|
Post by b101 on Nov 9, 2020 16:52:41 GMT -5
Yeah, this is exactly it. You're going from the point of view of 'this would be cool - now I need to find two greens' rather than 'here's two great greens, why don't I use them both?'. Sounds similar but there's a big difference in how it'll play. I totally get what you are talking about. I do however think that it is possible to make two great greens after the fact, especially knowing that with that specific hole design it would require them to be above standard. I actually just watched your 101 video on mid-length par 4's today, and the approach to the green thought process is similar in that to a par 3. Really got me thinking about angles and slopes. Each green would have a totally different strategy to them rather than just having two basic greens to shoot at from different lengths. Is it quirky? Maybe a bit. But I feel that if I can pull it off it would really make the hole stand out and be a memorable one. Not totally suggesting don't, but there's a ton that needs to factor into this. For example, with what you're mentioning now with the hole playing totally differently, you risk it becoming too disjointed. The trick is to have the differences be obvious, yet not a complete change that throws the player round to round. If it works, great, but you want to be really critical whether it does or doesn't and whether you're just doing it for the sake of it or it genuinely makes the hole better. If you get to the end and take one of the greens away, does it make the hole worse? Is one green miles better than the other? Does one require a totally different shot to the other? Does that make sense with your other threes? Are both greens the same size? Can you have the hazards on that hole work for both holes? Like I say, so much stuff to consider and those are just the questions that come into mind typing away without even seeing the land... Guess my ultimate answer is: don't get wedded to the idea and force the thing.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Nov 9, 2020 19:58:54 GMT -5
I say go for it. One idea: angled biarritz green where the swale is replaced by a waste bunker.
Bend the rules. This is video game golf and we're here to have fun.
Personally, I would only include a hole of this type if the rest of the course is also a bit quirky; otherwise, it'll feel a bit disjointed. But you do you and have fun building the course.
Don't let other people's stuffiness get in your way.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 10, 2020 1:43:42 GMT -5
I say go for it. One idea: angled biarritz green where the swale is replaced by a waste bunker. Bend the rules. This is video game golf and we're here to have fun. Personally, I would only include a hole of this type if the rest of the course is also a bit quirky; otherwise, it'll feel a bit disjointed. But you do you and have fun building the course. Don't let other people's stuffiness get in your way. ...which would remove the entire strategy of the Biarritz. If my previous posts aren’t clear, by all means break the rules but understand why they are there so you can do so intelligently and come up with something that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by ErixonStone on Nov 10, 2020 10:44:26 GMT -5
...which would remove the entire strategy of the Biarritz. Right, you would effectively not have a biarritz anymore. So what? As long as both greens played well individually, then it's just a different presentation of a hole that transforms from a short hole to a long one - the same as if the tees were moved up one of the days.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 10, 2020 10:48:22 GMT -5
...which would remove the entire strategy of the Biarritz. Right, you would effectively not have a biarritz anymore. So what? As long as both greens played well individually, then it's just a different presentation of a hole that transforms from a short hole to a long one - the same as if the tees were moved up one of the days. I get that, just wouldn't call it a biarritz, given that demands the ability to control distance with a long iron and challenge the player's vision in rolling it through the swale. Not saying your idea is bad by any means, it's just not a biarritz.
|
|
|
Post by Q on Nov 10, 2020 13:09:39 GMT -5
meh, I feel like this thread wasn't going to convince people either way.
I mostly agree with Ben here but I'm pretty certain you already made up your mind so here's how I would "force" a double green using 2 examples from IRL.
- Japanese courses like Narashino (where 2019 ZOZO was played), especially one built during Japan's economic boom commonly had two greens per hole, usually for two purposes. The first purpose was to cycle between the two in play to allow for the other green to recover so they could have truly superb greens, the other was so they could have two types of grass with one that is better at overwintering. I wouldn't do this because generally the WHOLE COURSE has double greens.
- Short par 4s, Pacific Dunes Hole #9, This hole has a huge elevation change between the two greens and Ben was right in that both are AMAZING green sites. I think the only reason these are separate and not one green is because the elevation change is too severe to mow them into one super green. Don't forget that on links courses you can just have really large meandering greens that accomplish the same goal as having two separate greens.
There are no examples I can think of in terms of a par 3 with a double green outside of Japan, in a lot of ways that just becomes two par 3s that play from the same tee (which I have seen). at least with par 4s they share a fairway but two greens on a par 3 really would be just two separate disconnected holes. Wouldn't having a really large green with a narrow connector acheive the exact same results but marry the hole together better or are you going to make a huge elevation difference/distance between the two greens?
|
|
|
Post by SteelVike on Nov 10, 2020 13:27:55 GMT -5
meh, I feel like this thread wasn't going to convince people either way. I mostly agree with Ben here but I'm pretty certain you already made up your mind so here's how I would "force" a double green using 2 examples from IRL. - Japanese courses like Narashino (where 2019 ZOZO was played), especially one built during Japan's economic boom commonly had two greens per hole, usually for two purposes. The first purpose was to cycle between the two in play to allow for the other green to recover so they could have truly superb greens, the other was so they could have two types of grass with one that is better at overwintering. I wouldn't do this because generally the WHOLE COURSE has double greens. - Short par 4s, Pacific Dunes Hole #9, This hole has a huge elevation change between the two greens and Ben was right in that both are AMAZING green sites. I think the only reason these are separate and not one green is because the elevation change is too severe to mow them into one super green. Don't forget that on links courses you can just have really large meandering greens that accomplish the same goal as having two separate greens. There are no examples I can think of in terms of a par 3 with a double green outside of Japan, in a lot of ways that just becomes two par 3s that play from the same tee (which I have seen). at least with par 4s they share a fairway but two greens on a par 3 really would be just two separate disconnected holes. Wouldn't having a really large green with a narrow connector acheive the exact same results but marry the hole together better or are you going to make a huge elevation difference/distance between the two greens? I haven't made up my mind yet as I have been working and have not been on the game in a couple days. It was really just an idea, and I'm not sure I'll even like it, but am going to give it a try and see what becomes of it. Having a large green that is split in two gives the chance of players missing to the wrong side and having to chip to the other side, so that idea is out for me. As for elevation changes, I was thinking it would be around a 10' difference with the back being a little higher with a waste area between the two where the ball would fall off the back of the front green and off the front of the back green into the waste if short/long. I will post a pic if I ever get something that I like, but mostly this post was just me thinking out loud.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Nov 10, 2020 13:42:41 GMT -5
meh, I feel like this thread wasn't going to convince people either way. I mostly agree with Ben here but I'm pretty certain you already made up your mind so here's how I would "force" a double green using 2 examples from IRL. - Japanese courses like Narashino (where 2019 ZOZO was played), especially one built during Japan's economic boom commonly had two greens per hole, usually for two purposes. The first purpose was to cycle between the two in play to allow for the other green to recover so they could have truly superb greens, the other was so they could have two types of grass with one that is better at overwintering. I wouldn't do this because generally the WHOLE COURSE has double greens. - Short par 4s, Pacific Dunes Hole #9, This hole has a huge elevation change between the two greens and Ben was right in that both are AMAZING green sites. I think the only reason these are separate and not one green is because the elevation change is too severe to mow them into one super green. Don't forget that on links courses you can just have really large meandering greens that accomplish the same goal as having two separate greens. There are no examples I can think of in terms of a par 3 with a double green outside of Japan, in a lot of ways that just becomes two par 3s that play from the same tee (which I have seen). at least with par 4s they share a fairway but two greens on a par 3 really would be just two separate disconnected holes. Wouldn't having a really large green with a narrow connector acheive the exact same results but marry the hole together better or are you going to make a huge elevation difference/distance between the two greens? I haven't made up my mind yet as I have been working and have not been on the game in a couple days. It was really just an idea, and I'm not sure I'll even like it, but am going to give it a try and see what becomes of it. Having a large green that is split in two gives the chance of players missing to the wrong side and having to chip to the other side, so that idea is out for me. As for elevation changes, I was thinking it would be around a 10' difference with the back being a little higher with a waste area between the two where the ball would fall off the back of the front green and off the front of the back green into the waste if short/long. I will post a pic if I ever get something that I like, but mostly this post was just me thinking out loud. Would love to see the land you use it with, as that'll really define whether it's workable IMO. Definitely come back with pictures otherwise it's all supposition from all of us!
|
|
bex
Caddy
Posts: 26
|
Post by bex on Nov 13, 2020 1:44:05 GMT -5
Look up the 12th hole at the DLF golf club where they have played the indian open. One of my fav courses and has a quirky 2 green complex on a par 3
|
|
|
Post by hallzballz6908 on Nov 16, 2020 19:52:57 GMT -5
Here’s an example of not being unable to choose between two great green sites. The green on the left is the “original “ green for the hole which with modern technology just doesn’t have enough distance to be a par 5 anymore. It now plays as a challenging long par 4. The green on the right was recently added and lengthens the hole by about 40 yards making the hole a legit par 5. Really fun to play either way as the greens are best approached from different sides of the fairway. left green = par 4 right green = par 5 par 4 approach par 5 approach
|
|
|
Post by sirish19 on Jan 1, 2021 7:08:55 GMT -5
I have designed a few Japanese courses that have two greens. Many courses over here have two greens as one is used for summer and one is used for winter. I also alternate pins 1 & 3 and 2 & 4. The way point can be an issue just for auto club selection and aim. I generally put the way point in-between the two greens if there is a significant difference between the two. I am not sure if that's the best way to do it or not though.
|
|
ffrog
Amateur Golfer
Posts: 247
TGCT Name: Dave Richards
Tour: Challenge Circuit
|
Post by ffrog on Jan 1, 2021 9:49:47 GMT -5
Bend the rules. This is video game golf and we're here to have fun. My thoughts exactly. Give it a go, if it doesn’t work it’s easy enough to delete a green and un-sculpt, or restore from a backup. I tried two greens on a par 4 on a course in TGC19. It didn’t really work (I can’t remember exactly why - probably one of the greens just looked better and I couldn’t be bothered to do the sculpting required to improve the other), so I just removed the second green.
|
|