|
Post by SwoopingMagpie on Jun 9, 2021 22:58:31 GMT -5
Hi everyone,
I’ve created this thread to get opinions on par 3 green sizes versus the length of them. I have an idea what I’m doing, but only a very limited idea. So I figured I’d put this thread up to get as many opinions as possible and hopefully some of the bigger well known names like Karma4u, hallzballz6908, b101, Lifeonaboard, sandsaver01, mattf27, lessthanbread, SmilingGoats, Crazycanuck1985 could put some input to this thread as well. If I missed anyone I apologise!!!
For instance I have a 203 yard hole......what size green would people recommend??
|
|
|
Post by scootmcgoot on Jun 10, 2021 4:48:53 GMT -5
I always go by the thought of the longer the club being hit into the green, the bigger the green should be. So if it’s a short club (wedge, 9I, etc) you can get away with a bit of a smaller green. If it’s a longer club (3-5I, 3W, etc), the green should be a bit bigger. I shoot for 95-105 yds when splining them. There are some exceptions of course, but that’s a general rule of thumb to go by.
|
|
|
Post by nsrichardson79 on Jun 10, 2021 7:47:13 GMT -5
I agree with Scoot. One more thing to think of is the slope and contours of the green as it relates to pin locations. You can really make a hole easier or harder if you have helping or hurting slopes. I will point to Ben’s tutorials for additional expert guidance.
Thanks, Neil
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jun 10, 2021 22:23:33 GMT -5
Width vs depth, angle & elevation from tee ... so many factors other than pure distance. A long iron from a great height carries far, but rolls little compared to the same club on a level hole for instance, so a 180 w/30 ft downhill may be fine smaller than a level shorter hole.
I've got a hole working that the safe shot is to the hill past the hole, and the entire back 10 yds of green is super steep so you play the slope. It's unputtable, so it adds to the normal sized pinnable area.
You'll know when you playtest if it's right, and in the overhead relative to your other greens.
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Jun 12, 2021 3:32:22 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree about the rule of thumb being the length of the shot into the green dictating the green size. Playing conditions change all the time and that can change the length of the shot coming into the green. With that in mind, another way to approach this is considering two things: the number of hazards surrounding the green and the severity of them. Tom Doak has talked about this a lot and it’s quoted I his Anatomy of a Golf Course book (great read by the way). If there are hazards fully surrounding the green such as bunkers or penalty areas, consider making the green larger. If there are little or no hazards, then a small green can work. Yes, length of shot might matter a little but I wouldn’t use that as a rule because again, playing conditions change and that can also produce a lack of variety when every long hole has a big green and every short hole has a small green.
I didn’t mention contours or elevation but both need to be considered as well. Contours are most important in my opinion because they can be hazards too. Knobs or valleys can hurt you and sometimes help you so play around with that as well to figure out ways to add variety to the approach shot.
Great topic of discussion here!
|
|
|
Post by SwoopingMagpie on Jun 12, 2021 6:37:06 GMT -5
Thanks to everyone so far for their opinions, this is a great topic and I hope it continue to grow with more time.
|
|
|
Post by scootmcgoot on Jun 12, 2021 8:20:11 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree about the rule of thumb being the length of the shot into the green dictating the green size. Playing conditions change all the time and that can change the length of the shot coming into the green. With that in mind, another way to approach this is considering two things: the number of hazards surrounding the green and the severity of them. Tom Doak has talked about this a lot and it’s quoted I his Anatomy of a Golf Course book (great read by the way). If there are hazards fully surrounding the green such as bunkers or penalty areas, consider making the green larger. If there are little or no hazards, then a small green can work. Yes, length of shot might matter a little but I wouldn’t use that as a rule because again, playing conditions change and that can also produce a lack of variety when every long hole has a big green and every short hole has a small green. I didn’t mention contours or elevation but both need to be considered as well. Contours are most important in my opinion because they can be hazards too. Knobs or valleys can hurt you and sometimes help you so play around with that as well to figure out ways to add variety to the approach shot. Great topic of discussion here! I agree with what you said but that’s why I said “general”. Same respect, a 200 yd hole, even in flat, perfect conditions, is going to require a longer iron to hit into. I don’t want to stand on the tee and know there is no way in hell I’m holding a postage sized green because it’s too small. Conversely, a shorter par 3 with a green the size of Houston and no contours is no fun either. You have to take all that into consideration
|
|
|
Post by grovey31 on Jun 13, 2021 8:39:18 GMT -5
You're right scoot, I didn't mean to make it sound that you implied that is THE RULE. There are generalizations and that's ok.
The only differing view point I have in your example of the 200yd postage stamp is that if the area surrounding the green is safe and open and void of hazards, I don't mind not holding the actual green because my recovery shot after missing is relatively easy. Now if there are deep bunkers, steep runoffs, heavy rough, etc. then that shot into a 200yd postage stamp becomes exponentially worse and turns into just poor design.
And yes, couldn't agree more that if you have a big green and short shot you better also have some wicked contours to segment it off and create the challenge to hit the correct spot of the green, not just the green itself.
|
|