Can Narrow Fairways Make Rolly Poly Greens OTT?

[Sean_A]

This thought occurred to me concerning Renaissance Club.  Many of the greens have decent to serious movement and there were times that I thought some hole locations couldn't be properly accessed because the fairways were too narrow to gain the best angle of approach.  Have others experienced anything like this?  

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Sean,

Is the prevailing thought that if you are in a certain position in the fairway, that the only fair option= access to the hole location? For instance, on a par 4, is it only acceptable if the approach shot from the fair can end up close, or can there be any joy derived from a strategy that suggests an alternate route whereby a chip-in or long putt would be the chance of 3? Roly poly greens can sometimes force an alternate mindset...one I apparently subscribe to.

Joe

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

In a similar vein... was discussing with a friend about the recent redo at Desert Forest GC, which has never been known as an easy driving course.  However, complementing these tight fairways were greens which were relatively benign with their internal contours, so if you were able to get your teeball to the "correct" side of the fairway you'd have a rewarded angle into the green.  My contention with the redo (admittedly after only one play), is the new greens have some pretty severe undulations which seem to negate this... now it's a tough drive into some randomly rolling greens.

[Kyle Harris]

An expert player should be expected to get down in two from within 50 yards of the putting green.

[Sean_A]

Joe

I don't really know the answer to your question except to offer that at least once in while it can't be bad to make a chip n' putt the best way to earn par...even from a good spot in the fairway.  The thing is, rolly poly greens make chip n' putt pars harder as well.  I guess my thinking has generally been the more difficult the greens are to two-putt the more short grass there should be...but then I am not real experienced with firm (which RC's were...gloriously f&f on my second day of play) rolly poly greens. I grew up on softer rolly poly greens that were more managable for approaching and chipping if one was in the correct spot.  

Being a person who plays mainly classic courses, I have never quite experienced narrow fairways with f&f undulating greens before.  

Kyle

My thoughts are purely based on the inexpert player...you know...98% of golfers.  I don't wish to couch this thread in terms of pro play. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

An expert player should be expected to get down in two from within 50 yards of the putting green.

What?  From thick rough?  From a pot bunker?  With a pin in a difficult spot?

[Kyle Harris]

Mark Pearce,

Yes.

Sean,

Par is defined as "the score an expert player is expected to make under normal weather conditions." If you are not discussing the expert player, then your point is irrelevant as it pertains to the accepted definition of par play. It sounds like the OTT green is simply identifying the experts from the non-experts.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean,

Is the prevailing thought that if you are in a certain position in the fairway, that the only fair option= access to the hole location? For instance, on a par 4, is it only acceptable if the approach shot from the fair can end up close, or can there be any joy derived from a strategy that suggests an alternate route whereby a chip-in or long putt would be the chance of 3? Roly poly greens can sometimes force an alternate mindset...one I apparently subscribe to.

Joe:

You and me both ... but there is a subset of 2-handicaps who have assigned themselves the role of "thought police" who think that they should ALWAYS be able to make birdie from the fairway if they hit the right shot ... even if they are in the WRONG part of the fairway.

I do not lose much sleep over them.

[Sean_A]

but there is a subset of 2-handicaps who have assigned themselves the role of "thought police" who think that they should ALWAYS be able to make birdie from the fairway if they hit the right shot ... even if they are in the WRONG part of the fairway.

My opening post makes it clear I am talking about approaching from the fairway.  I am also not even talking about an easy two-putt or a birdie fest...or low cappers.  Its more about the balance of challenge.  While I understand that archies lose control of their courses once the job is done, but perhaps part of the design MO should be about the possibility of reduced fairway width and how that can change the balance of a design. 


Signed

Thought Police 

Ciao 

[Thomas Dai]

A slight tangent on this -

Wasn't it Hogan who said something like "if you see my second shot on the green on the par-4 11th at ANGC you'll know I pulled it"? Okay ANGC/11 is a wide not a narrow fairway but you get my drift.

Grandmothers and sucking eggs and all that but some hole locations/greens are probably best not approached directly, irrespective of the width of the fairway. 'Safe' section of the green and two putt or lay-up and chip/pitch on. In a bunker and up-n-down. Maximise the chances of a 4, minimise the chances of a 5-6-7-etc.

As to 2-hcps subset/thought police, nice phrasing, another reason for firm greens.

atb

[Matt MacIver]

It's been said it's easy to make a hard course but hard to make an interesting one.  A course for the 98% of us doesn't need defenses throughout the entire whole, up to and including the green.  Include issues like distance, pace of play, time, money, etc. and that's why I tend to think the best solution is wider fairways and rolling greens.

Edit: sorry so to answer the question - yes.

[Jim Nugent]

Mark Pearce,

Yes.

In 2014, median scrambling % on tour for 10-20 yards was 65%.  For more than 30 yards the figure was under 30%. 

Median distance to the cup for shots played from the fairway, from 50-75 yards, was over 15 feet.  Only one pro averaged under 10 feet. 

Even the best players in the world don't come close to getting down in two from 50 yards.

[Kyle Harris]

Mark Pearce,

Yes.

In 2014, median scrambling % on tour for 10-20 yards was 65%.  For more than 30 yards the figure was under 30%. 

Median distance to the cup for shots played from the fairway, from 50-75 yards, was over 15 feet.  Only one pro averaged under 10 feet. 

Even the best players in the world don't come close to getting down in two from 50 yards.

Expectation vs. Reality.

One would still expect the best pros to get down from such a distance. There is still that execution thing.

The question for me is: "Is it unreasonable to expect an expert player to get down in two from under 50 yards?"

The answer to that question, for me, is: "No, it is not unreasonable to expect that."

[Thomas Dai]

Expectation amongst the pro's by those outside the ropes is an interesting thing.

Okay, there are statistics galore available, and statistics can be made to prove just about about anything, but when we watch the guys and gals on TV the one's we see on the screen, are by and large, the one's who are playing well. Unless it's someone famous having a total mare, we don't generally tend to see those who are playing badly on the screen, the one's missing the cut by a big margin, the one's playing for them just awful, so the preception of those watching is of pro's playing well, getting up-n-down from just about everywhere, holing every damn putt they look at, which is not really the case. Follow someone at the back of the field, especially during the first two rounds of a tournament, to adjust the expectation.

atb

[Brent Hutto]

The club I joined at the beginning of this year has a few greens that are severely contoured. We generally have enough width to make for a certain amount of "better to be on the left side of the fairway" type of thing but this is not links course type width I'm talking about.

I've only played in winter (i.e. dormant Bermuda rough) conditions. There is one hole I can think of, a very short Par 5, where absolutely the best spot for me to lay up when certain hole locations are used seems to be 5-10 yards into the right rough. Works great in January/February, the dormant Bermuda even puts a little cushion under the ball making those 50-75 yard wedge shots easier for this bogey golfer. And from that angle no great amount of spin or high trajectory is needed for a shot to hold the middle (ish) of the green.

We'll see come summertime. I know I will not want to be hitting out of an inch and a half of July condition Bermuda rough. So I'm guessing the preferred play will be to hug the right edge of the short grass. But "hugging" anything on a 150+ yard layup shot is for me a dodgy proposition. In honesty, once the summer rough grows in I'll be aiming as much for the middle of the fairway as possible every time!

What I'm pondering is this. Would that hole be improved by opening up the 35-yard-wide fairway another 10-15 yards on that right side, say from the green back to around the 150 marker? For certain tough-to-access hole locations I think that would make getting over into that newly created section of fairway very desirable. So in that sense it's "strategic" in the way we use the term here. Is it more or less "strategic" to split the difference with mowing lines and take the "Position A" angle off the table with rough, thereby leaving a slightly lessened advantage to those who can get their ball within a few yards of the edge of the fairway?

P.S. On the hole I'm describing, for my game, the advantage of being well over to the right is two-fold. It is somewhat easier for a near-perfect shot to hold the green. But if it doesn't hold the green, from that right-side angle the ball will roll off onto the left fringe which is flat and an easy chip. Shots from the middle or left of the fairway which fail to hold the green tend to run off the right side where...what's the technical term?...where you are totally screwed.

[Kyle Harris]

Thomas,

I suppose we need to draw the line between an "expert player" and "the way an expert player is expected to play" a hole. The former is a level of the marksmanship and the latter is the level of applying that marksmanship. The fact that none of these shots exist in a vacuum (a shot had to be played prior and a shot will be played after, until holed) for me is another crucial point here. Regardless of where one draws the line (and I did so at 50 yards rather arbitrarily), it is very likely that the majority of golf holes out there have a way to be completed in 3 shots from 300 yards, 4 shots from 500 yards, etc.

This is by and large a feel-based concept based on the particular course and conditions. The statistics, therefore, are not going to force me to alter the expectation. Drop a ball within 50 yards of the hole, and I think most anyone would expect an expert player to get down in two shots. Hazards and other similar situations will obviously change this expectation, but then it needs to be said that the ball clearly got there by play that would not be deemed expert. In which case, go back to the distance from the prior shot and make the statement "is it unreasonable to expect the expert to hole out within 3 shots?"

The answer there will remain the same.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Par is defined as "the score an expert player is expected to make under normal weather conditions." If you are not discussing the expert player, then your point is irrelevant as it pertains to the accepted definition of par play. It sounds like the OTT green is simply identifying the experts from the non-experts.

Kyle

Yes....and you brought up the concept of par...not I.  It seems everytime we discuss "shot values" it becoems linked to expert players?  Why?

If you are not discussing the expert player, then your point is irrelevant

Disagree.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

It is because expert players are the ones that are the best at spending their shots. The purpose of the game is to hole the ball in the fewest strokes possible, and this is largely a skill-based thing.

One player's "over the top" is another player's "separating skill level." I believe that using a commonly accepted definition of par would be a great starting place to determining what actually is over-the-top and what is not. Since par is based on expert play under normal weather conditions, asking whether or not it is reasonable to expect an expert player to score well would be the first question to address.

If something is not reasonable for the expert player, it is certainly not reasonably for any other skill level.

You could simply ask "is it reasonable for the bogey golfer to hole out in 3 shots?" However, the idea is exactly the same. If we are to discussing whether or not a feature is over-the-top, I think we have to find a way to account/normalize skill level.

[Carl Rogers]

but there is a subset of 2-handicaps who have assigned themselves the role of "thought police" who think that they should ALWAYS be able to make birdie from the fairway if they hit the right shot ... even if they are in the WRONG part of the fairway.

My opening post makes it clear I am talking about approaching from the fairway.  I am also not even talking about an easy two-putt or a birdie fest...or low cappers.  Its more about the balance of challenge.  While I understand that archies lose control of their courses once the job is done, but perhaps part of the design MO should be about the possibility of reduced fairway width and how that can change the balance of a design. 


Signed

Thought Police 

Ciao 

Play Ballyhack for how this thread translates to a course.

[Mark_Fine]

It is hard to argue that angles “for full shots” to rolly poly greens are not important?  However, you need A LOT of width for the angle to play a big factor/be relevant.  As an example, what do you do about angles on par threes with roll poly greens??  Do you restrict where you put the pin and/or do you build a lot of tees?  

If for example, you have a three foot high chocolate drwop in the middle of the green and you are 150 yards away.   It is more about distance control and accuracy (if the pin is behind the mound, you sure don’t want to be short of it and if the pin is in front, you sure don’t want to be long).  You also want to be on the correct side depending on whether the pin is left or right of the mound.  

Take a Biarritz green as another example; does angle of play really matter on the tee/approach shot as much as distance control?  

I believe angles (in general, there are always exceptions) matter more for full shots on greens that are pitched side to side (for rolly poly ones it is too hard to say).  Of course angles also matter (maybe even more so) based on hazard locations.  Angles also dramatically impact the short game and on rolly poly greens this is very much the case.  

One question to ask for clarity and definition; would anyone here consider Riviera's greens to be "rolly poly"?  I don't think so and those greens clearly present all the challenge and interest that even the pros can handle!  At the same time they are still manageable for the rest of us.  Thomas was brilliant at this!