[Patrick_Mucci]

My home course has three (3) tiered greens, where the midpoints of the lower tier and upper tier have about a three foot differential in elevation.

The 11th hole at NGLA is a double tiered green, with the left tier having about a 2-3 foot elevation differential at the midpoints,  and the rear tier having about a 1-1/12 foot differential.

My question is, based on todays green speeds, is there a ratio between the elevation differences and the square footage of the tiers ?

References to FORMULAIC will be disqualified.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

All I know is that many architects will make the lowest tier as flat as possible to keep a putt from the upper tier from rolling off the green.  Some even raise the front lip of the lower tier to further keep a putt on the green.

I'm not sure of the exact physics of the stimpmeter, but I know they raise about a 2 foot bar about 30% (?) and let the ball go.  Certainly, a tiered slope wouldn't be a lot more than this, so I expect a putt just creeping over the top of a tier wouldn't go more than 12-13 feet per vertical foot. Factor in seasonal variability, and its hard to come up with any formula, or rule of thumb, and believe me, I would if I could!

I also suspect the teired areas of any green are usually about 40-50 feet deep, so they should contain a putt that is reasonably well struck and guaged.  

I presume the nature of your question arises from some club member "de-greening" a putt, and complaining to the board.  If no one can keep a putt on a green, perhaps its unfair.  But, perhaps at some point, you just have to tell the occaisional golfer that he had two chances to avoid putting off the green - one by hitting the right portion, and second, by guaging his putt correctly.  Three, really, if you include the option of just going to the practice green!

Or is that too much to ask a club golfer?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Originally, all three greens were designed to take relatively short shots.
#  9 was a reachable par 5 but now is a long par 4
# 13 was a mid range par 4, with the green 25 feet uphill
# 18 was a short 100 yard par three, now at 145.

All three provided a direct angle of attack.  But, # 13 was shifted left by a landscape arthictect years ago, creating a very difficult approach.

The green speeds years ago, allowed putts from the upper level to remain on the green.  
That is now impossible on holes # 9 and # 13.

I would agree that their is a premium on accuracy and that the golfer must get to the correct level, but with # 9 now requiring a 3-wood to long iron, that's just not feasable.
I'm hoping to convince the board that # 9 should be returned to a par 5, especially since there is a creek running across the fairway and down the right side, forcing layups, and then 3-woods to 2-3-irons.

My question dealt more with construction today, in terms of the size of the lower level, since I feel putting from the upper to the lower level is far more difficult.

The 9th and 13th greens will probably have their lower levels raised, and one of the question is, how much, what is a reasonable elevation differential between the two tiers.
The lower level of the 13th green is also rather small.

Thanks for the imput.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I have a clearer picture now.  I think the defining height differnce may acutally be determined by one of several maintenance considerations, as well as play.  With tighter cuts, the steep inclines of a tier dry out easily, and they are difficult to mow.  Any change should correct these problems.

From a purely play standpoint, I would consider if both tiers of these greens are considered equally difficult pin positions, or if the upper tier is considered the "Sunday Pin" as is usually the cases.  If the upper tier is the prime pin, then I think the lower tiers could probably be safely enlarged to as large as practical to hold downhill putts on the green, knowing the hole is easier there than up top.

I would also consider the prevailing wind direction in lowering the tiers on nine.  I know lots of players like using a tier to spin back to a lower deck, if there is a frontal hazard and the wind is against, or gently release to an upperdeck with a long iron, especially downwind on long par 4 holes.

I would probably encourage the enlargement of the 13th, if there is any possibility the short shot would roll back down the fairway with that 25 foot elevation change.  It sounds like the extra room would be necessary since you may have to carry a bunker.

Of course, this advice is worth what you paid for it, especially since I haven't seen the holes (at least in a while)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Thanks,

The prevailing wind is from the west, in your face on # 13 and moving left to right on # 9 & # 18.

# 13 used to be mowed to fairway height, and balls did roll back.  We now mow it as rough to hold balls.

The underneath of # 13 is pure bedrock.

While the upper level of # 9 is perfect, # 18 has a good degree of difficulty, and # 13 only has two or three pin positions, the balance of the upper tier can't be cupped or golfers would still be putting after sunset.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()