Is it acceptable to add length to a hole at other than the tee end ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've almost been universally opposed this method, whereby the green is moved.
I was always concerned about two things, the ability to duplicate the original green and
the tendency for that to be the first domino to fall.
 
Yet the 10th green at ANGC was moved..
 
Ditto the 3rd green at Seminole.
 
Recently I played a hole that I had previously played a number of times.
Behind the tee, a road tends to limit the ability to add length at the tee end.
 
Recently, they moved the green back some 40-60 yards.
 
While I'm not enamored of the new green in terms of slope/contour, I'd have to say that the hole has been improved by the relocation of the green.
 
The hole is a par 5 that's 3rd/approach shot was rather benign and/or short.
 
Now, it plays like a more challenging par 5, even though they seemed to have widened the fairway.
 
While it's an expensive proposition, is it one with merit ?
 
 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Obviously it depends on the hole. There are a number of greens at one of my clubs that I thought should be moved. One is a par three. I'd like to see it moved closer to the creek. It would do two things: make the par three more interesting and two lengthen the next hole by moving the tees to where the green was. It isn't an old gem where the tradition needs to be preserved so no,problem there. I think on some courses that have a cherished heritage it is more of a problem.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


When did they move the 3rd green at Seminole -- in Dick Wilson's time there, or more recently?


Somerset Hills lengthened their 10th hole many years ago by moving the green back +/- 90 yards, to turn a medium par-4 into a par-5.  However, the green doesn't fit in with the rest of the course, and it's kind of an awkward approach shot to go for it in two.  That is the one piece of their master plan we still haven't resolved, after several years of consulting ... what to do with the 10th green?  The original location is not particularly appealing.

[Bill_McBride]

The 3rd hole at Columbia-Edgewater, a classic AV Macan 1925 course, was lengthened by 30-40 yards by building a new green.  My impression on my one play?   ZZZZZZZZZ.  Why spend that money?   Now it's a longer walk to the 4th tee and the hole is only changed for the flat bellies who can no longer get there in two. 

[Jonathan Mallard]

For as much bias displayed toward having a courses greensites dictated as often as possible by natural features, the question begged is: how often is this possible?


I'm thinking not so much...

[Mike Schott]

Pat, first I for one am glad you are back.


Second, the answer is it depends. Oh well. If there is nothing wrong with the original green there's no reason to lengthen the hole. If the green complex is an issue and cannot be improved then look for a new site that fits the architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,
 
I forgot about the 10th at SHCC.
 
Agree about the lack of fit, and it would seem that the further back you go only makes it worse.
 
Perhaps the configuration of that green needs to be adjusted.
 
I'm sure that you'll figure it out.

Patrick:


When did they move the 3rd green at Seminole -- in Dick Wilson's time there, or more recently?


Somerset Hills lengthened their 10th hole many years ago by moving the green back +/- 90 yards, to turn a medium par-4 into a par-5.  However, the green doesn't fit in with the rest of the course, and it's kind of an awkward approach shot to go for it in two.  That is the one piece of their master plan we still haven't resolved, after several years of consulting ... what to do with the 10th green?  The original location is not particularly appealing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,
 
It's hard to find a new site on an existing golf course without major changes to the other holes, ergo, the dreaded domino theory.

[Duncan Cheslett]

A great example is the celebrated 16th at Reddish Vale.





When the course opened in 1913 it was a fairly pedestrian 180 yard par 3 playing to a green in what are now woods. In the 1930s however, following a consultation with James Braid, the club built a new green on a narrow spit of land  surrounded on three sides by the river, extending the hole to 330 yards


This "new" hole was acclaimed by the great Henry Cotton as being "the best looking, the most fair, and at the same time the most difficult hole I have ever played". Coming where it does in the round, it is a potential card-wrecker to this day, especially if you are chasing a birdie!





Interestingly, evidence has now come to light that the current greensite actually featured in MacKenzie's original plans, but for some unknown reason the design was changed following a visit from the architect while the course was under construction.

[Tom_Doak]

Duncan:


That is a great hole.  Has the first tree off the tee gone?  I don't see it in your ground-level picture.


When I walked the course on my one visit, I had not seen a scorecard or map, and I was pretty confused when I got here with three holes to go, how the routing was going to wind up.  That's the 17th tee way over on the middle left of your aerial photo, correct?  And the 17th fairway to the bottom right of the photo, playing across in front of #16 tee?  And then is that the 18th tee in the far right of the photo, getting ready to play up the hill?


All of that illustrates the problem of moving a green after the rest of the course is in place ... the green to tee walks can wind up being very awkward.

[Kyle Harris]

This got me thinking and I'm not sure Pat had it in mind but it fits with the question:

Are there any examples where a hole has been, or could be, lengthened by widening the corridor and adding new lanes introducing a new line of play? A formerly straight hole becomes a dog-leg, for instance.

[Peter Pallotta]

I get an image of the 'shot relationships' being thrown off, especially on older courses. A golf hole that in 1920 might've been driver + 3 iron has become in 2016 a 2 iron (to the same original landing/driving zone) + 8 iron. If you move the green back 50-60 yards, the shot relationship might then become 2 iron + 4 iron, thus changing the character of the golf hole (at least in this one context) more so than if you moved the tees back.

Is this an accurate assessment/analysis? If so, how important -- relatively speaking -- is maintaining some semblance of the original shot relationship? If you knew you could build an even better green (than the original) 50 yards further back, would that outweigh the change in the golf hole's character?   

Peter     

[Richard Hetzel]

Welcome back Pat.

I would prefer not to move the green too, especially if it is an excellent green site/complex that cannot be replicated exactly as the original intent of the architect disappears. I also don't think creating absurd tee boxes even further back (I'll post a picture of one later tonight where Dye did just that to gain length at Purdue). These younger guys I played with were not at all worried about the length, they were easily smashing it 310-320 and straight too. Their struggles were elsewhere on the course (i.e., hitting fairway woods). What would be wrong with making the hole in question a more difficult,  albeit shorter, par 4 or par 5? Of course if money isn't an issue (like it isn't at AGNC) moving the green may make perfect sense if the land exists in order to do so. At what point do architects stop trying to create "more length"?


Newly Renovated Ackerman-Allen GC at Purdue, 13th hole. Par 5, 560 yards from the tips 446/436 from Blue/White tees. The two guys playing with us played the tips and had to walk backwards a good 115 yards to a tiny tee box. I am assuming this wayward tee was added at some point so they could stretch this hole to closer to 600 yards.




I know the room didn't exist to lengthen it past the green. I would make the hole tougher and the green more severe rather than adding that tee box (or moving the green if that were an option), that probably gets little play (outside NCAA D1 tourneys) and surely slows down play as you cannot take your cart back there at all.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Duncan:


That is a great hole.  Has the first tree off the tee gone?  I don't see it in your ground-level picture.

You are quite right Tom, it is a great hole. When played well, it is so simple, yet one mistake on either the tee shot or the approach can finish your day!

The first tree was removed a couple of years ago, It  had come far too much into play for the tee shot from both the 16th and the 17th. Its removal caused a lot of controversy at the time but the concencus now is that its absence is a good thing. It certainly encourages braver shots off both tees. Here is a shot of how it used to look;




When I walked the course on my one visit, I had not seen a scorecard or map, and I was pretty confused when I got here with three holes to go, how the routing was going to wind up.  That's the 17th tee way over on the middle left of your aerial photo, correct?  And the 17th fairway to the bottom right of the photo, playing across in front of #16 tee?  And then is that the 18th tee in the far right of the photo, getting ready to play up the hill?

Right on all counts, Tom. Yes, the walk from the 16th green to the 17th tee is now one of maybe 180 yards. Indeed, I suspect that this is the reason why Dr MacKenzie changed his mind about utilising the peninsular and compromised on a green site adjacent to the next tee. He could have slotted in a rather neat par 3 from near to the 16th green to a green in  the elbow of the river by the 17th tee, but this would have given him a 19 hole course.

All of that illustrates the problem of moving a green after the rest of the course is in place ... the green to tee walks can wind up being very awkward.

Clearly. However, give me a top quality golf hole and I'll put up with the odd awkward walk to the next tee!

[Mike_Trenham]

This got me thinking and I'm not sure Pat had it in mind but it fits with the question:

Are there any examples where a hole has been, or could be, lengthened by widening the corridor and adding new lanes introducing a new line of play? A formerly straight hole becomes a dog-leg, for instance.

Kyle in an odd way you could look at #10 at Reading CC which was shortened into a par 3 to accommodate the range.  I too thought the same thing about using fescue or something to create a dogleg.

[Kyle Harris]

This got me thinking and I'm not sure Pat had it in mind but it fits with the question:

Are there any examples where a hole has been, or could be, lengthened by widening the corridor and adding new lanes introducing a new line of play? A formerly straight hole becomes a dog-leg, for instance.

Kyle in an odd way you could look at #10 at Reading CC which was shortened into a par 3 to accommodate the range.  I too thought the same thing about using fescue or something to create a dogleg.

That's a decent example though very extreme. That green definitely looks better from the old angle of approach!

It's a curious matter to me, because I believe many older courses were effectively "lengthened" in this manner when they began to lose some width and we started getting more precise and picky about how/should a golf course measurement should occur. Many of the old center lines were straight-away and a dog-leg was, in fact, extremely pronounced (Tillinghast's Elbow at Galen Hall, for instance). When the width of the corridor became reduced, the hole then got measured toward one side of the other. How many old center lines are now buried in long grass?

[Joe Schackman]

Shackamaxon CC in NJ did this on the 15th hole (then the 3rd hole). They moved the green back about 30 yards to add some length to the hole. But in my opinion they built a much more interesting green complex in the process. The green they moved was pretty flat and boring.

Although they seem to have screwed something up in the build because the green has never been as good as the others on the course. It has always been the bugaboo of the Greenskeeper.

[MCirba]

I never played the original but turning the 11th at Caves Valley into a par five by moving the green back and to the left (it was originally a reverse cant long par four dogleg right to a green perched high above the fairway) seemed to be a positive when I was there last week.   

However, I suspect the new green will be refined over time as it's really difficult and penal in many respects.   Let's just say I've heard it referred to as "Hell's Half Hour".   

[Tyler Kearns]

When did they move the 3rd green at Seminole -- in Dick Wilson's time there, or more recently?

Tom,

It appears the 3rd green at Seminole was moved sometime between 1953 & 1964.
http://golfcoursehistories.com/SGC3green.html

The 18th green was moved closer to the beach between 1958 & 1964, perhaps part of the same renovation project.

Tyler

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
I call it a "last resort" but it can make sense if done carefully and smartly.

Tom,
I agree with you that the greensite on #10 at Somerset Hills is very awkward and doesn’t sit well for going for it in two.  I don’t even like it for a third shot.  Since it is not an original green, I think you could re-build it in a Tillinghast style that would fit in better with the overall course and make it more appropriate/interesting for very reachable “par five”. 


Also, one original green you will remember was actually “moved forward” vs backward - the #8 green at Cherry Hills CC.  This move allowed for the hole to be dramatically lengthened at the same time.  I remember when we did our Master Plan for the club we fretted over that recommended change for a long long time but in the end it was the absolute right thing to do and I am very pleased you agreed and ended up moving it.  Relocating that green opened up a very congested area of the golf course.  It also allowed for new back tees on #5, #9 and #16 plus pulled the green away from the back of #4.  The original teeing location for the hole had changed anyway so the green orientation was wrong.  By moving the green not only could you correct this but you could also restore length to what Flynn had intended to be a very long par three.  I am still convinced that if this change had not been made, Cherry Hills would not have gotten the BMW Championship in 2014.  And that is a big deal for them as it is in Cherry Hills charter to host major championships.  The beauty is that this change restored design intent on not just this hole but on a number of holes (it was still agonizing to propose moving an original green).


Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

It was a good enough idea for CBM to do it at the Cape Hole at NGLA, so I guess that, yeah, it's acceptable.
 
Dave,
 
The introduction of the road, not CBM was responsible for moving that green