[Brent Hutto]

The only things inherently superior in golf are sandy soil & variety.

Ciao

And cool-weather grasses. I love me some fescue...

[Adam Russell]

That's a bad analogy because you've prejudiced the answer with a flawed premise.

Patrick, you're right. It was a bad analogy. What I wanted to say was that I do think that there is a tendency of bigger greens to produce average hole locations simply because of their bigness. By that I mean because the intention is to produce variety in the name of size, one would be more apt to include an average hole location to satisfy the pursuit of big.



Small greens don't fare well with heavy traffic.
As golf's popularity increased heavier traffic took its toll.

I understand why big greens are better from an agronomic standpoint and why greens enlarged from a historical standpoint, but that was not the original question posted. You went on a different path. If you can pull all the elements of design/agronomics together to produce a pleasurable and cohesive design with a small green, you have done a better job than if you were to do the same thing with a big green because the small green inherently has less room for mistake, or averageness, same thing.

A mix seems to work best for me.

Pine Tree has some very small, very large and average greens, but, architecturally, they blend harmoniously into the holes they're part of, and I think THAT'S the key.

I think the same thing. We're on the same page reading different paragraphs, Patrick.

[/quote]

[Mike Mosely]

Mike M--Have you ever played Tobacco Road? Those greens are huge (like everything else on property) but if you are in the wrong spot, you are in huge trouble. Some of those greens have 8 feet of difference between two tiers. The contours are wild. In that way, the greens really become small.

Yes, I have...and what the tiering effect Strantz used there does is effectively turn one large green into two small ones within the same surface.

Again, it all boils down to "add more contours, build a more interesting green."

[David Lott]

Doesn't the answer depend in large part on the nature of the hole that feeds the green, the terrain of the green and the background?

Compare, for example, greens 1 and 18 at the Old Course.

Number 1 is a small green--one of the smallest on the course, as I recall. Small works because of the small rise behind the green, but mostly because the shot is across the burn. The burn would be a meaningless hazard if the green were large.

Number 18 has quite a large green. It works also. Part of the appeal is aesthetic. A small green would be overwhelmed visually by the buildings, but the large green stands up to them. The large green (with no penal hazard in front) also affords a variety of shots, and requires different shots to access different pins. The large green affords many different pin positions (very little of this green us not pinnable, though there are some favorites), and the large size also enables more slope, thus making putting more difficult.

(I realize that 18 has been changed a lot as a hole not that many pros can drive the green (though not without risk--Daly nearly put his drive OB long the year he won.)

Also compare in your minds 9 & 10 at TOC, or 10 and 12. Is the uphill of 9 vs. the downhill of 10 the reason that both greens work on their holes? Wouldn't the 10th green be absolutely silly on 12, and vice versa?

Pat Mucci is right when he says that you can make a big green play small and a small big. But green size exists in the context of the entire hole, and some holes will be better served by large greens than others.

[David Lott]

Sorry--Pat said, accurately, you can't make a small green play big.

[Dan Boerger]

Many larger greens (contour withstanding) enable players to have some very different experiences on the same holes. I think this is a particular advantage if you play the same course frequently (as I do).

[Jeremy Rivando]

Again, it all boils down to "add more contours, build a more interesting green."

Only then would I believe that a large green could be considered superior.  Without contour you have a boring green, large or small. 

This is a great thread and IMO the key continues to be variety.  Greens should never be built from a template, even a Redan, the concept is there, sure, but the land will provide its unique character.

Each architect has a way of looking at a potential hole from many perspectives, the key is that it almost always comes back to the greensite.  What green would fit this piece of land and this hole the best.  The green that successfully accomplishes that is the inherently superior one.

[Joe Hancock]

How many of you did as I did by only thinking of large greens without any outside contours feeding onto the green? For some reason, when I think really large greens, I think of plateau type, or island type settings.

Is there any good examples of really large greens the are benched into a hillside? Do they work well?

Joe

[Andy Troeger]

Again, it all boils down to "add more contours, build a more interesting green."

Only then would I believe that a large green could be considered superior.  Without contour you have a boring green, large or small. 

Again, I don't think you can make it that simplistic. The SITE where the green is placed has a huge bearing on the quality of the green in addition to size and contour. The above statements are likely right 95% of the time, but isn't #16 at Cypress Point the flattest on the course? Not a bad green when you consider where it's at    You wouldn't want more contour there, the hole is pretty darn tough anyway!

[Sean_A]

How many of you did as I did by only thinking of large greens without any outside contours feeding onto the green? For some reason, when I think really large greens, I think of plateau type, or island type settings.

Is there any good examples of really large greens the are benched into a hillside? Do they work well?

Joe

Joe

I too sort of thought of large greens as separated from the fairway surrounds and many smaller greens having a fairway feeder system.  I am not sure why I thought this as I can't rattle off examples of large isolated greens.  The biggest set of greens I know fairly well is at Beau Desert and these are most definitely tied to fairways with feeder systems. 

I can't think of any large benched greens - loads of what I consider small pop into my mind. 

I know for me, many times small greens lose their effect with bunkering.  Often times smaller greens are narrow or on shelves and bunkers can serve to save missed shots from running away from the target.   

Below is an example of what I generally prefer.  The green is probably a bit small or maybe too severe for the aerial type of shot required considering the winds and distance of 165ish yards.  The one aspect which would help out immensely is connecting the green to the dune on the right.  However, the green is unduly cutoff from the dune by a wee gulley which collects balls rather than kicking them toward the green.  The target is just too small in a decent wind of 15-20mph - there needs to be extra room to feed balls onto the green.  In essence, what was created is a small plateau green which is not, imo, the best way to go about designing this hole. 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick Mucci:  I'll argue your point that "a small green can't play big".  It can indeed, if it's partly surrounded by chipping areas that increase the area where you can play the ball along the ground to the flag.

I don't believe big greens are inherently superior.  With bigger greens you run the risk that it will be child's play for a good golfer to hit a high percentage of greens ... and I generally agree with Pete Dye that the long putt is the most boring shot around a green you can have, even though I have managed to create some long putts that were fun to play.

Can't see far enough back to note who it was who mentioned that bigger greens are more commonly accepted on par-3's.  Interestingly, Mike Keiser made a similar observation when we were in Bandon last week -- that heavily contoured greens seem to be more accepted on par-3 holes.  This was news to me.  Certainly, the Short and Biarritz greens at Old Macdonald are the biggest and boldest of the bunch so far, but it's not true of Pacific Dunes, for sure.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Ross wrote that par 3's could be a little more difficult, which I presume includes green contours. Perhaps that is the genesis of Mike K's contention?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I think Mike's comment was just based on observation of what others had to say.  Probably someone said that to him in defense of the fifth green at Bandon Trails and it has just stuck with him.  I doubt it was out of the Ross book, although with Brad as a consultant for Old Macdonald, maybe Mike has re-read the Ross bio.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick Mucci:  I'll argue your point that "a small green can't play big". 
It can indeed,  "IF"  it's partly surrounded by chipping areas that increase the area where you can play the ball along the ground to the flag.

Tom, that's a BIG "IF", and a "qualifier" that I suspect is more theoretical than realistic.

Architects who design small greens do so with the specific intent of providing a small target, not a target that plays substantially larger than it appears.

In my limited experience small to very small greens tend to be well guarded, mostly by bunkers or other features.

I don't know of any greens 2,500 sq/ft or under with extensive chipping areas, but, again, my experience is limited.

Substantive chipping areas adjacent to small to very small greens would seem to be a self defeating or counter productive feature.

In my limited experience I haven't seen small or very small greens with extensive chipping areas surrounding them.

Perhaps some exist, but I just haven't come across them.

Chipping areas seem to be "en vogue".
I've seen many clubs shave adjancent areas down to fairway height, but, those areas, in their original form, weren't chipping areas.

Small greens are inherently one dimensional, the ultimate in target golf.
Whereas, large greens can present great diversity in club selection and ball flight.[/color]

I don't believe big greens are inherently superior. 
With bigger greens you run the risk that it will be child's play for a good golfer to hit a high percentage of greens ...

With a big green, especially one with substantive slope and contour, hitting the green is of little comfort unless the golfer has dialed in the hole location.  A large green that's bland would seem to represent a lack of creativity on the part of the architect, or at least an opportunity lost.

Certainly you must have glimpsed the 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA while you were working at Sebonic.
You know that hitting either of those greens is almost meaningless unless you're on the appropriate tier, and that the challenge represented in those greens is substantial.[/color]

and I generally agree with Pete Dye that the long putt is the most boring shot around a green you can have, even though I have managed to create some long putts that were fun to play.

I defy you, Pete Dye and anyone else to claim that putting from one zone on the 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA to another is boring, let alone from one extreme to the other.

Putting at distance on the 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA is one of the most exciting, challenging shots a
golfer can face.

I could probably fashion an exciting, challenging 18 hole putting contest on each of those greens and I'd bet that the participants would have a blast.

I can't comment with any degree of certainty on the putting surface of the hole George Bahto posted, but, my bet is that there's plenty of undulation and challenge within that putting surface, and not just a boring, routine two putt from anyplace on that green.[/color]

Can't see far enough back to note who it was who mentioned that bigger greens are more commonly accepted on par-3's.  Interestingly, Mike Keiser made a similar observation when we were in Bandon last week -- that heavily contoured greens seem to be more accepted on par-3 holes.  This was news to me. 


I've observed that most large greens accept longer approach shots, but, that doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to the rule, ie # 6 at NGLA.[/color]

Certainly, the Short and Biarritz greens at Old Macdonald are the biggest and boldest of the bunch so far, but it's not true of Pacific Dunes, for sure.

I liked the contrast between the holes and greens on # 10 and # 11 at Pacific Dunes.

# 11 green plays very small.  # 10 green plays much larger.

I couldn't see the wisdom in reversing/exchanging the two greens.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

That's a bad analogy because you've prejudiced the answer with a flawed premise.

Patrick, you're right. It was a bad analogy. What I wanted to say was that I do think that there is a tendency of bigger greens to produce average hole locations simply because of their bigness. By that I mean because the intention is to produce variety in the name of size, one would be more apt to include an average hole location to satisfy the pursuit of big.



Small greens don't fare well with heavy traffic.
As golf's popularity increased heavier traffic took its toll.

I understand why big greens are better from an agronomic standpoint and why greens enlarged from a historical standpoint, but that was not the original question posted. You went on a different path.

If you can pull all the elements of design/agronomics together to produce a pleasurable and cohesive design with a small green, you have done a better job than if you were to do the same thing with a big green because the small green inherently has less room for mistake, or averageness, same thing.


That's where we again disagree.
Not if you have "greens within greens" where a hole location is in a section or tier that makes a large green play small to very small.

The 6th hole at NGLA is a perfect example.
There are multiple hole locations that shrink that huge green to a tiny one.
Front right, back left, left center, center, far right etc., etc..



A mix seems to work best for me.

Pine Tree has some very small, very large and average greens, but, architecturally, they blend harmoniously into the holes they're part of, and I think THAT'S the key.

I think the same thing. We're on the same page reading different paragraphs, Patrick.

[/quote]

[Jim Sweeney]

I personally favor big greens because they favor startegic thinking. How the hole is played may be dictated by hole location.

A corallary may be that when the design of the hole precludes knowing where the hole is located, or the landing area dictates a specific shot from the tee, a smaller green may a more effective target since the strategy of such a hole os dictated to the player.

[Adam Russell]

Patrick, I starting to think you live in that small mountain on #6 green at NGLA 
I going to convert you to my small greens, it just may take awhile. The 6th at NGLA is a great example of a great big green. No denying that. But it is simply harder in my opinion to create a Postage Stamp than a #6- the scale of a big green lends itself better to the scale of the original landscape. I look at this from a design perspective, as harder to do=superior. Come to the dark side, Patrick...

[John Moore II]

Adam, Pat will never see your side of the discussion, I learned that a while ago. However, I still like to dispute his points occasionally. Big greens are not ALWAYS superior. And that, I think is what this topic is trying to say. Would Postage Stamp be good with a huge green? Would 6 at NGLA be good with a small one? No to both. Each green type has its own merits and depending where it is placed on the course each can be great. There is no specific style that is best in all cases. That is true with everything golf.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I love the third and sixth greens at National, but I think most golfers would become quite tired of 18 greens per round like that -- and believe me, I have spent a fair amount of time field-testing that premise.

As for small greens featuring chipping areas, Sebonack is full of them.  I thought you'd seen it.  Being in the chipping areas is not as good a result as being on the green itself, but it's often better than being in the other greenside hazards.  Not always, though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I starting to think you live in that small mountain on #6 green at NGLA 


I would if I could [/color]

I going to convert you to my small greens, it just may take awhile.

I think you've misunderstood me.
I also like small greens, I just think that large greens are inherently superior due to their capacity for diversity.[/color]

The 6th at NGLA is a great example of a great big green. No denying that.
 
But it is simply harder in my opinion to create a Postage Stamp than a #6-

I would think, just the opposite.
Why would it be harder to create a 2,000 sq/ft green than a 13,000 sq/ft green ?[/color]

the scale of a big green lends itself better to the scale of the original landscape.

That's really site dependent, isn't it ?[/color]

I look at this from a design perspective, as harder to do=superior.
Come to the dark side, Patrick...

I happen to be a fan of do or die shots typically found on par 3's and especially shortish par 3's with small greens.

I don't adhere to the philosophy that the harder a green is to design/build, the more superior the green.

And, I would imagine that C&C and those who have played Sand Hills would agree with me.

"Superior" for me, is determined by the quality and diversity of play, not the difficulty in designing the green.   What may be difficult design for one architect might be inate for another.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I love the third and sixth greens at National, but I think most golfers would become quite tired of 18 greens per round like that -- and believe me, I have spent a fair amount of time field-testing that premise.

Tom, I wasn't suggesting that ALL of the greens be large or like # 3 and # 6 at NGLA.
I was suggesting that large greens inherently possess the capacity to be superior to small greens due to their potential for diversity in the putting surface and the variety in club selection into the green.[/color]

As for small greens featuring chipping areas, Sebonack is full of them.  I thought you'd seen it.  Being in the chipping areas is not as good a result as being on the green itself, but it's often better than being in the other greenside hazards.  Not always, though.

One of the par 3 greens I really liked at Sebonack was # 17 due to the diversity presented by the hole locations.

Approaching a far left hole location can be relatively benign.
Approaching a far right hole location can present a ferocious challenge.

If that green was cut in half, the golfer would be deprived of that diverse challenge, and that's why I feel that large greens are inherently superior.

On the other hand, we did see a number of chips and putts from all around the 12th green, a do or die approach, but, despite the chipping areas, the green doesn't play any larger than it's mesa like putting surface.[/color]
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam, Pat will never see your side of the discussion, I learned that a while ago.

That's not true.
I do see it, I just don't agree with everything stated.[/color]

However, I still like to dispute his points occasionally.
Big greens are not ALWAYS superior.

I NEVER stated that big greens are ALWAYS superior.
I stated that they're inherently superior.
There is a difference.[/color]

And that, I think is what this topic is trying to say.


No, that's not what this topic is trying to say.
That's your erroneous interpretation of what you believe to be the gist of this thread.[/color]

Would Postage Stamp be good with a huge green?

It wouldn't be a "postage stamp"[/color]

Would 6 at NGLA be good with a small one? No to both.
Each green type has its own merits and depending where it is placed on the course each can be great.

There is no specific style that is best in all cases.

I disagree.
Large greens are inherently superior.

The Postage Stamp green is ONE dimensional, in the approach and putting.
The 3rd and 6th at NGLA are multi-dimensional, in the approach and putting.

They're inherently superior.

However, that doesn't mean that the Postage Stamp green isn't a great green, only that it has limited application in the context of play.[/color]

That is true with everything golf.

So you don't believe that Tiger is inherently better than you ? [/color]

[John Moore II]

Pat--To me, saying 'inherently' is pretty much the same as saying they are always superior and preferable to small greens. I do not think that is the case. Sometimes small greens with undulation are preferable to a very large green, it all depends on the situation. How does a large green have a 'multi-dimensional' aspect any more than a small one does? If the large green is wildly undulated, it becomes one dimensional because if you do not hit on the right tier, there is no chance, maybe worse than missing the green on a small green.

--And no, Tiger's best shot is not better than mine. He is better most times, but not every shot. That is not the point about greens on a course. Completely different concept. My point was that nothing is right every time in golf, not a certain golf swing, not a certain fairway type, not a specific type of architecture, and not a specific type of green complex.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat--To me, saying 'inherently' is pretty much the same as saying they are always superior and preferable to small greens.

Not according to A Merriam-Webster.[/color]

Sometimes small greens with undulation are preferable to a very large green, it all depends on the situation.

I stated that, but, "sometimes" isn't the issue, it's the general limitations of small greens and the variety in approach shots to large greens that makes them inherently better.[/color]

How does a large green have a 'multi-dimensional' aspect any more than a small one does?


Because a large green has a greater range of club selection on the approach than a small green.[/color]

If the large green is wildly undulated, it becomes one dimensional because if you do not hit on the right tier, there is no chance, maybe worse than missing the green on a small green.

No, it doesn't.
You're looking at the situation on a "one day" basis rather than a seasonal basis.
A large, wildly undulating green could require anywhere from a 4 iron to a wedge, whereas the small green will essentially require the same club on repeat play.[/color]

--And no, Tiger's best shot is not better than mine.

Now that I understand that you're delusional it makes it alot easier for me to respond to you.

Tiger's best shots are beyond your comprehension, let alone your ability.

The shot he hit in Canada, from about 190, out of the bunker, over the water, to a pin tucked in the back corner, with a 6-iron, under pressure, is beyond not just you, but most guys on the PGA Tour, so don't feel badly.

He is better most times, but not every shot.


Paging Dr Katz.  We have an emergency.

That is not the point about greens on a course.
Completely different concept.


Please, do not consider a change in career and joining the PGA Tour.

My point was that nothing is right every time in golf, not a certain golf swing, not a certain fairway type, not a specific type of architecture, and not a specific type of green complex.

I understand, but, the fact remains, large greens are inherently superior to small greens due to the variety afforded in approaching each.

That doesn't mean that small greens aren't terrific, it just means that they have fewer facets from the perspective of playability.

[Tim Nugent]

I think you have to examine this ? in the context of putting surface vs green complex.  Also what is the accepted definition of Big and of Small?  Also, the shape of the green can allow a green with alot of sq. footage but plays small due to narrowness. 

As for maintenance, one of the biggest grip you get from supers is big rolls or nobs in greens - what you guys call contour.  These tend to dry out faster and need to be hand watered.  They also develop localized dry spot.  Also because they dry out faster, the water collects at there bases and in swales so the consistency in green speeds fluctuates.

Personally, I like to average my greens at 6,250 sf.  This allows some in the 5,000 - 6,000 sf range and others in the 6,500 - to over 7,000 sf.  I've even done some 15,000+ monsters that are really 2 greens in one.

The size/shape/contour also has to reflect what it is you are asking the golfer to accomplish along with what the surrounds, topography and wind conditions are.  Is the green elevated or fairway level? Is there short grass or long rough off the green, can you bonce it in or is a carry required?

Like most of the questions posted here, there is no black/white, right/wrong answer here.  That's the beauty of golf course architecture - everyone has there own preferences and peaves.  If everyone liked the same thing, we'd all be chasing one women.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()