Re: Green size - A major conflict

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I'll take a stab.  

Greens within a green is great.  But it is possible to simply do a small green, provided all the green space is cuppable.  Most supers will tell you it takes 21 days for the three foot diameter circle around a cup cut to recover.  If they change pins using a 2 X 3 tic - tac - toe board system, you have six sections, with four pins 6 foot diameter pin settings each - or 24 settings, just over the necessary limit of 21.

You have 4 X 6 six foot circles, or a green size of 24 X 36.  Even after allowing another 12 feet around the perimeter, to keep pins the legal minimum from the edge, and allow for a small collar, the absolute minimum green size to get required pin positions is 48 X 60 feet, or about 3000 sq. ft., small enough to test any shot.  According to the USGA slope rating, this size should test an iron shot about 100-120 yards for most players.  Especially if elevated to reject missed shots.

Maintenance caveats include having good growing conditions, like sunlight, air circulation, and dispersed walk ons.  Also, the entire green should be under 3% slope (perhaps less on fast greens, and perhaps less if we want the golfer to provide maximum spin)

I'll grant you that on high play public courses, the super may need 27 -36 pin positions, especially if in less than optimum n growing conditions.  In that case, the larger, separated greens make loads of sense.  They also make sense because ball mark damage, typical on short iron approach greens is a different matter than foot traffic damage.

[brad miller]

Pat, 2 that I have seen that come to mind are both C&C courses in the northeast, Hidden Creek and FH. I feel that the greens at their Riverhead project might be the finest set of modern greens built to date, but then again I have yet to play a Doak course. The greens at Rustic Canyon are also lots of fun.

[TEPaul]

I think the concept of true "greens within a green" such as a few of the greens at NGLA (#4 best example) are very interesting for play (they're actually incredibly strategic) and also make real sense for maintenance considerations but I'm also aware they are the type of thing most golfers probably would not accept.

They're fine for a course like NGLA where the players obviously expect such things but for the general golfer the prospect of being on a putting surface but in an area where two putting is extremely unlikely would probably NOT be acceptable.

The first thought of most golfers would probably be to redesign or soften that green somehow to make two putting from anywhere much more likely!

An excellent example of this might be the 5th green at Charles River! If the pin is on the front of the green and your ball is on the back of the green (and speeds are as fast as they often run) any golfer's ability to two putt is not only questionable but keeping the ball from running right off the front of the green and down the fronting slope is also likely! As such, #5 Charles River's green can definitely be considered a "green with a green"!

What will Charles River do about this condition? It will be interesting to follow!

I'd advocate keeping it the way it is and some of you might too, but would the average golfer?

One thing is undeniable about this type of thing--it definitely IS highly strategic! It takes a good deal of thought and good execution to play greens like this!

[A_Clay_Man]

Two courses came to mind while I was reading Pat's post. Of course my first is my home course where the greens are 'all that' as described above. They are fun because one needs imagination to play the swales and insight to know that once over one the reverse influence is placed on the ball. Also the variety of orientation is well mixed so you never get the feeling like you "just had this shot". The Boomerang shape and askewd orientation along with an almost Maxwellian Roll make Pinons greens 90% of the challenge and fun. The other example are those hideous monstrosity in Gilroy Ca. at Miller's Eagle Ridge. These greens were so severely full of seperated humps and bumps that chipping to a pin or even putting across them, one needed a slide rule or something, because the equation became too long to figure and still keep pace.

Jeff- I always thought there were only guidelines for how close hole locations could be to the fringe. Is there a rule?

[Dave_Miller]

Patrick;

Green within a green is a good idea that can answer this question but I think where the higher handicap is concerned the larger the green the harder it is for them.  

While they may hit a green or two more they tend to wind up with putts that can be over 70 feet in length making for very difficult two putts.

This is less of a problem for the low and mid handicap player.

Tom Paul:

There is nothing to watch with the 5th Green at Charles River.   The Green has played like this from time immemorial and will not in any way, shape or form be changed with the possible exception of expanding the front wings on the right and left side back to the original size.

The members of Charles River know how hard this green is to putt and accept it.   This is one of our signatures and it will be a cold day in hell before this green is touched.  Particularly in the name of making it easier to two putt.

Best,
Dave

[Dr. Heimlech Penalbunker]

A very interesting theory this greens within greens. You are quite the originator, even though I read similar theories by those clumsy old architects Thomas, Tillinghast, etc...

However, instead of combating the virus of technology by shrinking greens, I have devised a scientific bunkering scheme theory that allows the architect to simply plug the hole in question into his computer aided design program of choice, and out will come a multi-tiered penal bunkering scheme that addresses each level of player's driving distance. This will combat technology. It may be expensive for the thousands of courses out there, but the only way to truly combat techology until my patent is approved for the first movable bunkering system that will be more flexible as driving distances multiply in the coming years.

For it is not the USGA's job to regulate distance, but that of important scientists like me to help the world's most famous courses spend their millions of dollars to protect themselves from long drives. I am even consulting already with several famous courses who are interested in my theories on movable bunkers, and a new thick fog I'm developing that players must drive through and which takes 25 yards off of a drive.

But we must continue to address this technology by changing courses and devising new methods, not through the rules of golf!

[SPDB]

i don't think there is a problem sufficient to require one or the other of your proposals.

I played Meadow Brook recently, and, as you know, the greens there are enormous, and do not have greens within greens. They provided sufficient difficulty (running 11+ didn't hurt), and numerous pinnable areas.

where's the problem?

[Dave_Miller]

Patrick:

I'm not sure I agree.  

The high handicap generally can blast out of a bunker, getting it up and down is also generally not in their sights.  Their goal is to be able to get on the green and then be close enough to ensure a two putt.

Being is swales and mounds around the green also is pretty much a chip shot to get on the green and again hopefully close enough to two putt.  I'm not sure the high handicapper is really thinking getting up and down in 2 with one putt.

Extremely long, long putts (60-70-80ft) with slopes and downhills and fast speeds I believe are more intimidating and harder for the high handicapper.

Best,
Dave

[Fred Gray]

The courses of the RTJ trail have these greens with in greens or "greenlets" to an annoying degree. The green is a collect of greenlets linked by very severe ridges or slopes. One of the problems with this approach is that puts between greenlets are more luck than skill. If you are not on the correct one, the best you can hope for is a 2 putt. Another effect of these green systems is that ground approaches are very difficult. The Trail greens are all pushed up requiring a high ball.

This is a short coming of the courses but I have not seen many of the greenlet systems that allow flexable approaches.

[SPDB]

but Pat, you did say, in the next sentence, that greens need to be smaller in order to maintain strategic interest, and I was pointing out MBC as an example that greens need not be small in order to present challenge. Nor do I believe that there need be greens w/in greens in order to present challenge on larger greens, again, evidenced by MBC.  

i agree that greens within greens are a great idea, i just don't know that there is a "major conflict", such that a solution need be offered.

[Mike Benham]

Patrick,

I don't agree with your opening sentenance that states "it would appear that there is a need for increased green size ... in traffic brought about by the popularity of golf".  

First, although, one can presume that a larger green would have more available hole locations, it has been discussed on this site of how untrue that presumption is.

Second, I believe you need to make a distinction between private vs. public course and growth of traffic.  Statistics show that public courses get more play than private by 15-35%.  Therefore, your question should be directed at whether or not public courses should be designed with larger greens than private courses.  Many of the public courses in NorCal are (were) operating with a high percentage of their tee times booked.  So there wasn't much room from growth on that particular course.  Most private courses in this area didn't allow an increase in their membership so I don't suspect that they showed enormous growth in rounds played or the demand for rounds.

Third, it is my belief that it is the design of the green and surrounding area (bunkers, carts paths, collection areas) that dictate how players approach and retreat from the green.  

If the primary entry point (for foot traffic) on to the green is from the back left quadrant, then that quadrant of the green is going to get more consistant foot traffic than any other portion of the green.  The primary entry point is defined as the area near where carts are parked when the player proceeds to the green complex, or the exit point off the green toward the next tee box.  Following the guidelines for speedier golf, we are taught to put are bags at the spot off the green going in the direction to the next tee box.  So even if the hole location is front right, and exit point/cart parking back left, every member of the foursome will likely walk on the back left quadrant twice during the playing of the hole.

Therefore, although the "green inside a green" concept is rational, I don't think it is required if the green complex is designed to off-load the entering and exiting foot traffic as evenly as poosible.

[Mike Benham]

Pat,

Two statements that you made caught my eye, the first being "with stressful weather".  No doubt that in stressful weather, either overly hot, excessively wet or frost conditions will have more damage to the green from 100 footsteps let alone 500 foot steps per foursome as stated in Mr. Pelz' book.  We probably have all wondered why, after 2 or 3 days of rain, and a soft green, the hole is cut on the low spot of the green, where it is the softest.  Negligence by the hole cutter is probably the cause ("... it's Tuesday, and the hole is suppose to be in quadrant 2").

Second, " ... and keep green speeds high".  Part of the problem is that on older courses (pre-1950) where small greens were the norm, the intended green speed was not anywhere near "high".  Watching old Shell Wonderful World of Golf highlights, the players really had to whack the putts to get them to the hole and I seriously doubt those greens ever exceeded 8 on a stimp meter.

I prefer the challenge of a hitting an approach to a small green.  Visually, the green within a green is not as challenging a target even though it may in fact be a smaller target than a small green.  Maybe it is because we have been brainwashed to play to the safe side of the hole (i.e. the middle) where a 45 foot putt (15 yards) is OK.  On a small green (3,000 sq. ft.), a shot that lands 45 feet from the pin, is off the green.  The average golfer would prefer to putt than chip (as would I) so hitting any green is better than missing the greenn, regardless of the slopes and tiers.

[TEPaul]

Dr. HeimlechP:

If your post was addressed to Pat Mucci, you should realize something!

Occasionally you might find that Pat Mucci mentions an interesting idea such as the term (and idea) "greens within a green"!

But when he does, invariably you will find that the idea and the term is mine, not Pat Mucci's!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Pat this is a great topic which i have differing thought on too. I tend to like the idea of letting green size change within a course to play to the strategy of the hole with mixed contouring too. however as a general rules I tend to not like many green within a green because it moves toward the target golf which along with mounding are death to my idea of good design.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

There's no question these ideas were likely floating around in the ether long before me! But I'm into "coining phrases" because I think ideas need the "coined phrases" (and the definitions) to take on some kind of consensus of understanding.

As far as me being right--don't worry about it! I'm not that concerned about being "right" yet because half the time even I can't remember what I'm talking about!

My thought processes are a little like driving a car in a heavy rain storm with the windshield wipers in slow motion! Half the time I see it and half the time I don't!

[Rick Shefchik]

I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in Minnesota and western Wisconsin we're not plagued with increased play. We're plagued -- if that's the right term -- with increased courses and a steady or declining number of players. I'm not questioning the overall validity of the premise, but it doesn't apply in all geographic areas. Golf course owners here only wish they needed to build bigger greens to accommodate the increased traffic.

[D. Kilfara]

One aspect of this question which I don't think has been addressed yet is speed of play. The average golfer takes much more time to line up a putt than he does to hit a chip shot, right? And in my experience, the average golfer takes even longer to line up a putt which involves multiple tiers. Consider the likelihood for three- and four-putts on large, complex greens, and I'm looking at a six-hour round.

I guess the point is that you have to know your prospective audience when building a new golf course. All else being equal in terms of architectural quality, sometimes large greens make sense, and sometimes small greens make sense. But remember (in addressing the second paragraph of Patrick's inital post), the challenge of the game is very evident for most players despite the advance of technology. I've never heard of anyone quitting the game of golf because they thought it was too easy! Keeping the "challenge" in golf is only relevant when you're considering the best 0.01% of all golfers; there are times when a course being designed will want to preserve that challenge, but many more times when it doesn't need to.

Cheers,
Darren

[A_Clay_Man]

John B- It sounds like you wouldn't care for Pinon Hills then. But I challenge you to come and see if KD didn't use these features to make a fun and challenging course. (of course only when it's maintenance is melded with the design) F&F.

[Stan Dodd]

Darren,
Good call on increasing challenge being needed for the top 001%.  I think in terms of challenge versus interest.  A course like Carnoustie is plenty of challenge but I find myself losing interest because of the severity of the challenge. A course  like Machrihanish, while certainly challenging retains interest primarily because of the gren complexes.  Around the greens is one area we can all appreciate because it is not beyond our physcial capabilities, like the 300 yard drive.
Designers should look to build interest  along with challenge, but like you said nobody quits the game because it is too easy.
Cheers,
Stan Dodd

[D. Kilfara]

Patrick,

I'm not arguing that a putt *should* take less time than a chip, pitch or bunker shot - the sad fact is that the average golfer sees the pros line up every putt from five sides of the hole and take five practice strokes on TV and feels obliged to do likewise. Sure, the 18 handicapper would rather be on the green - but once he gets there, he takes longer. That's the point.

I've never been to NGLA, sadly, so I cannot speak to the 6th green. However, as one of the best courses in the world and one of the oldest courses in America it seems beyond the scope of your initial question, which is to speculate on the sorts of courses architects should be building nowadays. Which gets me back to my point about knowing your audience (or clientele, if you prefer). A destination resort, a cheaper daily-fee course, and an elite private course will all have different needs. In that sense, the hypothetical question has no single answer.

Cheers,
Darren

[archie s.]

Great point on speed of play and difficult greens. Lost balls, fescue et al , and inordinately slow putting are the biggest cause of slow play for us to combat. I can definitely see how elaborate, difficult greens could be (although an artistic expression for the architect) a bane for golf.

I am quite puzzled as to why some of the most revered architects on this forum seem to be building these very greens for their private courses. I would guess it is because most of the acknowledged "great" courses of the world tend to have overly large putting surfaces. I repeat most!!!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Adam that sounds like a great idea. I may not love the greens  but i am sure it is great golf.

[A_Clay_Man]

John- I believe if we can get in enough rounds, you will love the greens. Yesterday I went out and played the back tees and as i was by myself I had an inordinate amount of time to look and I was trying to find where the mounds were either out of place or unnatural. I could not. The natural topography is so jumbled with humps and bumps that even if they are constructed you'd be hard pressed to figure which ones were built.

I do know what you mean about how unsightly mounding can be when it's forced and unfitting to the site, I just think that Pinon isn't one of those.