[Mark_F]

A par four at my course, the 10th, all of 384 metres, has recently undergone some criticism for being too small.

I would guess the green is maybe 20 yards long, and maybe 15 yards across, but is situated on a knob, with a sharp and steep fall-off at the front and left, with the right and rear protected by bunkers. It's akin to a tiny 14th at Dornoch in the nature of the difficulty of the approach.

To me, you can either; hit it with a high fade, bump it into the front bank and let it hop up, or play a long running shot that climbs the slope.

It is hard to hit and hold, but is probably the only green on the course where you have to be so precise or pay a severe penalty.

Prairie Dunes has pretty small greens, some of them that slope quite severely, I understand, which the 10th doesn't.

I seem to remember Brora having pretty small greens in a terribly windy location, so how goes the judgement of whether a green is too small?

Is it when most players, under reasonable circumstances, can't hit and hold it? To me, no.

[Forrest Richardson]

At Phantom Horse (Phoenix) I designed a 2000 s.f. green. (2000 is, by the way, a generous description...it is probably even less.) A writer once wrote that "...Richardson's 16th [now the No. 15] green comes with one plus, one never needs to guess the pin position as there is just one..."

The hole is a short par-4. Very rarely reached due to a penal desert wash fronting the tiny green — and the tiny green itself, which is flanked by native desert at left, back and right.

I suppose it could have been bigger...2000 s.f. is really pushing it!

[Doug Siebert]

Too small for what?  Too small for the required shot into the green, too small for sufficient pinnable area or too small for some golfers' sense of fairness?

I gather it is the latter those critical of the green are unhappy about so I think you know what the GCA answer will be.

As for small greens, there's a little cow pasture course just outside of town that has a 227 yard par 4 (no, that's not a typo) that's got a green that is just over 30' in diameter measured across its widest part, perhaps 700 sq ft.  One could make the argument it would be poor design to have such a small green if that hole was a par 3 since it would be fairly long for a 3 (its got some other difficulties as well)  But as a par 4 that argument is much harder to make.

[James Bennett]

Mark

I visited that tenth hole at the end of November.  Didn't play it, but walked the course.  I remember the hole. Vividly

I tried to work out the best line of attack, given the enormous width available on the double fairway with the 9th hole.  I asume that, subject to the wind, play from the left gives some additional effective green to play to, whereas play from the right (which might look attractive from the tee) produces less green to play to.  However, even a shot from the left would need to be played precisely to stay on the green.  Am I right?  I wasn't sure whether there really was an ideal way to play that hole.

At the preceeding hole, I encountered what I subsequently called 'the Las Vegas effect'.  The 9th hole is a short par 4 played from one dune across the valley to another dune.  Because of the size of the dunes, the size of the bunkers and the width of the double fairway (it must be 150 metres wide,musn't it?) I lost all perception of distance.  I was sure that the fairway bunkers were quite close to the tee, whereas they are around 240 metres out (I think). I would have inadvertently 'layed up' about 60 metres short of the bunker if I had played.  It reminded me of being on the strip at Las Vegas, and thinking that some hotel was close enough to quickly walk to, because it was so big.  After 30 minutes walk, the hotel was getting even bigger, and I was nearly there.  As a 'first-timer' at the course, I really struggled to guess the distance of many potential shots because the dimensions of the course were so different to anything that I have experienced before.

By the way, I just loved the third green site!  And whilst the tenth might be a smallish green, I think I could put up with it.

James B

[Marc Haring]

I would suggest a green is too small when the green performance/condition is compromised.

At Castle Combe GC they built a green that was about 150 sq yds absolute tops. It was pretty much dead in a year and simply could not support any real grass cover for more than a few months of the year. They rebuilt it soon afterwards.

[Andrew Summerell]

Mark,

I don't have a problem with the size of the 10th. It is a hole that offers some room for the player who is willing to settle for a 5, but still give them a chance at a 4 with a good chip. I believe the small green is saying, "If you are good enough, have a go; but be prepared to suffer the consequences if you fail. From memory it has a fairly low index rating of about 2 or 3.

Wind direction plays a big part down there, but the course is not long overall, so I don't think it is a problem. If the hole was heavily bunkered on both sides of the green towards the front then the green would be unsuitable.

[Matthew Mollica]

I too think the hole is good, and that the effect of the false front in this instance would be decreased with a larger flat plateau of green extending up the hill behind the green.

Mark,

Some of the criticism of small greens is that they provide little variety in pin locations, and consequently, holes designed in this way may not boast the variety in play lines, and approach strategy it otherwise might, with a larger putting surface. They also run a greater risk of foot traffic damaging the putting surface as the green is so small, that a greater precentage of it is stepped on by each passing player.

MM

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

You are making me feel guilty, as it's my comments to which you are referring.  I feel like an ungrateful guest......

The Gunnamatta Course at St Andrew's Beach is an exceptional course with small to very small greens.  All of them other than 10 have a place you can miss and still get it up and down with a good chip.  My issue with 10 is that its a very, very small shelf target (along with 8 probably the smallest pinable area) with no where to miss.  There are bunkers back and right/front with a very steep slope front and left.  Add in the wind in the Cups region and I think the balance between the difficulty of the shot required and the lack of anywhere to miss and leave yourself a chance of getting it up and down is out of whack a little.

My first thought was to aim at the bunkers but both bunkers leave you with tough shots across a slightly crowned green with big slopes behind.  Short or left leaves you with a big slope to get up and a small target with bunkers behind.

My concern is that the average 18 to 25 marker could be there for a week in a stroke round.  If you miss the green and just about every 18 to 25 marker on the planet will there is just nowhere to miss that allows an easy chip and two putts.

The line around what is "reasonable" (fair isn't a good word on this forum) and what isn't will always be a little more liberally interpreted in the treehouse than in the general golfing public.  Even for the treehouse I think 10 just crosses the line.  Interestingly when I spoke to Mike Clayton about it he admitted that he'd never been able to hit the green and I'm guessing that there won't be very many golfers who are better iron players than Mike who play it.

Brian

[Mike Hendren]

I find this photo of the 15th at Fenway the most endearing on this website:



Reason alone for me to want to see this course one day.

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mark / Brian:  A green is "too small" when it gets under your skin because you can't hit it.

The hole in question is a really tough hole and tough second shot, and I suspect it is getting tougher for the members as time goes on and they become more psyched out about it.  The green is built into an area with a pretty steep natural pitch, and it was difficult to build anything very big up there without the front being near-vertical, which would not have fit in at all with the rest of the course.

Don't give up on it yet.

[Doug_Feeney]

I imagine the 4th at Spyglass has been discussed on here before, but it is certainly one of the shallowest I have played - no more than 6 paces across!  It's made even more difficult by the windy conditions and the blind approach.

[Mark_F]

James,

Amazing, you've never played it, but you know how...

Matt:

I think the hole offers different playing lines depending on pin position and the type of shot you want to play.  With the pin left, you wouldn't want to play a fade at it, for starters...
Pin right, you can go wide left from the tee and play a long running shot up the slope, a fade, a high shot straight at it, or a bump into the front bank.

Or, as Andrew pointed out, lay up and chip on?

Granted, there aren't as many options as larger greens, but I don't think it is that one dimesional.

Brian,

Don't feel guilty at all.  I won't be after I bag the Moonah course sometime this week...

You'll always be a welcome guest, never an ungrateful one.

I'm just interested in people's opinions, especially better players than I, and players whose games have different strengths and weaknesses to mine.  I like the hole for lots of reasons, but then again, I am one of the few, apparently, to hit it, and downwind, no less, with a six-iron...

I almost think it may be too small, but I think as it is the only green on the course with such a penalty, it's fair enough.  And, as Tom says below, it has a real psyching effect on the player, which will only get worse, and adds an additional element to it that I like.  

And coming after three short fours, and preceding a shortish par three, I think it is fait enough.  

And it isn't only the 18-25 handicapper that may be there all week.  First time Matt played it, I had time to slaughter a pig and spit roast it before he holed out.

Tom:

I will never give up on it.

Now, 13 and 16, that's another story...

[James Bennett]

Mark

is there a 'right' way to play 10?  Icould see that the shot was intimidating, no matter which side of the green the approach came from.  I assume the right and straight are more difficult than play from the left.

I'm interested.  It was one of the holes that stuck in my mind on a walk after the Aus Open.

James B

[Jeff_Brauer]

At Phantom Horse (Phoenix) I designed a 2000 s.f. green. (2000 is, by the way, a generous description...it is probably even less.) A writer once wrote that "...Richardson's 16th [now the No. 15] green comes with one plus, one never needs to guess the pin position as there is just one..."

The hole is a short par-4. Very rarely reached due to a penal desert wash fronting the tiny green — and the tiny green itself, which is flanked by native desert at left, back and right.

I suppose it could have been bigger...2000 s.f. is really pushing it!

Forrest, your definition of small is smaller than mine, perhaps a result of everything being bigger in Texas?  What happens when that green inevitably shrinks from mowing?

From the maintenance perspective, superintendents tell me the 3-4 foot area around any cup requires recovery time before reuse, and takes about 3 weeks (more or less, depending on growing conditions) for an old  cup to heal.  

I design for 24, 8 foot diameter pin positions, while keeping all cup locations at least 10 feet from the green edge.  If you plot all those circles out, add a few feet for a collar, and maybe for "shrinkage" (the mowing kind, not the Seinfeld kind) and place a tight oval around them, it comes to about 50 X 82 feet.  That makes the smallest practical green size no less than 3485 to 3800 sf, providing all interior green space allows pinning.

From the play perspective, I can't imagine a green needing to be any smaller, so that is the smallest I would consider building.  

Interesting question, though!

[Sean_A]

I may have played smaller greens, but none have stuck in my memory like The Island's 14th.  The fairway is about 14 paces wide and the green is about 10 paces wide.  The kickers are a low grass lined dune immediately left and water immediately right down the entire length of the hole.  Throw in wind and the prudent player may choose to hit a chippy 3 iron off the tee.  Whatever it takes to keep the ball on the ground.  A very fun hole on a very good course.  So far as I am concerned Portmarnock and The European Club are very much fighting for second best course in the Dublin area.  

Ciao

Sean

[archie_struthers]

 

Merry Christmas, etc. everyone!

I would imagine a green is too small from a practical sense when it can't handle the amount of play agronomically. This has to a great extent pushed modern architects to expand green size, almost as rote.

Two really neat greens come to mind immediately, #8 at Pine Valley and the old 4th green at ACCC. When I caddied at Pine Valley back in the dark ages we only had one green on eight, and although a great test of shotmaking it was always under tremendous pressure, with  general wear and compaction a major issue. Hence the 2nd or alternate green built by Tom Fazio in the mid-80's, which has mitigated the problem.

One of my old architectural books seemed to show a more expansive green on #8, although I haven't been able to dig it out of my library just yet. Maybe someone can comment on this.

#4 at the old Atlantic City Country Club also immediately springs to mind. This neat one shotter, heavily bunkered and right on the marsh, seemed always to be a birdie or bogey for me, and was very small. It was also a severe challenge to the superintendent, as wear and disease pressures forced AC to build another alternate green to use when #4 needed a rest. This was done in the early 90's, I believe. It would be interesting to hear Tom Doaks' opinion on this one, in that he had to evaluate it when re-doing the golf course.  

[Norbert P]

  When I miss 'em.  Meaning... "There all too small!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

What do you guestimate is the size of each of the 8th and the 12th green at PV ?

[wsmorrison]

"What do you guestimate is the size of each of the 8th and the 12th green at PV ?"

Pat,

No need to guesstimate.  Jim Finegan provides us the green sizes in his wonderful Pine Valley Book:

1  8307
2  11361
3  8740
4  9686
5  5707
6  5918
7  7647
8  2977 left  2685 right
9  6316 left  6379 right
10 5185
11 4622
12 5934
13 9910
14 5680
15 6825
16 11399
17 3975
18 11070
Total 131,030 versus 134,200 in 1923

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Why do I feel that # 13 is larger then # 16 ?

Is it because of the adjacent water and uncuppable back of the green ?

Could the same be said of # 18 ?

[wsmorrison]

Before I glanced past your first question to your supposition, the very same thoughts ocurred to me.  We have to be wrong then  

It may also have to do with the shapes of the greens.  The 16th and 18th greens are sort of symmetrical and roundish while the 13th narrows a bit at the rear and is thus more triangular.  16 is also the most natural green site I've ever seen.  It seems draped upon the land and does not appear built up at all.  Do these points make any sense in terms of size perception?

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Isn't there a green on Bethpage Green that is extremely small and narrow... possibly #9 or #10?  It is right next to the halfway house.

[Thomas_Brown]

Mac O'Grady's home course in LA, Armand Hammer, has greens less than 1200 sq. ft.  The greens are surrounded by kikuyu which yield no bounce forward.

[archie_struthers]

Thanks for the help with green sizes at PV Wayne. Unless you really spent a lot of time at PV you would never guess how deep #12 green is.

#16 is awesome, the whole back tier is very rarely stepped on, except by the guys cutting the greens. Even walking to tee off on #17 doesn't get you to the back of the green. Don't know how Crump ever visualized this place!!!!!


Wayne given your knowledge of Flynn's work, whats your opinion of the old #4 at Atlantic City CC.

[TEPaul]

When is a green too small?

Well, I'd say it's too small when it doesn't have enough greenspace for at least four people to stand on at the same time without touching each other.  

"Don't know how Crump ever visualized this place!!!!!"

Archie:

How the hell have you been pal? I know one way Crump visualized the place. It was by getting a small army of people out there starting in late 1912 or early 1913, some steam winches, a bunch of mules and ripping anywhere from 22,000 to 50,000 relatively small trees out of the place. All those trees were hauled over behind where #12 green is now and burned and if you noticed that fire is still smoldering.

At that point GAC shrieked; "Eureka, I can see potential holes!"

Then he and Govan spent about the next five years constantly "shot testing" from everywhere on the cleared landforms to finalize the routing and the design elements of most every hole.

At that point, Crump, said, "OK, I've visualized this place long enough, now here's some money---go get me about 22,000 Jersey pines, cedars and some evergreen saplings, white pine, Scotch fir and hemlock and plant them between the holes so I don't see anyone on another hole."

One of the last things Crump was heard to say was: "Hey, buckaroo, what are you planting those saplings in my bunkers for? Don't you realize bunkers inside a forest don't work very well?"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()