[Joe Perches]

I don't accept this thought at all.  Perhaps you could elaborate.

Original Hunter Ranch thread

Why public vs private?

Rustic Canyon has relatively large greens.
Your own Stone Eagle has some colossal greens.

In my opinion, either style of course can require thoughtful placement of both drive and approach for even the far above average player.

[Doug Ralston]

Lassing Point [Hurdzan/Fry] has VERY large greens and it adds to strategical play of the course. Maximizing your approach angle and club selection depending on where the pin is located that day, plus the rather 'open' nature of a lot of the course plays some tough wind tricks [did both times I played there]. Large greens are certainly easier to GIR. But when you are faced with a 150ft putt, you realize you needed to consider more carefully before you hit the drive.

Large greens are almost easier to maitain that the fairways and rough near them when very small.

All kinds of things 'work' when building a course. Feel free!

Doug

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:

No, what I said is not always true.  But when the owner decides he needs big greens because of traffic, and just builds 7,500 square foot greens with little internal contour or shape, then it really doesn't matter much which side of the fairway you hit your drive, does it?

Doug:

When you leave yourself a 150-foot putt, methinks it's due more to a poor approach than to a misplaced tee shot.

[Jim Johnson]

Okay, 2 stupid questions...

How many square feet qualifies as an "average" sized green these days?

How many square feet would a "small" green have, and still be large enough to have some usable cupping areas, and enough area to remain healthy?

JJ

[Tom_Doak]

I think an "average" sized green today is around 6,500 square feet, but I would guess that some architects average 5,000 and some average 8,000.

My idea of a small green is under 4,500 square feet.  You can do those all day on a private course that isn't going to get much play, but if you're going to do one on a highly-trafficked course, you'd better be sure that nearly all of it is cuppable, that there is good air movement and good sun, and that traffic flow on and off the green is not hindered by too many bunkers [otherwise, parts of the green around the corners of the bunkers which you need for hole locations are going to get worn out from traffic].

The smallest greens I've ever built are right around 3,000 square feet -- the 5th at Sebonack and the 9th at The Rawls Course come to mind.

Mr. Nicklaus is a big fan of small greens.  In our first conversation about Sebonack, he asked me if I knew what was the biggest green at Pebble Beach?  It's the 18th -- and it's only about 4500 s.f.  A couple of them, including the 8th, are well under 3000 s.f.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Do you want to go ahead and tell them just how small I thought the 15th was at Stone Eagle, and just how wrong I was?

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:  I'd forgotten about that.  

But it does bring up an interesting point, that when you build greens by eye instead of by plan, you tend to get a lot of variety in the sizes of greens.  When a green site is relatively enclosed, the green itself tends to look bigger; when it's out in the open like the 15th at Stone Eagle, it can look puny to some people even when it's 8,000 square feet.  That's why I am always pacing off the length and width while I'm watching one of the guys shape.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()