[Tom_Doak]

On the narrow green thread, many of those mentioned are actually SHALLOW greens.  I think they are two entirely separate topics.

I'm all for narrow greens which demand accuracy.  I'm all for narrow greens set on an angle, if the hole gives you a chance to place your tee shot to get that angle.  [10th at Riviera]  But I'm generally against shallow greens, simply because most golfers are not able to stop their shots in a short distance.  If there are hazards front and back, and there's no other option for the average player but hit and hope, I think that's a bad hole.  [My objection does not apply if the shallow green is not fronted by a hazard -- for example, the 2nd or 12th green on the Old Course at St. Andrews.]

This was always my main objection to some of Jack Nicklaus' early designs [especially the ones with Bob Cupp], and it's one reason I didn't like Tobacco Road that much either.

I also think the 12th hole at Augusta National is overrated for that reason.  It's fine for Tour players, but I think it's too severe for the average golfer.

[Paul_Turner]

I agree and don't some shallow greens surrounded by hazards have to be kept soft, to be playable?  I suppose that's OK if target (dart like) golf is your cup of tee.

[Andrew Summerell]

I use to be a member of an early Bob Harrison course that had a few very shallow greens. The course also played quite firm, so stopping the ball for the average golfer was impossible.

One of the greens was a par 5 that had a creek less than 10 foot from the front edge of the green & had bunkers all around the back. There was no real way to play the hole without requiring lots of luck.

[Forrest Richardson]

I agree. One of my first greens was a very shallow (too shallow) par-3 green. But made better — perhaps — by the fact that the shot is downhill and usually a lofty iron. I regret not making the green deeper and larger.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree on shallow greens.  No reason not to create a "Sunday Pin" green where most is accessible to the average golfers with necessary depth, and perhaps one corner is a narrow neck or smaller space for tournament pin positions.  If/when located in the Sunday Pin for everyday play, there is always the option to hit the fat middle, accepting a longer putt as the consequence.

As noted on the narrow green thread, Tobacco Road has several narrow greens in many angles.  I liked it enough to include at least one "ultra long and narrow" or "ultra wide and shallow" green on most of my projects.  However, I feel that doing a couple of narrow greens allows them to stick out as unusual concepts, but more than a few of the odd shaped greens is overdoing it.  

Thomas wrote about using long, narrow greens when holes play predominantly downwind, as the golfer can focus on distance control, knowing that the downwind reduces spin, and gives more tee shot distance, so accuracy is aided.  Conversely, most players would favor a shallow green or pin position on a headwind hole, knowing that the wind adds to backspin and stop, and I also plan these accordingly, when wind is fairly constant.

I often plan shallow greens with bailouts behind, or with an open front for a frontal run on option.  The bailout is no bunker, a punchbowl bank, or simply a level chipping area.  Of course, nothing wrong with the occaisional surrounded small target green as different test of golf ability.  But, on par, they are too difficult for the players who pay the bills, and not difficult enough for the best players, so why overdo them?

As Forrest notes, any green area with a dimension less than 45 feet in width will likely not allow sufficient area to spread cup locations out, and traffic concentrates, meaning the green suffers in maintenance compared to others.  That's been my experience, anyway, and I can't see purposely building a maintenance nightmare for superintendents just to get it narrower (I inadvertantly do that too often to do it specifically on purpose ;D0 especially when most players have trouble keeping all but the shortest approches within 22 feet of the pin on either side anyway!

So, on balance, the really narrow ribbon greens, while neat, shouldn't be overused, as they have some practical problems that are difficult to overcome long term.  And if they can't be overcome, they will be remodelled eventually!

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff and Tom, concerning your comments on Tobacco Road, I can't think of a green there except 17 that is "too" shallow.  Are you both also thinking that the odd pitch into the bowl at 12 is too narrow, or 15?  I didn't find 15 objectionally shallow if the ball is placed right off the tee, something like 10 Riviera.  12 is its own unique deal.  In 4 rounds at TR a hack like me was on the 17 green 2X and a third was just on the back fringe.  The other was really bad!  Any others at TR I am not recalling?

What do you guys think of a green like 11 CC of Charleston?  Does that qualify for angled like you were saying Tom?  What about the Boxcar hole at Lawsonia?  #8 Sand Hills?  None of the above are too shallow, IMHO...  What do guys think?

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

It's been a few years since I've been there, and would have to consult the yardage book to confirm your hole numbers, et al.  I did like the par 3, I think 12, with the green about 100 yards wide and very shallow.  I forget the wind situation, but of course, with the ball on the tee, play is very much controlled versus getting a tee shot in the proper position, and the shot is easier to hit for most.

My point is that I recalled several long and narrow greens versus the more traditional round(ish).  They got a bit repetitive to me - almost as repetitive as 18 round ones.  Somehow, the repetive use of an unusual green sticks out at me even more than repetitive use of "standard" dimension greens.  My mentors tended (as we all do) to certain green shapes. As an example, Kemper Lakes has several three lobed greens that got repetitive.  

I took it with me that I would try to vary greens more, as a design goal is always to make each green unique from others.  Of course, the plan view shape of the green can be the same, and the contours and surrounding hazards make it completely different, as well as make a certain play quality acceptable versus unacceptable!

And, of course, an architect has to balance the use of the unusual for unusual's sake against the actual playing of golf by the customers of the course, using these mostly on short holes.  I can think of a few architects who forget playability purely in the name of artistic creation.  We also have to match them to the contours of the green site.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Yes, besides 17's 'ridiculous' green (of which this schematic is not proportioned correctly, the strip connecting the two sides of the green is a maybe 1-3 paces wide):



the other one is the par 3 6th, 148 max, although the far right tees, puts this green at an angle:



Another example of this is at Strantz' Stonehouse, with the par 4 6th, of which their web site is down as I type this.  Good drive leaves shortish iron to very wide, yet shallow green fronted by a creek/ditch.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, I think the 100 yards wide and shallow that you are describing is 17 at TR.  12 is the par 5 with a third shot pitch over the two mounds with the narrow gap between them.  I can't imagine anyone playing to that green on their second shot there.  But it is wide, just not all that shallow for the pitch shot demanded, IMO.  15 is the par 4 with the dual fairway, and generous LZ wide right.  It just gives me a bit of a feel for 10 Riviera but reversed i orientation of the narrow-shallowness opening up from the wide angle.  It is semi-shallow, but plenty of room to land a short iron or pitch there, I think.  As a total set of greens, I think Stranz has a very wide variety of shapes at TR, let alone a wide offering of contours and tiers.  The narrowest to line of play green I can remember (not shallow) is 9.  Take a look at the yardage book.  I think you might be remembering it wrong.  As I reflect back on them, I am associating the shapes of Mike DeVries greens at Kingsley with many of what are found at Stranz's, TR.  That's a good thing in my mind.

[cary lichtenstein]

what do u think of the 17th green at Pebble?

[Norbert P]

 Toughest, shallowest green I can think of is the 6th at Pacific Dunes, IF and I do mean IF!, with capital letters and exclamation points and neon signs aflashin', one drives LEFT from the tee.  
  Easier hole if you go right from the tee.  Duh.

  Last week I hit a drive just short of the mongo maw bunker and had to wedge it up and over - and over it went near the 2nd green.  Then I putted up but it whirling dervished about and went down to the 6th fairway again. I flopped her up and over near the 2nd green again.  Ball in Pocket.  Had to rush 36 holes in before it got dark.  Too much fun to be had further on.  Mustn't let this self-generated quagmire of goofyiness get me too giddy and lose what little coordination and pride I had left. Ha!  

  Seven, yes! That's a hole to look forward to.  Easy par. D'oh!

[Big Pete]

Gents
Surely the occassional shallow green is OK , particularly if the greens are welcoming and you have a short iron in. I thought Tobacco Road's green set ups interesting because they were "tight" in places , but not unplayable . The angle and depth of the green are significant factors in determining one's strategy off the tee . You could have a wide open fairway with a shallow green more accessible from a particular angle , and the emphasis is then on placing the tee shot a la McKenzie at Royal Melbourne

[TEPaul]

Interesting thread;

This time I think I'd disagree on this with what seems to be an agreement amongst the architects who've weighed in with an opinion here that shallow greens should be extinct.

Tom Doak, Forrest and Jeff Brauer say they don't think greens should be shallow unless there's some way for golfers to optionally get into position off the tee to approach the length of a narrow or shallow green somehow (Riviera's #10 is a perfect example). This is what I'd disagree with.

The short 8th hole at GMGC is such an example of a shallow green where it's very hard to impossible to get a tee shot into position for an approach into the length of it, or I should more accurately say it's impossible for those golfers who really do need to get into the length of it to do so. Obviously those latter golfers are short hitting little old ladies and men.

The hole for that latter category is actually less than 300 yards but because of a tree and the arrangement of the midbody of the hole it's hard for them to have a lofted enough club to hold that shallow green.

The hole for better players is truly thoughtful, though, and not unfair at all due to it's shallowness of approach.

My solution would be then to simply make tee boxes for the little old men and ladies that're short enough for them to also get a lofted iron into their hands for their approach.

I think there is a place for the shallow approach green (with bunkers fronting it) in design. The only trick is to get a potential lofted iron approach club into everyone's hands and the way to do that is to arrange the other end of the hole properly for everyone---eg to arrange the distances of the tee boxes properly for everyone.

[ForkaB]

Tom P (and all the other distinguished architects on this thread)

Why, oh why, do we have to find a way to "get a potential lofted iron approach club into everyone's hands" on every hole?  Why can't we just accept that some players are crap--i.e. could probably not hit a 10,000 sq. foot green from 50 paces more that 10% of the time--and just design the green complex so that even if the crap player can't find the putting surface with his/her 2nd, or 3rd or 4th shot, there is some area--short, right, left, back--who cares!--which they CAN find and from which they can gain a modicum of self-respect.  I know of a number of really cool green complexes which are extremely shallow--Half Moon Bay ("Old" Course) #16, and the 1st at Dornoch Struie (#13 on the pre-WWII championship course) immediately come to mind.  Let's not ban these sort of gems just because Mrs. Haversham can't spin her 11 wood close to the hole in 6...........

PS--why is directional control (i.e. narrow green) "good" and distance control (i.e. shallow green) "bad."

PPS--I know of one truly great hole that gives you both, depending on what strategy you chose (and execute) off the tee........

[Brian Phillips]

Here is a picture of the green Tom Paul is describing.  This green and bunker complex is fantastic and proof that a shallow green works.



If you look at the right side of the green there is a little opening where grandma can lay up, chip on and one putt for par...if she can on that green!!

But the point is that Grandma will still try to hit the green if she can because that is the beauty of golf it sucks us all in to try....most of the time we lose but that one day she does hit that perfect 11 wood and it accidently (because god or whatever) it will make her day maybe even her year...don't take that pleasure away...by creating wide landing areas..

I bet you don't get many one putts on that green TomP?

That green has been there for donkeys of years with all sorts of crappy balls hitting it...now we have glue sticking balls that help the player even more why would anyone not want to design something like that?


Brian

[Matthew Mollica]

Two points for the collective minds here to ponder -

#1
As per Tom's definition in the original post, is the 17th green at TOC a shallow green?

#2
Augusta National's #7 features a very shallow green, with hazards front and back. I like the hole, and probably liked it better when years past sw the run-up shot a distinct possibility. Can we have a straw-poll of the next few posters on the hole - thumbs up or thumbs-down?

Matthew

[James Edwards]

Shallow green, semi blind approach?  

[BCrosby]

I'm with Rich.

Just from courses people will be familiar with, the old ANGC photos show shallow greens not only at 12, but also the old 9th, and 16th (though at a slight angle). No. 2 is still a very shallow green.

The 15th at East Lake is still a very shallow half moon green. No. 8 there is shallow. It was once even more shallow.

I don't see any reason for dogma about shallow greens. They work wonderfully well in certain contexts.

And as an empirical matter, I've seen no evidence that they are harder for the weaker player to hit than a narrow green. My guess would be that quite the opposite may be the case.  

Bob

[James Edwards]

Matthew.

2 different scenarios IMO.

#17 TOC is a shallow green which accepts the 'draw shot' (although a bl**dy tough one!)

#7 ANGC, also a shallow green accepts nothing other than the high shot.

(slightly different clubs though)

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not saying I would never build a shallow green; I'm just explaining why I'm not a big fan of the type, and why I don't like courses with too many of them.

If I'm going to use one, I'll probably make the same choices as Jeff does regarding extenuating circumstances.  For example, short par-3 where you get to tee it up, I have some stomach for a shallow green there -- but not twice in one round like Tobacco Road.  Very short par-4 like at Gulph Mills, I'll do that every once in a while, especially as that hole does have a narrow opening for those who know they can't fly one in.

Rich, I thought we were on the same page here ... we both want grandma to have some way to finish the hole.  I'd just rather she didn't make ten.  But as to your second question:  any player in any situation always has a chance to hit the ball straight.  They don't always have a chance to make the ball stop.  What happens when you drive it into a divot?  Or when the wind is 40 mph at your back?

I think this argument is more important than you think.  I see the use of a shallow green as a kind of pass/fail test -- either you're good enough to stop the ball, and you are rewarded for that talent, or you're not good enough and you fail.

In general, I'm against tests like that on a golf course.  I'm against a 100-yard carry over water; I'm against a tee shot out of a narrow chute of trees; I'm against an approach shot where you HAVE to hit a fade or a draw to get on the green.  [The last of these is fine if you've hit it behind a tree on your own, as long as you had an opportunity to drive away from it.]

I'm sure some of you think this is ridiculous and that I'm taking things too far [and I do make exceptions to my rules].  But I've generally managed to make interesting courses without such tests.  If you really think about it, you'll see that a lot of other architects avoided those tests as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

This is your official welcome to mainstream architecture!

Tom Paul,

I don't think you disagree with us at all.  I don't mind a GM no. 8, and in fact would use it often - as often as I design a golf course, but no more than once per project exactly like that.

Quassi makes an interesting related point.  Small green requiring exact yardage, semi - blind?  You force the use of yardage books and GPS with that combination, take away options, etc.  So, in a way, it goes against what most here argue for as good design!  That's why I think it only works once - or in some altered form, like an elevated green with fairway cut sloping off all the way around - once per nine, as a suitable test of golf.....

I should add that I never thought of 17 at Pebble as a great hole in the old days - its a good example of what Tom is talkig about in holdig the green, although now that its a mid iron for better players.....

RJ,

I recall now, seeing Scott's yardage book, that I played TR back nine first.  I liked the multi angle design approach to 6.  Even the narrow neck between the basically double greens at 17 is a neat idea.  I forget wind orientation, but thought that the two greens were too similar in concept - especially since both are par 3 holes - for one course, even if both are really cool in their own right.....

[A_Clay_Man]

 All of these objections seem to be rooted in not hurting the weaker golfers feelings. Avoiding tests, won't teach the weaker golfer where they need improvement.
Knowing the importance of playability for many levels of golfers, is there a point at which a collective attitude, like this, doesn't give the weaker golfer enough respect?

Grandma especially, knows her limitations and will gladly choose to "pick-up" if asked to execute outside her ability. Distance control not really being one of them.

One more Q. What newer/weaker golfer actually makes the connection between the difficulty of the task, and the quality of the architect?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Naturally, I respectfully agree and disagree. I like the short 3 with a shallow 12 at augusta feel to it. I do think there should be part of it that is open for the reason Tom noted but the sunday and majority of pin placements need to be protected. This is a 150 yard and shorter hole aka short. I also like that feature as part of a high risk reward par 5 green complex. Again not the whole green but the majority may be shallow. One of my favorite short par 4;s on my home course has one pin placement that has a lake on the side, trap in front and a very shallow landing area if you play for the pin. I love the risk of trying to hit close enough to the green to have a 9 iron or wedge to it and try to hold the shot. The drive has risk reward aspects which make you make the call on the tee if you are going to try and aggressively play the hole. I agree with Tom in general, but find there are ways to incorporate this in a very positive away without making the hole unfair or too difficult for the high handicapper.

[James Edwards]

Tom,  the title says, SHOULD be extinct, so why would the next post say;

"I'm not saying I would never build a shallow green..... and why I don't like courses with too many of them"

Could you clarify?

Thank you

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Regarding your post #13 and your first question do I ever have an answer for you. I really look forward to the posting it because our little #8 at GMGC during our recent restoration was the single biggest flash point with the entire membership (a huge spectrum of opinion!). It wasn't exactly about the shallow green per se--it was about a tree just over the pond that basically prevented the little of lady and man from reaching the green in two but even despite that this little hole--it's shallow green and need for a lofted approach basically says everything about this thread and its primary question. Got to go but I really look forward to posting on this later because I think it'll say a ton about this question.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()