[Coral_Ridge]

According to the book "The Golden Age of Golf Design" (pg. 64), George Crump had this characteristic, "larger greens on long holes, smaller greens on short holes".  I have two questions.

1) Is this an opinion shared among the leading professional golf architects?

2) Any examples of architects who have designed using the opposite approach?  At least in part.

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:  I've been described as a contrarian, and this is one of the reasons why.  I just think the convention you described is too simplistic, and if implemented, would lead to less variety of golf holes, either within a course or from one course to the next.

I was assured that this was the correct approach by my observations of UK links courses, where many famous courses feature a storied long par-4 hole with a small and difficult green target:  i.e. the Road hole at St. Andrews, the 16th at Deal, the 13th at Prestwick.  Some of these probably were probably three-shot holes when they were first played, but they're famous now precisely because they require a great approach shot instead of just a good one.

Even George Crump knew how to bend his rule.  The 2nd green at Pine Valley is pretty big for a short par-4, but its wild contours make up for that -- which adds variety from the short par-4 8th and 17th holes with their tiny greens.

[Dan_Lucas]

DeVries built the antithesis of this "formula" at Kingsley. The 285 yd. 13th has the largest green at over 12,300 sq. ft. The 455 yd. uphill 15th has the smallest at under 3,700 sq. ft.

Crystal Downs biggest green is #6 at 380ish. Not sure of the exact sizes, but 1, 4 & 13 are much smaller. Of the par 3's I believe 14 is bigger than 9 & 11. 3 may be larger. 11 plays the longest, but has by far the toughest contours.

#14 at Oakland Hills is nowhere near the largest green of the par 4's. Neither are #3 & 16 at High Pointe.

 

[Doug Siebert]

I like the sound of Kingsley.  A 285 yard hole is (presumably, especially assuming that the non-tips tees are even closer) driveable for many people with that distance and such a huge green.  But there will undoubtedly be a lot of pissed off golfers leaving the green after three putting from 85 feet who probably wouldn't have been nearly as pissed off if they'd missed a 3700 sq ft green with their tee shot and merely failed to get up and down.

Its funny how a three putt par bothers most golfers a lot more than a three putt bogey, even though the latter is harder on the scorecard.  Likewise a chip and two putts bothers most golfers less than three putts.  I suppose it is because putting is the one part of golf where even the mighty struggle (e.g. Ben Hogan) and little old ladies from Scotland can beat the best in the world (at least according to Tommy Armour)

Maybe I've got a bit of a sadistic streak in me (no, make that I know I have a bit of a sadistic streak in me ) but I like courses where the architect sets the golfer up for mental failure, because its fun when you beat it and keeps me coming back for more when I don't (because damn I'm just SURE I won't fall for it next time!)  Its pretty nifty if it can be done just by varying the expected green size for a given hole.

I gotta agree with Tom Doak, I don't see any reason to provide larger greens on long holes and smaller on short holes.  Anyone who has played TOC knows that large greens aren't necessarily of much help for anything but increasing your GIR, while small greens can either help focus you on the desired target or at least think a bit more about where you want to go and where you might want to miss.  Whether a 3700 sq ft green is a more difficult par than a green 3x as large has a lot to do with what surrounds it.  Its better to be in a greenside trap with a perfect lie and easy pin than facing a long putt that has three jack written all over it!

[TEPaul]

"2) Any examples of architects who have designed using the opposite approach?  At least in part."

Jon Davis:

Sure there are. There are probably considerably more large greens at the end of short holes than there are small greens at the end of long holes but a few examples from Macdonald/Raynor would be the really big green of NGLA's 17th at the end of that short hole and of course the enormous green on NGLA's famous "short" (I walked that off the other day and it's 180+ feet from side to side on a diagonal).

A good example of a pretty small green (functionally) at the end of a long par 4 is the wonderful 6th at The Creek Club.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

Overall, its basically a good theory, but not without its problems if applied too strictly.  I think that was written often by the Golden Age guys.    It was intuitive then, and then generally backed up by later USGA slope system research that golfers miss the target by a percentage of the approach distance.  That % is about 7% each side.

According to the USGA, for 66% of golfers to hit a green on a 200 yard approach, it would need to be 30 yards wide (and for bogey golfers, 45 yards deep, while good players have better distance control so 30 yards deep is also okay.)

As others note, a course designed strictly to this formula might get dull.  While the greens would be a different size, the degree of difficulty in hitting them would be exactly the same.  A ball hit 2 degrees off line on a 200 yard shot will be twice as far left or right as the same miss at 100 yards.

Thus, when I design, I usually break up my holes into groups, like par 3, short, medium, and long par 4's, and par 5's, and try to get at least one under and over sized green in each group, on the theory that some approach shots ought to make you pucker up, others ought to be a breather, etc.  There are also numerous ways to create a challenge other than target size - including internal contours, mental challenges of difficult hazards, etc. etc. etc. so its not necessary to limit yourself to green size as a primary defense.

To answer your specific question, I often make the green on the longest par 3 and longest par 4 among the smallest on the theory that I test long iron play that way, and in the case of the par 4, that average players will be approaching on their third with a wedge.

Short iron approach greens suffer from ball marks to a greater degree and most supers would actually prefer a large green on a short hole and small one on a long hole for maintenance reasons.  Certain sizes are needed to move the cups around dailey, so often, most greens are similar in size, with perhaps more contour on short holes, flatter on long holes to accomplish the same "proportional difficulty" theory without skimping on cup locations.  

[Philippe Binette]

I actually like long par 4 with small greens, so I'm not the only one missing it...

it's also rewarding to know that you can hit a good chip to 10-15 feet and make the putt for a 4

if you stick to a routine in design, then you're always going to design to same holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Your examples of big greens on short approaches are both on the mark ... I always think of the 14th at National, a big and pretty flat green for a short 4 (but I have to admit, I always wonder if the present version was not Macdonald's).

However, the sixth green at The Creek is quite large.  It may be a tough target, but it isn't small.

[tonyt]

Jon,

Despite the perfectly good rationale for this concept, Jeff sums up well the problems with lack of variety in difficulty.

More to the point, in modern times it is often a mantra chanted by the fairness nazis. They contend that the green on a long approach must accept a long iron, whereas a short approach hole can toy with the challenge of testing a short iron or pitch.

Not only is this horribly formulaic if applied to 16-18 holes on a course, but also enshrines the cancerous notion of nothing but GIR + 2 putts for a conventional par.


Tom D,

Can you speak of how the greens at St Andrews Beach achieve their aims superbly whilst being quite small in places? I like how many have off-green areas that are closely mown are so lacking in obvious visual trouble, and yet minor grades and fall aways make for excellent difficult recoveries.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

.....in modern times it is often a mantra chanted by the fairness nazis. They contend that the green on a long approach must accept a long iron, whereas a short approach hole can toy with the challenge of testing a short iron or pitch..........

Tony,

One reason I wonder about minimalism is that I believe my design target is the golfer, not the land itself.  Thus, I place more emphasis on achieving a satisfactory golf game over "using the land" as if the land will ever experience the satisfaction of a great golf shot.

So, your comment raises the interesting philosophical question - is it okay to design a green that cannot be attained with a good shot?  Or should a green be designed with at least:

A good chance that a well struck shot of ANY type has a good chance of hitting the green, or

A good chance that a well struck shot of a particular type - draw, fade, high spin, whatever - has a good chance of hitting the green

I believe most greens ought to fit into the above categories, with perhaps most in the "any" or at least "multiple" shot types having a chance, even if one has a better chance.  

As mentioned, I think a few could reduce those chances somewhat to really, really well struck shots (sometimes of a particular type) but I would never conceive a green with the intent of rejecting all shots any more than I would conceive of using poison ivy as a hazard to really punish a wayward shot!

The next question is of course, a good shot by what level of player?  Seriously, I have seen some greens recently from big name designers, who apparently, in an effort to challenge the top players, have contoured greens to where you must hit a ten foot circle to hold the green.  IMHO, that is over the top, esp. when considering that it makes it next to impossible for the average guy to hit that sweet spot and stay on the green.

While that does eliminate some interesting design options in the name of fairness, its probably best.  Put another way, while I have little sympathy for every fairness complaint (frankly, I don't even have the time to listen to those endless complaints.  Its almost like Bruce Almighty anymore, where the head gets filled with millions of voices, all with complaints) I am not to the point where I don't make an effort to design a reasonably fair course.

Part of that is greens that will hold a decent shot, providing the golfer understands that he might have to hit it one spot to get it somewhere else, or that every pin is not necessarily attainable (at least to the wise golfer, etc.)

Naturally, your opinion might vary.

[tonyt]

Jeff,

I agree with your desires for a well struck shot, but I pity the notion that the intended good result MUST be on the green. That is to say, I'm not espousing the view that a green which can't be hit is good, but that there is TOO MUCH emphasis on a formulaic theory that on the green = good result and off the green = bad result. Why can't a good miss off the green be a better result or set up a better par opportunity than a bad miss onto the green? Again, the two putt mantra is the killer.

Often on here, the wonder of half par holes is celebrated. A great 4.5 can be a wonderful hole. Why does the .5 have to be achieved with length? Why can't it be achieved on a hole where most are hitting 6-wedge in?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,

No disagreements on designing greens where the best miss might be off the green rather than mindlessly on it.  I do hate the best miss being in a bunker, though!

Most half par holes do seem to be on the edge of par length.  
What you describe as a mid length half par I describe as a hole with harder shots somewhere.  If you saw the City Slickers movie, the old cowboy keeps telling them that theres "just one thing".  I like holes where you have to do "just one thing" to get par - a pucker shot, whether a harder than usual approach shot or tee shot that sets up an easy approach if you are successful.  Of course, it could be a putt as well.

[Forrest Richardson]

I agree with Tom D., "rules" like this lead nowhere.

However, I tend to have the opposite approach most of the time. Short holes — or short approaches — generally need larger greens in order to heal. Ball marks are more probelmatic on short approaches. At the short par-3, for example, a small green will simply not hold up to the bombardment of shots day after day. A larger green will mean better conditions — not to mention more variety.

Same is true of the relatively short par-4 or par-5. On such holes a majority of golfers will be hitting higher angle shots to the green. For the same reasons as the par-3 scenario, these holes will benefit from a larger putting surface.

In general, I prefer larger greens. It exponentially adds to the variety of the game when there are more places to place the cup.

However, I find that a few small greens add variety also. My first course (1985) has an 1800 s.f. green. I saw it a few weeks agao and it is still a mini. Once thought to be a mistake, I now kind of like it. (P.S., there is only one hole position!)

[Tim Liddy]

-As Pete Dye has said many times. “You can find an example in golf course history to justify just about anything you want to design”.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()