[BCrosby]

I'm also surprised to hear so many like them. Instead of a tiny green, why not build a big green with lots of tiny sections divided by big humps? Or a boomerang green? Or a clover leaf green?

Functionally, you may be right. Big green contours may be as hard to two putt as getting up and down from off the green.

But people don't perceive things that way. A tiny green puts more pressure on an approach than a large green - even if the large green has spots from which a two putt is impossible.

That's why tiny greens are more exciting. Perception is more real than reality. That's not unusual in golf or in anything else.

Bob  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Andy et al,

It seems like the sole challenge lies in hitting the greens, not putting. Fair enough. So why not make the greens "interesting," for example, how about a:
*Tiny redan. Now there's a pitching nightmare!
*Tiny fallaway green. Good luck running that sucker up.
*tiny pot bunker. Isn't a DA perfect accompaniment to a tiny green? Why have big bunkers, doesn't that screw up the proportionality?

Mark

[Andy Troeger]

I should probably have qualified my earlier comment to signify that I'm a terrible chipper, so my goal is always just to hit the green, no matter how big it is!

I'm all for the variety you suggest, Mark. I like the bunkering at #16 at Wolf Run with the three little ones. That green also has some kick toward the water to make the pitch from the right more difficult.

I see nothing wrong though with a hole or two over the course of a round that calls for a precise iron shot without much concern for putting. The same can be said for a big green that requires more short game skill than long game precision. I know you could argue that large greens still require precision to make the putting easier and I would agree, but in reality most 40 footers on courses with big greens are at least reasonable to get down in two at a MUCH higher percentage than surrounding bunkers/rough/chipping areas...at least for me.

If you're talking 120 foot putts then you most likely hit a lousy shot and deserve to three putt, but the odds of getting up and down from 40 yards isn't that great either...so I'd still rather putt.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm all in for a tiny green or two per course, if for nothing else to make golfers go "hmmm....."

Has anyone ever asked here What's the Design Philosophy of Average Size Greens?

[Jimmy Muratt]

The smallest green that I've seen is the 5th at Boston Golf Club.  It's a fantastic short par 4 and the green can't be more than 4 or 5 paces wide.  If you choose to lay up off the tee, you must play out to the left.  This then leaves a tricky little approach and you're now approaching the green from the angle where it's only 4 to 5 paces deep with a fall-off in the front and penal bunker behind.  It's just a wonderful and unique little hole.  

[Kalen Braley]

While many courses have 1 or 2 small greens, is there any course that you know of that has smaller greens for all 18 holes than Pebble Beach?

Other than its world class location, is this one of the major reasons why its esteeemd as one of the best courses in the world?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

I think the greens and holes discussed would be great fun and add great interest to the course. Curious, how do the small greens hold up under traffic?  Are there maintenance concerns? Are smaller greens more appropriate for courses with less rounds played?

[Andy Troeger]

Sean,
I don't have that much experience with Wolf Run or any hole with a small green, but at least the day I played there was little to no difference between the two greens and the rest of the course (which was in fine condition). I think at a place like that the remembers understand the importance of fixing ball marks. As you can tell from the photo of the 16th, despite being in a low area with a fair amount of trees, the specific greensite is pretty open to allow sunlight which I'm sure helps as well.

[Paul Stephenson]

I grew up on a course with small push-up greens.  Not only were they small, but the breaks in them were very subtle as they were generally flat surfaces.  It took some members years to "learn" them.  I thought that this made up for a perceived lack of length.

The course has been redesigned and many of the greens enlarged and contoured to better withstand all the play they get.  My favourite greens are still the original small ones.

Boy, did they ever make you an accurate iron player.

[mike_beene]

Kalen,I don't know for sure,but Lakesides seem smaller to me than Pebbles.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I know of at least one prominent architect who has it in his spec book that the contractor is NEVER to build a green of less than 6000 square feet without triple confirmation from the designer, no matter what the plans say.  He feels anything less will eventually suffer in its conditioning, and the fault will be laid on the design.

I think that particular designer's tolerance for potential trouble is a bit too low ... certainly we have all seen greens of 4500 square feet which have performed well for many years.  But when you are talking about under-4000 sf greens as we have here, it had better be on a course which doesn't get heavy traffic, or where the mitigating factors (very good traffic access, plenty of sunlight and air movement, mild climate) are all favorable.

[john_stiles]

Kalen, others,

What is total sq ft for Harbour Town ?

It seems small in total. Fewest putts on tour for 18 holes is/was set at HT; I think mostly due to missed greens & chipping back close.

[Andy Troeger]

Harbour Town certainly has the smallest set of greens that I've seen. There are no single greens as small as the ones being mentioned that I can recall, but none of them are large either. Ones like #4 and 14 with the water can be small targets from the tee, but the one that really gets you is #18. From the fairway it looks like there is nothing there, despite it looking bigger on TV.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm all in for a tiny green or two per course, if for nothing else to make golfers go "hmmm....."

Has anyone ever asked here What's the Design Philosophy of Average Size Greens?

Okay, Mr. Big Stuff, I call your bluff: build a "tiny green!"

PS I say the design philosophy of average size greens is to accept average size shots.

[Mark Bourgeois]

And another thing: to keep from a total violation of proportionality, I say tiny greens deserve tiny flagsticks, the kind that poke your eye out.

[mike_beene]

I have never seen Harbour Town.Can someone who has played both Lakeside and Harbour Town compare the two?From a climate and amount of play standpoint ,small greens at Harbour Town probably was riskier than Dye realized?

[Andy Troeger]

Dawned on me that South Bend CC has a couple tiny greens as well, maybe a bit bigger than the two at Wolf Run, but certainly not by that much.

2nd hole, par 4, 320 yds. I've played this hole many times, and still haven't figured out where to hit the tee shot to give a realistic shot at hitting this little pedastal. The green slopes back to front, so long is really dead, and left is not much better.



4th hole, par 3, 149 yds. Great little hole that tends to be affected by the wind due to its exposed location.

[Doug Siebert]

What about "cheap to build, cheap to maintain"?  I know you are thinking primarily of quality courses built by good architects, but the smallest greens are going to be found on the cow pasture rural courses.

There's one course near where I live that I don't know for sure but I'd bet was originally built with sand greens.  The original 9 has some greens that would give any pictured here a run for their money.  There's a wicked little 227 yard dogleg par 4 (no, that's not a typo) that has a green that's 30 feet across at its widest point (not a typo either)

I remember when I was a kid the first round that I ever played on a "real" golf course was a nine hole muni outside the Kansas town where my dad grew up, and I think it may have had one green even smaller than that (and I KNOW those used to be sand greens according to my dad) though my memory could be hazy as that was 25 years ago.

Obviously these greens will be in crappy shape because there isn't much variety in pin positions so the greens can get pretty worn especially on slopes where the balls collect, but these aren't the sort of courses that Tom Doak bothers to even set foot on and assign a 0 to

[Andy Troeger]

Doug,
I've played a course of two of that type as well. One green that comes to mind is probably comparable to the one you said was 30 feet across. I would guess this one is that wide at most, and would guess more like 25. Its maybe 40-45 feet long on a 360 par four. Its the hardest little dang green to hit...

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Tom,

   I agree. You need to make it work for the given situation. We have all seen 6,000 square foot greens that do not work and yet if done properly a 4,000 square foot green that is perfectly fine. Finding the correct combination is the "art".

[Michael Ryan]

Going all the way back to post #3, and a reference to Dev Emmet, I just played Wee Burn in Darien CT (Emmet design) and the 363 yd par 4 2nd hole has a great small green with a bunker on the left and an area to miss on the right, I only wish they created a chipping area that extended farther away from the green on that right side.  Sorry no pic to attach, but a great small green nonetheless.  Calusa Pines 291 yd par 4 8th hole also has a fantastic small green...one of the better short par 4's you will play.

[Dan Boerger]

To borrow a bad pun, a little goes a long way IMO. I "generally" don't enjoy small greens on a course I'm a member of since they tend to get beat up and larger greens allow more variety of play. That said, what I think is an example of a really fine smallish green is the 3rd hole at St. Davids in Wayne, PA.

[john_stiles]

Another small green is the 17th at Secession.

It is a very small island green, surrounded by marsh. There is no bailout area, zero.   The marsh is 'relatively' dry much of the time but the island green is built up with a 3 foot bulkhead.   The green becomes minuscule with a 2 club cross wind, which can happen in the spring.

It is a very penal hole when there is a 2 club wind,  unlike the rest of the course which seemingly considered the coastal winds.

[Ari Techner]

The 13th hole at Franklin Hills CC near Detroit (Donald Ross 1928) has an extremely tiny green.  It is about 300 yards Par 4 and it is an excellent hole.  The tee shot is elevated down to a fairway with no bunkers or hazards flanked by trees on either side.  The green is elevated with a deep bunker short and 2 deep bunkers left.  Long and right are steep falloffs.  The green is situated on one of the highest points on the property and it is generally quite windy.  It is nearly impossible to hit and hold the green the story is that only 1 person has ever done it once in the history of the club.  I believe it.  The green is slanted back to front and falls off in every direction.  Any ball on the green in regulation especially below the hole has a very good chance at birdie.  I grew up playing this course and have played it countless times.  The 13th was always one of my favorite holes.  It is a great change of pace with the tighter tee shot, hazardless fairway and extremely small green.  The other greens on the course are all pretty normal size.  You could fit 3 of the 13th greens in the 14th green.  I am not sure of the exact size but it isnt more than 4 good paces from side to side and 6 good paces front to back.  I would not want to play an entire course with greens this size but one hole, especially a short par 4 like this is a great change of pace and a great challenge.  

[Dan Boerger]

Ari - I played Franklin Hills once and remember that hole vividly. A great hole on a course that, frankly, impressed me beyond expectation. Am I right in remembering the bunkers proportions are quite similar to the green size? You almost get a "lilliputian" feel to the hole. - Dan

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()