Harder Greens (again)

[LetsPlayGolf]

Steve West said a couple of years ago... "Two signs of a fun design: an evil grin on your face, and pros whining." The pros whining thing is really getting to me.

Disc Side of Heaven Rec Course #18. 408' from White Tee, 435' from Blue Tee' Up hill about 30' in elevation, PDGA guidelines say it's a Par 4. (Right now it is playing at 4.07 strokes by Men's Pro and Men's Advanced players)

The only way to reach the green on your approach shot is from right to left. The basket sits about three feet from a massive oak and on the other side of the oak the land drops off about 10' down. Right now there is a very small tree (about 3 inches in diameter) on the opposite side of the massive oak about two feet from the basket.

The IDEA is to NOT attack the basket on your approach shot, but to attack the right side of the 'green'. If you land your approach anywhere on the right side of the basket (simple hyzer approach) you have a completely clear shot to putt from. If you land there 10-15-even 25 feet to the right you have an open putt for your birdie 3. If you go short, you are down the gully. If you go long you have the small 3" tree in line with your putt. If you go left you have the gully and the massive oak in the way.

Placement golf. Right?

Everyone wants to cut down the small tree so they can attack the basket for a "drop in 3". It is very surprising to me to find out that some of these really good local pros have "never considered attacking the right side of the green". They only attack the basket and then get ticked off when they go deep.

Thoughts?

 

[Matt B.]

Steve West said a couple of years ago... "Two signs of a fun design: an evil grin on your face, and pros whining." The pros whining thing is really getting to me.

Disc Side of Heaven Rec Course #18. 408' from White Tee, 435' from Blue Tee' Up hill about 30' in elevation, PDGA guidelines say it's a Par 4. (Right now it is playing at 4.07 strokes by Men's Pro and Men's Advanced players)

The only way to reach the green on your approach shot is from right to left. The basket sits about three feet from a massive oak and on the other side of the oak the land drops off about 10' down. Right now there is a very small tree (about 3 inches in diameter) on the opposite side of the massive oak about two feet from the basket.

The IDEA is to NOT attack the basket on your approach shot, but to attack the right side of the 'green'. If you land your approach anywhere on the right side of the basket (simple hyzer approach) you have a completely clear shot to putt from. If you land there 10-15-even 25 feet to the right you have an open putt for your birdie 3. If you go short, you are down the gully. If you go long you have the small 3" tree in line with your putt. If you go left you have the gully and the massive oak in the way.

Placement golf. Right?

Everyone wants to cut down the small tree so they can attack the basket for a "drop in 3". It is very surprising to me to find out that some of these really good local pros have "never considered attacking the right side of the green". They only attack the basket and then get ticked off when they go deep.

Thoughts?

My thoughts:

1. Local "pros" - the best golfers in the small pond locally, are often entitled whiners with bad attitudes
2. It sounds like an excellent hole and green.
3. Some ******* will eventually cut down the small tree.

 

[Virtual PBandJ]

Openness of the green should be proportional to the distance of the previous shot, either from the tee or the "optimal" landing zone. Sounds like plenty of room is available based on your description.

I like designing holes that have restrictive greens or that require players to pick an optimal "landing zone" on the green itself.
: ) :

 

[esdubya]

Sounds like a cool design, although a 3" tree that is two feet from the basket will have a very limited existence.

 

[Matthew boals]

My thoughts:

1. Local "pros" - the best golfers in the small pond locally, are often entitled whiners with bad attitudes
2. It sounds like an excellent hole and green.
3. Some ******* will eventually cut down the small tree.

1.:clap:
2.:thmbup:
3.:wall:

 

[Thumber]

Sounds like a cool design, although a 3" tree that is two feet from the basket will have a very limited existence.

I tend to agree. I love the concept of tough greens where you have to attack the green, not the pin. That said, 2 feet from the basket is a little too close IMO

 

[New013]

I've heard people say there shouldn't be any obstructions within the 10m circle so it's no surprise people are complaining. Personally I think a skinny bushy tree at 2' is a bit to close for two reasons

1) At such a short distance those landing close to the back of the obstacle can still straddle out or FH putt with relative ease because they're still so close to the basket.

2) Those landing around the edge of the circle with the tree directly in their path have virtually no clean look at the basket because the tree is so close and to me that's overly punitive for someone landing on the green no matter what the desired landing zone.

The second point is exaggerated because the tree is small and it's only going to affect those landing directly behind it which brings in quite a bit of luck. A player could hit the back part of the green you're trying to make harder but be 2' right and have no real obstruction.

With the big oak it's a different case, it's big enough to be an obstruction to a larger amount of people who end up left of the basket that it brings less luck in to play from that perspective. The size of the oak really pushes the idea of landing on the right side of the green while the smaller tree doesn't.

 

[DavidSauls]

A thought in support of "luck". Sort of.

Consider a hole where one side of the green is clear. The other side has small trees, so that if depending on where you land you have a 50% chance of a clear line, and a 50% chance of an obstructed line where you have to straddle out, bend, or thread your putt. Not unmakeable, just more difficult.

If you land on the bad side, "luck" comes into play as to how difficult your putt will be.

But is that bad, or just playing the odds? The favorable landing zone is the clear side, which you should be aiming for. If you miss it, you're risking a tougher putt.

I'm more bothered by a green with small trees distributed all around, so you can't aim for the sweet spot but are just hoping your approach lands well. I guess I don't like a good shot being punished for bad luck, but I can live with a bad shot being saved by good luck.

 

[Royal Hill]

Based on David's post above, how about this mental thought experiment

You take an abandoned, but still cut and clear grass ball golf course and you design a hole that ends on the putting green. Basket in center. Its an otherwise wide open circle(+) area. Reachable from the tee.

Now Stan McDaniel comes along and decides to try out Davids concept. (we wants to do much more than just this, but he will start this way) He takes some left over railroad tie timbers and plants them upright on this green. But all of them on the left side only. (Or maybe only only one quadrant)

How many timbers does it take, and at what spacing before you decide to change your tee shot?
3?5? more? when it gets to 10' spacing? 5'?

What if he only used one? How close to the basket would that single have to be to the pin before you started thinking about it when composing your strategy?

 

[tom12003]

Most of Stan's tricky greens do not come from obstacles (they are still there but smartly overcame) but from slopes/runoffs that are not totally visible from the tee/upshot--hit on the proper side of the hill, short or drop-in putt; go a little on the wrong side, it can slip/slide downhill 20-30' with a lot of obstacles that can come into play. To me that's not luck but a skill factor.

 

[DavidSauls]

In Royal Hill's example, thinking about holes I've played with trees on one side of the green, the answer might start at 2. Depending on how close to the basket, and each other; if they're positioned where, possibly, both could come into play at once, I'm trying to steer clear of them

 

[mashnut]

Based on David's post above, how about this mental thought experiment

You take an abandoned, but still cut and clear grass ball golf course and you design a hole that ends on the putting green. Basket in center. Its an otherwise wide open circle(+) area. Reachable from the tee.

Now Stan McDaniel comes along and decides to try out Davids concept. (we wants to do much more than just this, but he will start this way) He takes some left over railroad tie timbers and plants them upright on this green. But all of them on the left side only. (Or maybe only only one quadrant)

How many timbers does it take, and at what spacing before you decide to change your tee shot?
3?5? more? when it gets to 10' spacing? 5'?

What if he only used one? How close to the basket would that single have to be to the pin before you started thinking about it when composing your strategy?

I don't have a good answer to your question, but the hole where they did something very similar at Brent Baca in NM definitely has enough to make you really think about where you place your shot. The railroad ties on that hole are all around the hole, but on one side they're dense enough that you're unlikely to be able to get a clear look, on the other there are few places that you wouldn't be able to get a good shot but you might have an awkward stance.

 

[pmatt1969]

Sounds to me like there is nothing wrong with this green. I would rather be like this than no variation.

 

[DavidSauls]

We put in one flat, treeless, O.B.-free green at Stoney Hill, just to throw people off.