Large greens. Are they necessary ....

[Patrick_Mucci]

in order to emphasize approach putting ?

NGLA recently conducted a tournament wherein some of the hole locations were precariously close to serious trouble.

Golfers who approached the hole location by giving it a wide margin were faced with difficult approach putts.

The demand on precise but safe approaches, or wide approaches made two putting extremely difficult.

Are large greens, especially greens within large greens the only way to emphasize approach putting and superior course management skills ?

[Craig Sweet]

By approach putts I assume you mean "first putts"?

If, on the other hand, you are talking about approach "shots" from off the fairway, I would say pin locations in general, and not green size dictate approach strategy.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great question, and the short answer, I think, is generally yes.

If you argue wide fairways are necessary for a certain type of strategy, then large greens would logically follow.

While most of you might go on "feel" as to how large to make greens, I think a "Sunday Pin" type green, generally open, but with a few tucked pins for periodic greater challenge, should be wider than the typical dispersion of an approach shot  - which according to Pelz and the USGA is about 15% of typical approach distance, even if we know that varies.  

If the green were narrower than that, no one would do anything other than play for the middle.  If it is wider, hitting a pond/bunker like Yale No. 2, or other hazard while going for a tight pin is magnified when the mind tells you that you could have easily hit the safe part of the green to accept par.

BTW, the key phrase here is generally!  The other aspect of the equation is that it puts less premium on accuracy as a skill, so some greens should be smaller than you expect, or subdivided into multiple targets, etc.

[Matt_Cohn]

See my post on Crazy Shaped Greens. It's related but tangential and I didn't want to interrupt this thread beyond these couple of sentences.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I don't know that I'd agree that it puts less of a premium on accuracy

The margin of error is only relevant if you miss to the safe side.

Misses to the short side are severely punished.

Misses to the green side aren't as harshly punished, yet, approach putting is made far more difficult becuase of several factors.

Distance.
Compound or complicated breaks
Lacking the feel for very long putts
fear of three putting

The other factor you mention, the approach, is affected with large greens.

With a green 40-50-60-70 yards deep or wide, can the golfers eye, mind and stomach combine to enable him to hit his approach with precision when there's so much risk for missing to the short side and so much safety represented by the bulk of the green.

It's an interesting dilema.

From the fairway/rough the golfer may perceive that he'd be safe putting his approach shot 30-40 feet from the hole, yet, when he arrives on the green and understands what he now faces, he may have wished that he came to a different conclusion.

And, as the round evolves, after 3 or 4 three putts, how will this weigh on his decision making process and execution ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I agree with all of what you say.  In fact, we are both describing the exact dilema the same way. I am agreeing with your premise that large greens enhance that dilema.

It is impossible to predict every mental challeng afforded by a varying set of cirmcumstances.  In certain instance, your evaluations would be right on. Over time I suspect that it would all balance out, and small greens overall would reward accuracy more than large ones, assuming recovery shots are more likey to cause bogey than any approach putt (in general).

I do agree that golfers become a bit lazier on aiming when a big green presents itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

Offering the golfer the combination keeps the golfer on their toes.

In some cases they're lulled to sleep by the big green, not  understanding the need for precision and in other cases they're shocked or tested by the target afforded by a small green.

My personal preference is for large greens that contain the greens within greens feature.  I think that combines the best of both worlds and allows for heavy traffic.

[Forrest Richardson]

Good points here...a variety is best.

I visited my first course this past week and re-lived the 16th, a short par-4 to a 2,000 s.f. green. I still like it...even though it might not be on many golfer's favorite list.

Generally, a large green can be more exciting and offer much more variation in how a hole is set-up — and played.

Here is one I have posted recently...it is about 15,000 s.f. ...