[Patrick_Mucci]

The elevated green, with a steep falloff to the rear, with a bunker behind the green is a multifaceted feature.

It presents a variety of challenges, mental and physical to the golfer on approach, recovery and putts, especially as the location of the hole gets closer and closer to the rear of the green.

And, especially when the rear of the green is an elevated/narrower tier.

If we accept the premise that 94 % or more of approach shots don't go over the green because most golfers underclub or mishit their approach, this feature becomes exponentially more functional.

Approach shots hit short of the rear hole location are faced with long putts, usually uphill, or with chips/pitches to the back hole location.

In both cases, the golfer's mind is aware of the dire cases for hitting his putt or recovery long

Approach or recovery shots hit long, into the rear bunker are faced with bunker shots to a green that slopes away from them.  This leaves them with long difficult putts for their par or bogey.

Approach shots hit short are faced with uphill putts where the consequences of going long are either dicey putts down hill, or a recovery from a deep bunker.

Rarely have I seen recovery shots from short of the green, end up on the green, behind the hole.  Most leave their recovery shots well short because they're AFRAID to go long.

This is the beauty of the architecture and its effect on the golfers mind and execution.

Mountain Lake has an abundance of holes with this configuration, starting with hole # 1.

In some cases, while a bunker doesn't exist, a deep depression, that may have been a bunker at one time, does.

This feature acts as a wonderful inhibitor, preventing the golfer from relaxing to the point of comfort.  This pressure takes its toll on almost every golfer, especially as the hole gets closer and closer to the rear of the green.

I don't believe that the great majority of golfers can overcome this unique architectural configuration.

The one factor that can mute this configuration, the one factor that can undermine and defeat its genius is ........ overwatering, for without firm and fast conditions, greens that act as sponges or pin cushions for approach and recovery shots, dilute the architectural intent, the inherent values presented by the architectural configuration.

Seminole has a few of similar but not congruent configurations, such as on hole # 2, and to a far lesser extent at # 5, # 6, # 13, # 14 and # 16.

At Seminole, the firm & fast nature of the turf and greens makes this feature come alive.

At Mountain Lake, the soft nature of the turf and greens mutes the feature.

One of the ways to get to a back hole location is to run an approach or recovery, especially a recovery, but, when a running shot can't be executed due to the wet/soft conditions, it thwarts the architectural intent.

What I really, really liked about Mountain Lake was the penalty for going long AND the penalty for being short.

The golfer was faced with a wonderful dilema courtesy of brilliant architecture, but, that architecture can only reach its maximum efficiency and really hum, when Firm & Fast conditions prevail.

The 16th hole at The Creek has this same feature, the same configuration.

I believe that CBM-SR-CB understood the diabolical juxtaposition of those features and presented them brilliantly at many of their golf courses.

They make golfers think or perish.

[David_Elvins]

Interesting post Pat,

How often do you think this kind of feature should be used on a course?  Is it best used in moderation or does variety in pin position provide enough variation?  Or do you not want variation? Do you want it to wear on the golfer hole after hole?  

[Mike Sweeney]

Interesting post Pat,

How often do you think this kind of feature should be used on a course?  Is it best used in moderation or does variety in pin position provide enough variation?  Or do you not want variation? Do you want it to wear on the golfer hole after hole?  

With the fairly large greens of Mountain Lake, it probably only comes into play 1 out of three days.

The first is a Double Plateau, and while not a great aerial, that back 1/3 of the green is up a ridge to small portion of the green protected with the rear bunker from behind. When the pin is back, an easy opening hole of 368 yards with birdie opportunities on the front right and left pins turns into a "let's leave it short and hope the lag putt from the lower tier gets close." For sure you don't want to put your approach into that back bunker with a back pin, as holding that back tier out on a recovery shot would need Tigerish skill.

[wsmorrison]

If we accept the premise that 94 % or more of approach shots don't go over the green because most golfers underclub or mishit their approach, this feature becomes exponentially more functional.

Huh?

What percentage of approach and recovery shots are hit over the green?  On one hand you say most golfers take too little club or mishit their shots so over the green doesn't come into play for nearly all (94%) shots.  On the other hand you say that the falloffs and bunkers become exponentially more functional.  How so?  You state that the falloff and bunker features behind greens strike fear on the approaches and recoveries so that golfers avoid them altogether.   Is this preventative effect what you find so outstanding?  I prefer architecture that provides temptation to take on challenges rather than anti-temptation features.  Perhaps I don't understand your premise.

On greens that slant back to front, with today's green speeds the slope itself is a deterrent to going past the pin.  The steep falloff and bunker adds to that deterrent.  Is it redundant?  I don't think so, but it is already in the player's mind not to go past most pins.

On the holes at Mountain Lake with the steep falloffs and deep bunkers at the rear of greens, what is their overall length and length of typical approach shot?  What about the holes might make a low handicapper fire at a rear pin rather than play safe?  The position in the routing progression?  Fronting hazards?  The first hole shows a wide open approach.  Given that it is the first hole of the round, low handicappers aren't likely to play other than the middle of the green and you yourself say that high handicappers misclub or mishit.

I don't believe that the great majority of golfers can overcome this unique architectural configuration.

How unique is this feature?  A lot of early architecture (less so through the end of the classic era) had abrupt falloffs and bunkers around greens, especially at the rear (8th at Merion East is a good example of many to choose from).  If anything, it was common until greens were tied into their surrounds differently.  

What if a falloff or bunker is less overt and varied from hole to hole?  Does the systematic presentation of the features you refer to work best in the player's mind and game plan?  The way I view it, in a strategic sport, a repeated presentation is less brilliant and more game-like.

[Mike Policano]

Pat,

I like this feature. At Ridgewood at the 150 yd 6 West, there is now a bunker right behind the green. You definitely don't want to be long on that back to front green. Getting close to a back pin from that bunker is not very likely.

That bunker was only recently put in (past 3 years).  I will look at the 1935 overhead to see if it was there then. It is a hole with questionable lineage. I am not sure how much Tillinghast is in the greensite based on various discussions.

[wsmorrison]

With today's balls and wedges in addition to groomed bunkers, it is far easier to hold a fall away green from a bunker below green level than out of a rough hollow.  This is especially true given the flat bunker floors typical of Raynor.

[Mike Policano]

Wayne,

I agree that being in the bunker is better than being in the rough for such a shot.

With respect to 6 West at RCC, the bunker serves to collect long tee shots that used to propel off the back slope 20-30 yards down the hill. Perhaps that made one even more fearful of going long.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

The situation you describe sounds like a bunker was indeed called for if you wanted to raise the temptation to go for a back pin.  The thought of bounding down the slope would probably stop all but the foolhardy (me) from trying it  

I may be wrong, but this is not the case at Mountain Lake.  It seems to me that flat bottom bunkers beyond the greens are easier to deal with than rough in this era so are therefore less intimidating, at least for mid to low handicappers.  The high handicappers, as Pat noted, are rarely long.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The absolute best Macdonald/Raynor green that offers all you've mentioned here and more it Piping Rock's #13 (Knoll).

I parked my car and walked up on that green the other day and paced that rear tier. It's not much more than six steps deep and going over it is off-the-world, although there are a few little sliver bunkers back down the hill a aways.

That hole is a short one but anyone who goes pin hunting to that back tier from anywhere on an approach is crazy!

[Mike Policano]

Wayne,

For an average golfer like me, I don't want any part of the back. bunker with a back pin at the first hole at Mountain Lake.

If I don't keep the ball on the back portion, it will roll all the way down to the front or perhaps off the green.

Fortuately, as an average golfer, I am short anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If we accept the premise that 94 % or more of approach shots don't go over the green because most golfers underclub or mishit their approach, this feature becomes exponentially more functional.

Huh?

What percentage of approach and recovery shots are hit over the green?  On one hand you say most golfers take too little club or mishit their shots so over the green doesn't come into play for nearly all (94%) shots.  

On the other hand you say that the falloffs and bunkers become exponentially more functional.  How so?  

Because it creates fear and doubt in the golfers mind.
"performance anxiety"
It places a demand to think and execute in order to make par or better.  It's a deliberate confrontation that the golfer can no longer avoid.  He must meet the challenge or perish.
Sport at its best.[/color]

You state that the falloff and bunker features behind greens strike fear on the approaches and recoveries so that golfers avoid them altogether.  

No, that's not what I said.
With a hole location at the extreme rear of the green the golfer must now confront his fears and the physical configuration of the features that challenge him.  
He must think and execute properly or suffer the consequences.[/color]

Is this preventative effect what you find so outstanding?  


No.  It's the mind and physical challenge[/color]
 
I prefer architecture that provides temptation to take on challenges rather than anti-temptation features.  

This is temptation in a demanding context.
The player must meet the challenge presented by the confluence of the features or suffer one of many fates.[/color]

Perhaps I don't understand your premise.


Possibly[/color]

On greens that slant back to front, with today's green speeds the slope itself is a deterrent to going past the pin.  

Faster green speeds would hasten the ball past the hole, not impede its progress, and, slopes today are fairly mild.[/color]

The steep falloff and bunker adds to that deterrent.  Is it redundant?  I don't think so, but it is already in the player's mind not to go past most pins.

Ahh, but when the hole is located at the back edge of the green, golfers who come up short face long difficult putts.
Golfers who come up short of the green face an extremely difficult task of recovering close to the hole because the fear factor is even more evident.[/color]

On the holes at Mountain Lake with the steep falloffs and deep bunkers at the rear of greens, what is their overall length and length of typical approach shot?  

It varies.  Some are short, others medium, others long.
Yet, the feature works marvelously.

On long holes the feature probably comes more into play on recoveries rather than approaches, whereas on the short and medium holes it comes into play on the approach and the recovery.[/color]

What about the holes might make a low handicapper fire at a rear pin rather than play safe?  

I think that's a function of conditioning and how the player feels about his iron and recovery game DURING his round.[/color]

The position in the routing progression?  

It starts on the 1st hole at Mountain Lake.
A wonderful uphill hole with a center bunker in the fairway, a double plateau green with a narrower back tier flanked on three sides by bunkers.

It then continues throughout the golf course.[/color]

Fronting hazards?  The first hole shows a wide open approach.  Given that it is the first hole of the round, low handicappers aren't likely to play other than the middle of the green and you yourself say that high handicappers misclub or mishit.

The first hole is uphill.
If the golfer plays short, he'll have a long, very difficult approach putt or recovery shot if he deliberately plays short


Those who misclub or mishit are now left with a very dicey recovery to get to the back of the green.  Fear now rears its head.  If they play short, they have a difficult putt, if they go long, recovery is more difficult.  They have to precisely, in their mind and in their execution, calculate and execute the shot to perfection if they want to make a par.[/color]

I don't believe that the great majority of golfers can overcome this unique architectural configuration.

How unique is this feature?  


I think its very unique, but, you'd have to play Mountain Lake to get a feel for it, especially when the hole is cut to the back edge of these greens.  When the hole is cut to the front or middle most golfers don't have any idea of how differently the hole would play with a back hole location.[/color]

A lot of early architecture (less so through the end of the classic era) had abrupt falloffs and bunkers around greens, especially at the rear (8th at Merion East is a good example of many to choose from).  

# 8 is a short hole where the land falls off behind the green, sort of like the short at Lookout Mountain.  It's not the same as Raynor's work at Mountain Lake.[/color]

If anything, it was common until greens were tied into their surrounds differently.  

Raynor's genius was that he made the view of the approach shot look like there was perfect harmony between the front of the green, the green and its surrounds.  It's at the back of the green where the diabolical nature of the architectural features coalesce to form a formidable challenge.[/color]

What if a falloff or bunker is less overt and varied from hole to hole?  

There are some of those at Mountain Lake, but, they present no dynamic challenge to recovery attempts.  On # 16 I hit a 3 iron over the green, actually it hit the down side of a shouldering mound and ran over the green, which runs away from the golfer.  I hit an easy flip, lob wedge to 3 feet and made par.  So, the benign falloffs don't present the same challenge.   When you're behind the green and can't see the putting surface it's substantially more difficult than when you can see the putting surface.[/color]

Does the systematic presentation of the features you refer to work best in the player's mind and game plan?  The way I view it, in a strategic sport, a repeated presentation is less brilliant and more game-like.

You forget that hole locations are balanced.
You don't play 18 holes with the holes at the extreme back edge of the green.  The abundant presence of the feature works quite well when the hole location is at the back of the green.  Ask yourself, if only one hole had this feature, how often would the golfer be exposed to it ?  Once every 18 rounds ?  

At Mountain Lake, sooner or later, during your round, you're going to be confronted by this confluence of features, and, I like that.

On Saturday, # 6, # 9 and # 16 had the hole location at the back of the green, with only # 6 having the steep falloff to a back bunker, whereas, the falloffs at # 9 and # 16 were fairly benign, with # 9 being the dicier of the two.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

With today's balls and wedges in addition to groomed bunkers, it is far easier to hold a fall away green from a bunker below green level than out of a rough hollow.  This is especially true given the flat bunker floors typical of Raynor.

That's not necessarily true.

When the land slopes from the back of the green to grade, it forms an uphill lie for the recovering golfer, and that's a far easier shot than from a flat bunker.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

In post #3 you're asking Patrick a series of intelligent questions. Don't you know you can't do that with Patrick? He can't handle stuff like that.

I also was blown away by his premise 'if you accept the premise that 94% of shots don't go long.....'

94%???

Where does this guy come up with stuff like that??  

The only intelligent thing to do with Patrick is simply NOT accept about 98% of what he says on here. And the remaining 2% one should only consider with extreme caution!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The situation you describe sounds like a bunker was indeed called for if you wanted to raise the temptation to go for a back pin.  The thought of bounding down the slope would probably stop all but the foolhardy (me) from trying it  

I may be wrong, but this is not the case at Mountain Lake.  It seems to me that flat bottom bunkers beyond the greens are easier to deal with than rough in this era so are therefore less intimidating, at least for mid to low handicappers.  The high handicappers, as Pat noted, are rarely long.

Wayno,

The game/round doesn't end after the golfer has hit their approach shot.

Golfers who come up short of the green on their approach are now left with a very dicey recovery shot, where the same features conspire to mess with their mind and challenge their ability to execute.

The same holds true with approaches that land on the green, but, far short of the hole.[/color]

[D_Malley]

I actually thought it was 93.65%

[TEPaul]

"It places a demand to think and execute in order to make par or better.  It's a deliberate confrontation that the golfer can no longer avoid.  He must meet the challenge or perish."

Wayno:

Look at that.

What do you think the chances are we can get Patrick to go over a Macdonald/Raynor green at some point and consequently perish?!?

We need to find some way to stop this mental madness of his!

If we accept the premise that 94% of golfers don't go over greens AND we also accept the premise that Patrick is like all other golfers it looks like our chances of getting Patrick and his mental madness to perish is only 6%.

I'm not too sanguine about those odds. How about you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne:

In post #3 you're asking Patrick a series of intelligent questions. Don't you know you can't do that with Patrick? He can't handle stuff like that.

You must have missed reply # 10.
I'd suggest that you have someone read it to you.[/color]

I also was blown away by his premise 'if you accept the premise that 94% of shots don't go long.....'

94%???

Where does this guy come up with stuff like that??  

Two prominent, non-related architects quoted that number, hence, with what I had observed over the years, I accepted their number.[/color]

The only intelligent thing to do with Patrick is simply NOT accept about 98% of what he says on here. And the remaining 2% one should only consider with extreme caution!

TE, They say that those with dislexia sometimes reverse their numbers, as you have.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Two prominent, non-related architects quoted that number, hence, with what I had observed over the years, I accepted their number."


Oh, I see!?!

Would you care to name those architects?

My guess is they're either Mutt and Jeff or Frick and Frack!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

Robert Von Hagge and Lilly Von Schtoop

[Phil Benedict]

I think this is a variation of a recurring theme in classic architecture:  long is jail.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil Benedict,

Interestingly, my home course in NJ, a 1927 Tucker design is replete with greens with steep falloffs to flat bottomed bunkers and deep swales of rough.

Perhaps it was the natural by-product of pushup greens.

Emmett/Travis also employed the feature at GCGC, absent elevated green footpads, by having deep bunkers behind a number of greens, although, the back of # 18 green is clearly elevated

[Phil Benedict]

I think long is death in classic architecture is a byproduct of push up greens that slope from back to front.  At my course their is no consistent theme long of the green but in every case long is much worse than short.  On a few holes the back of the green is a steep bank sloping towards the green, confronting you with a chip from a severe downhill lie to a green that slopes away from you.  I will say that the green sites with severe falloffs in back are the most severe because you can lose your ball if you fly the green.

I think it's a weakness of my course and perhaps much of classic architecture that you have this constant theme - don't be long with your approach.  One of the neat things about Oakmont is that some short-game shots are easier from over the green because the green slopes from front-to-back.  At least that's my impression.

[Tom Roewer]

I think that the far better examples of Raynor "back" bunkers are on #5 and #11 @ Chicago GC.  Definite back shelves, and very narrow.  That's the key imo.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat, I am sorry I missed your moment in the sun at ML. I so agree with the impact of this feature. I find myself thinking about this on 1,2,4,6,8 and 17. Anytime a pin is in the back of the green this comes into play in spades. On most of the above it is nearly impossible to get up and down to a back pin from there. Oh by the by ND is having another top 5, in this case top, recruiting class and they still underachieve like no school I have ever seen. It should come as no surprise their AD spent time at Tulane, a breeding ground for how to lose with a smile.

[David Druzisky]

Tillinghast wrote of "The Rear Guard Green" as found in his The course Beautiful.  #34 page 87

His conclusion - to make the penalty proprtionate to the error on greens designed to receive a full pitch with a mashie or medium iron.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()