[Jerry Kluger]

My club has an uphill par 3 which has front tees at 117 yards stretching back to 201 yards from the back tees.  It plays at least one club extra for the uphill and has 2 deep bunkers on either side with a false front in the middle.  The green has an almost horseshoe shaped upper tier with a bowl in the middle. It is a very tough hole and there has been some serious thought about redoing the green.  The question is whether there are any basic rules or design concepts which should be used in designing a new green. I had suggested that the first thing that should be done before a complete redesign would be to fill in the deep bunkers and see how it plays. 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Is it a " Volcano Hole?"

https://linksmagazine.com/10-top-volcano-holes-in-the-u-s/

[Matt_Cohn]

I have a couple of questions, but I think they could be most easily answered if you had some pictures of said golf hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Jerry,
You asked:
“The question is whether there are any basic rules or design concepts which should be used in designing a new green.”

The are different but proper ways to “build” a new green but there are NO hard and fast rules how to “design” one.

We just redesigned a fairly severe uphill par three hole (not quite as severe as #9 at Jupiter Hills).  I wanted an open approach and the front edge of the green to be visible from the teeing area.  It is a personal preference thing but definitely not a basic rule of design.  We also added a forward tee because many of those players could not elevate their tee shot enough to get up the hill to reach the green. Even at just 135 yards or so it was a slog for them. Most despised the hole as it was and now they have a much shorter shot and might even get a chance at a par or birdie.  At the same time, players from the middle and back tees have a more interesting target with a wider variety of shot options.  With the new false front of the green visible (it feeds to a longer and wider open approach area) it gives the appearance the putting surface is closer than it is. 

Anyone who played the original #5 hole at Pebble will have opinions about uphill par fives.  I never loved that hole but again variety is great in golf course design and as long as a particular design concept is not over used, it can be just fine.  Sometimes, however, using the same idea even just twice can be too much (e.g. two island greens in nine or even in 18 holes).   Some will tell you just one island green is too much but to each his own.  Some will say that about uphill par threes as well

[Ally Mcintosh]

I assume both the horseshoe top tier / central bowl and the false front are designed in to give the golfer a view and sense of the green surface proper; and because that’s the way the land works?


That makes perfect sense.


Without further pictures or details, there is very little to add other than an uphill approach can do with as much depth and width as possible to deal with extra roll-out. The bunkers may be there as lighthouses to frame the hole but likely reduce the playability.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm with Ally and tried to make uphill greens bigger and simpler since it would be hard to know just where to aim.  A false front and bunkers marking each edge are not a bad idea on an uphill hole where the putting surface is blind from the tee.


I wonder if the lower center bowl combined with a false front ever contributes to "de-greened" putts from above the hole?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()