vice versa.

It's a feature that rewards a well executed shot, a feature that places an emphasis on long distance putting should you play overly safe

Pat

Like most anything in architecture, its not an issue of yes or no, its more about the quantity of a feature.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Patrick (and Sean),

I'm still not sure... There are plenty L-Shaped or crescent greens that allow you to putt from back to front with the contour certainly. But I have to say that I am not a fan of building a green where the only two logical options are to get your first putt to 10 feet or to take a lob wedge off the putting surface...

Patrick, these greens you mention - How close can you get the perfect putt?

Either way, designing a lot of indents that can be reached from all areas limits conceptual choices in design... And if designing little spurs that cannot be reached from other areas, you may as well take it to its logical extension and say "why not just design 6 little 800 square foot greens on each hole that you have to chip from one to the next?"...

As Sean said, maybe once per round... but superintendants prepare for divots on your greens...

[David_Madison]

Pat,

Riviera #10 is a case where you are right. If that hole had a normal shaped green, more players could have the advantage by bombing the ball at the green as they'd have greater opportunities to get it up and down for birdie if they missed the green. The exceptionally narrow shape with adjacent bunkers makes it more sensible to get a 220 or so yard tee shot into perfect position instead.

But, how many such holes can you have on a course that take the driver and 3-wood out of the hands of the player before the course becomes too tedious to enjoy either playing or watching a big professional event?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I think the problem that you, Ally and others may be having is that you're viewing every green as the same.
As if 18 "cookie cutter" greens are the product of the concept, when nothing could be further from the truth.

When you next play Mountain Ridge pay special attention to the putting surfaces of greens # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 17.
When I say pay "special attention" I mean study their configuration, their contours and slopes in conjunction with challenging hole locations.  Hole locations that present the dilema I describe.

They're different, yet certain hole locations present the golfer with a dilema, which is, go for the flag and risk the consequences of failure, or go for the more benign approach (toward center) and be faced with a very difficult approach putt.

When you consider that the greens are F&F and running 11 or 11.5 or 12, lag putting from a distance on those contoured/sloped surfaces is no easy task, so the golfer, has a real dilema when sitting in the fairway trying to decide how to play the hole.

What has been lost in a good deal of golf is "match play" strategy.

If your opponent has hit it to 10 feet, do you risk attacking the flag, knowing that a missed shot will probably result in a bogey while your opponent will probably make par, or being conservative, relying on a long two putt and counting the odds that your opponent will miss the birdie putt.

Medal play would seem to dictate the conservative play, but, in match play, you may be forced, against your better judgement, to attempt the more aggressive shot.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

I completely agree with all you've said. Greens as you've described create challenges and dilemmas that are interesting and fun and are more than a welcome element. What I don't get is how these greens neutralize length, which is your discussion topic. I believe that they make it harder for everyone, but acceptably applied length more often than not neutralizes more of the challenge than will perfect positioning off the tee by a shorter hitter.

To a green such as you're describing, does Player "A" with a 180 yard approach from a perfectly placed tee shot have an advantage over Player "B" who's 140 yards away, still in the fairway but maybe not with the same perfect angle? Player "A" being shorter and further from the hole, is hitting a 6-iron. Player "B" has a PW in hand.

My interpretation of your thread is that you'd say "A" has the advantage to such a green. Is that your premise? If so, why? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

David,

I think the problem that you, Ally and others may be having is that you're viewing every green as the same.
As if 18 "cookie cutter" greens are the product of the concept, when nothing could be further from the truth.

When you next play Mountain Ridge pay special attention to the putting surfaces of greens # 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 17.
When I say pay "special attention" I mean study their configuration, their contours and slopes in conjunction with challenging hole locations.  Hole locations that present the dilema I describe.

They're different, yet certain hole locations present the golfer with a dilema, which is, go for the flag and risk the consequences of failure, or go for the more benign approach (toward center) and be faced with a very difficult approach putt.

When you consider that the greens are F&F and running 11 or 11.5 or 12, lag putting from a distance on those contoured/sloped surfaces is no easy task, so the golfer, has a real dilema when sitting in the fairway trying to decide how to play the hole.

What has been lost in a good deal of golf is "match play" strategy.

If your opponent has hit it to 10 feet, do you risk attacking the flag, knowing that a missed shot will probably result in a bogey while your opponent will probably make par, or being conservative, relying on a long two putt and counting the odds that your opponent will miss the birdie putt.

Medal play would seem to dictate the conservative play, but, in match play, you may be forced, against your better judgement, to attempt the more aggressive shot.

Pat, it all depends on what you mean? If you mean individual greens with only one or two extensions, then most architects attempt that on a relatively regular basis. e.g. A crescent shape, the common ameoba shape etc... All you have to do is make sure the contour allows you to all parts of the green from other parts... It sounds like this is what you mean... But note that greens of irregular shapes actually limit what you can do with detailed conceptual ideas... A LOT can be done with contour on an essentially round green... or an oval green with its axis set at an angle to the line of play (which let's face it is the most common shape of all)

If you actually mean a green with 5 or 6 little spurs (your "popcorn" image promotes this), then my comments further above stand.

I can assure you that I'm not viewing all 18 greens as the same. I think we may just be misunderstanding what each other is saying.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I completely agree with all you've said. Greens as you've described create challenges and dilemmas that are interesting and fun and are more than a welcome element.

What I don't get is how these greens neutralize length, which is your discussion topic.
I believe that they make it harder for everyone, but acceptably applied length more often than not neutralizes more of the challenge than will perfect positioning off the tee by a shorter hitter.

Here's where I think you're missing the point.

The guy that's hitting it 280-300-320 isn't playing from the white tees, he's probably playing from the back tees, and, he's not a 20 handicap, he's probably a low single digit handicap, therefore, par on each hole is significantly more important to him the general play of 18 holes.

The 14-16-18 handicap, usually playing from the members or white tees, will rarely go flag-hunting, as it's usually beyond his ability, and, making a bogey isn't the end of the world or a meaningful dent in his score.  So, that golfer is content just to be on the green, in regulation or one over regulation.

But, the 0-6 handicap is now faced with a dilema, go flag hunting with the risk/reward/punishment that comes with it or play conservatively and try to two putt.

I started a tournament at MRCC called the "greenskeeppers revenge" where hole locations are challenging to extreme.
It's a 4 man scramble, so flag hunting is the norm since your team gets 4 bites at the apple to make a great recovery shot or putt.

But, if you were playing medal play, you'd avoid those hole locations like the plaque, and the more you played conservatively, the more pressure would be brought to bear on your approach and saving putting game.

Not being able to get close to a hole location and playing and putting defensively puts a pressure on the golfer.

Now, I'm not endorsing extremes, but, greens with wings/extensions at their corners seem to provide a heightened challenge for the better player, especially when missing the green on the short side brings such a difficult recovery with it.

When you visit MRCC you'll see exactly what I mean with regard to wings or bulges and the unique challenge that Donald Ross created, on the approach, recovery and putting.


To a green such as you're describing, does Player "A" with a 180 yard approach from a perfectly placed tee shot have an advantage over Player "B" who's 140 yards away, still in the fairway but maybe not with the same perfect angle? Player "A" being shorter and further from the hole, is hitting a 6-iron. Player "B" has a PW in hand.

What you've forgotten is the handicaps of players "A" and "B" and the significance of par to both of them.

My interpretation of your thread is that you'd say "A" has the advantage to such a green. Is that your premise? If so, why? 

What I"m saying is that the better golfer, the longer, lower handicap golfer INHERENTLY has to go flag hunting, systemically, but with exception in order to maintain his handicap, thus, the longer player will be presented with a more challenging test when a target green has wings/bulges/extensions where the hole is cut.

Hope that helps

[Mike Nuzzo]

A small distinction Pat...
I greatly prefer that the difficult pins are created in 3 dimensions not 2.
I'm thinking of the 8th at Hidden Creek
From above the green is still a circle
Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

A small distinction Pat...
I greatly prefer that the difficult pins are created in 3 dimensions not 2.
I'm thinking of the 8th at Hidden Creek
From above the green is still a circle


Mike,

That's true and part of what I was alluding to with the characterization of a wing, an elevated portion of the footpad where shots missing the green have to contend with recovery to the putting surface above them.

That heightens the risk and the penalty for an errant shot and factors into the decision making process on the approach.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()