RJ,
Thanks for the input. To answer your questions about the greens, only four greens were reduced in size - 4, 12, 13, and 17. The rest were enlarged. This was as a result of my choice to restore the size and shape of the greens derived from a 1940 aerial we overlaid. The green average jumped from 4800 sf to 5300 square feet. I think that the slight size increase may provide the partial illusion that some of the greens were softened. Only a few were softened based upon concerns brought up by the golfers and County officials. The greens that most come to mind as requiring softening going into the renovation were 3, 5, 8, 13, and 15. Other putting surfaces were softened in spots and more severe in others. There is a good amount of 4 -5 % slopes mixed in with 2-3% slopes. Anything more and the greens would become a problem for the majority of golfers. Of course, the difference between 2% and 5% is a matter of inches and undetectable by the average eyes. Yet the difference in playability is great.
Originally the fifth green was a 5% back to front consistent slope. now there are stepped slopes mixing 4-5% with softer percentages gently working its way down the hill. #15 is similar, but a bit different because I was able to cut a ridge down in the back which did not require adjusting the front of the putting surface as much.
It is interesting and I would love to hear people's opinions that some have said that the character of a few holes was lost and when asked to elaborate, they said the putting surfaces were softened. They then offered that nothing else contributed to the character loss.
Regarding #4, the green was brought in from both sides significantly and reduced in size from 5,770 sf to 4950 sf. But it was deepened in the back.
RJ, I am interested in your suggestion of bringing the cart path in front of the hole in order to have some protection in the back. The path originally crossed diagonally as you suggested, but to me the sight was so hideous that it was a no-brainer to move it to the left. It also allowed me to bring the tee box away from the heavy treeline on the left for more sunlight.
For such a short hole, i think that no protection behind contributes to its challenge to have little behind the green to stop a golf shot. Others were a bit critical about that concept, but if there was a pond in front guarding the putting surface, most people wouldn't think twice about it if a shot fell just short and into the water.
The interesting point there is that hazards in front of greens seem acceptable, but hazards behind seem more unfair. Anyone have a thought on that?