[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - I'm trying, but there are so many parts to this that it freezes me - maintenance practices, of course, and wind patterns; but also expectations (re par) and accessibility (re various approaches) and sustainability (re number of rounds) and architecture (re relationship to the storyline) and ethos (re proportionality). When I breathe deeply and chant, I think the "minimum" space is exactly 1 pinnable location, little bigger than the golf hole itself (because I get all Shivas Irons-like when I breathe deeply, except when I'm smoking cigarettes, which is why I smoke cigarettes). And while that makes sense in one sense, it makes no sense at all....

I'm am trying, but remember - I'm the guy wh didn't realize he was describing the 18th hole at Shinnecock (and I watched all four rounds of the Open!!)

Peter   

[Phil McDade]

Our 2nd green (Langford 1930) has two pinnable areas. (circled)  Don't know the percentage but its as small as anything i've seen. Missing the green is death so you are shooting for the middle  a lot  anyway


Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

When Mike says missing the green is death, he means it. I've looked over the edge of my split-level home from the rooftop and thought I was closer to the ground than looking over the back edge of that green. It's the most dramatically pushed-up Langford green I've ever seen, with a backside drop-off that I'm pretty sure exceeds the famed 7th hole -- the boxcar hole -- at Lawsonia.

[John Moore II]

On a theoretical scale, I would say that the precentage of a green that is pinnable would be related to the size of the green. If the green is in the range of 2500 sqft, then it had better have in the range of 90% of the surface pinable of it will likely not survive on a course that gets any number of rounds. But on huge greens, you can go to 10% pinable space and be ok. I am trying to think, Kalen can help here, but I would say the 7th green at Thanksgiving Point is probably in the range of 25,000 sqft (I might be wrong there, but its really massive, probably near 75 yards deep and 30 yards wide, maybe larger) So, on a green that big, 10% would give you 2,500 sqft pinable space. Of course those size greens are outliers. But in theory, the minimum percentage of green space that needs to be pinnable depends on the overall size of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's a great topic, especially in the context of visual versus practical.

Who gave you the idea for this thread ? 

I'll try to post on it tomorrow.

[Tim Gavrich]

There are probably half a dozen greens at each Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm, and Shelter Harbor that are in the 25-40% pinnable area range.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

it depends on the size of the green, what the growth situation is and how many play it. The question is probably more how many pin placements are there. The smallest number that I have seen, taking a pin placement as a 7ft radius circle, is 1. This was on the 1st at Bürgenstock G&CC where I had the pleasure to work for a couple of years.

The 1st was a 160 yard, uphill par 3 with the green benched into a 1:2 slope. The green was 25 foot diameter with the back half on a severe slope and so unpinnable. You can move the hole position a foot or two left or right but not much more. The green however has no shadows and Bürgenstock sees around 1500 to 2000 rounds per season.

[John Moore II]

There are probably half a dozen greens at each Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm, and Shelter Harbor that are in the 25-40% pinnable area range.

Thats for sure at TR and THF. There are some of those that I would say might have only 10-15% pinnable when the greens are running fast.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Small greens of say 3,500 sq feet can never have big % of pinnable areas even if they are flat. You need to factor a 2.5 metre outer strip that is unusuable for pinning and that takes a big chunk out, possibly 40% if they are narrow and oval. Very small greens can have virtually no internal contour that are unpinnable, if they have some consistent slopes it can be hard to get them stimping fast. Different partsofthe world, climates etc all need to be factored, but probably need 2,500 sq feet of pinning area in order to maintain optimun growing conditions.

[Joe Bausch]

One of the largest greens I played this year w/ a fabulously small percentage of pinnable greenspace, which I'm just guessing is less than 20%, is the 17th at the Pete Dye Golf Club:

[Tom_Doak]

I concur with Adrian that the estimates of pinnable space on a lot of these greens are too high, when you factor in not putting the hole on the very edge of the green.

I've seen a bunch of greens in my life where only 20% or so was pinnable.  The first one that jumps to mind is the 2nd at Machrihanish.

I would have to think for a while on what the lowest percentage (or lowest amount) of pinnable space is on any green we've built.  The first two at Sebonack must have a pretty small total.

[TEPaul]

Adrian:

Some good points there.

I'm also wondering what actually constitutes a "different" pin position say for instance in the eyes of the USGA tournament set up guys. They say they need at least four and ideally five different pin positions for a tournament, so what exactly is it that constitutes the "difference" in "different pin position?"

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian:

Some good points there.

I'm also wondering what actually constitutes a "different" pin position say for instance in the eyes of the USGA tournament set up guys. They say they need at least four and ideally five different pin positions for a tournament, so what exactly is it that constitutes the "difference" in "different pin position?"

TeP- Im not sure if there is a definitive definition!!! I have my own and that is a pin position should be changed at a maximum of every 200 rounds of golf (pref every 150), that approximates to say 3 or 4 changes a week or 13-18 per month, I therefore do not like to see the pin in a position of 2 metres from an old hole plug (approx aged 1 month). You are correct about tournament set ups wanting at least 5 'locations', mostly it can be accomadated although plenty of times (17th TOC) you will see the pin very close to a previous, although it may be within the 2 metre zone. Green design will vary and architects will look at having some greens will several pinning areas and some more traditional, perhaps smaller overall but mainly pinnable, its often just what fits nice into a landscape and sometimes if you have say a 3 metre vertical contour change within a green area, it can be best fitted into a steeper landscape by having multiple levels within green itself to say 'buy' a metre of contour change.

[TEPaul]

Adrian:

Again, really good post with a lot of valuable info.

I guess the gist behind the subject of this thread is about those greens that are not just fairly low on pinnable space percentage-wise to total green space but also where the entire pinnable space is basically all in the very same general area on the green. This would appear to be true of greens such as the 12th and 15th at Merion East. Both greens are basically pinnable in a band across their midsections and when the greenspeed is increased above say 11 that band's pinnable space decreases fairly exponentially. At speeds above say 11.5 to 12 I'd say their pinnable space as a percentage to total green space may be getting near 10% and it unfortunately is all in the same place. This seems to be inherent with some of the old greens that are essentially basic slopes.

[Greg Chambers]

Here at our course we have relatively small greens, about 4500 sq ft on average, with quite a bit of undulation.  All the greens have at least for pinable areas until the speed of the greens gets too high, +11.  So if they get too fast, you start losing pin postions, which takes away from the fun of putting the greens plus the strategy of approaching from different angles given hole locations.  I have a problem with courses that feel that faster is better, yet sacrifice great hole locations for gaining some speed.  Makes no sense strategically or agronomically.

[Adrian_Stiff]

TeP- Faster the putting surface less the pinnable area would also be a fact and its possible that on greens up to 14 a green may have 0% ie be unusable. In that instance the greenskeeper would understand that a localised green cant be cut as low and would need to be maintained differently.
The key point though is many greens because of internal slopes need to be maintained at a slower speed.
painswick's 10th green is 90 square yards roughly 900 sq feet. its about 10 metres deep and 12 metres wide, take the 2.5 metre band off and your looking at a living room of pinnable green, its amazing it has grass.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Greg we overlapped!

[TEPaul]

Adrian:

The greens I'm aware of that are around 2500 total square footage that get a lot of play I guess basically just aren't really going to make it agronomically long term. Examples would be Pine Valley's #8 and Riviera's #10 and that explains why both have alternate greens.

[Matt_Davenport]

I'm posting a table I created for analysis of this Philadelphia area club based on topography performed by a third party.  Time has passed since this study was completed and I'm not sure if the club has undertaken any major renovation to address the issue with lack of cuppable area on some of their greens. Check out the numbers...

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I know Torresdale really well and some of those low percentage greens don't surprise me at all. #3 is really remarkable it's so low and I heard some time ago they felt they had to do something about that one so I'm pretty sure they probably have by now. #13 and #14 are a little surprising to me being as low as they are.

One of the problems with #3 wasn't just the low percentage pinnable area but if you weren't near it the chances of holding the ball around it was also pretty low. Generally I don't like to see greens redone and softened by that one stopped working a long time ago, and it wasn't exactly a short shot in there either.

[JESII]

Matt,

It looks like you used >5% as non-cuppable...is that a standard number? I thought 3 and 4% slopes are pretty dicey at 10'+.

 

[paul cowley]

I consider a pinnable area to be around 300 sq' of an area that has less than 3% slopes depending on green speed....so lets be safe and say an area of less than 2.5% slopes.

Tournament play usually dictates that a pin can be set no closer than 9' to an up or down slope greater than the above 2.5 to 3% slopes or the edge cut of the green.

Thus a 9' diameter x2 creates a circular area of approximately 300 sg'.

Typically a green needs minimally 5 to 7 pin locations.....or 1500 to 2100 sg' for pins.

So if you factor in the green edge and the areas between the pins, you can figure that the smallest greens that are practical for most medium or low round playing courses to be around 2300 to 2800 sq'.

....but this is not a Biblical edict and many other factors can effect these sizes.

[JESII]

According to Matt's numbers, Torresdale Frankford has 7.6% of its total on-course greenspace at 3% slope or under...7.76%!

[Matt_Davenport]

Jim,
You're right about the 5% being dicey, especially with the lowering of height of cut and more intensive maintenance practices today.

The numbers in the table for T-F also really don't take into account the edges of the putting surface--the statistics are purely numbers as a function of the percentage of area up to and including the outer margin of the putting surface.

[JESII]

Yep...I was emphasizing the point to agree with some of the earlier posts about how easy it is to overestimate the pinnable greenspace.

The C-Nine at HVCC probably competes with TF for total area, our 8th green is probably close to that 0% number as well...at least before the little back pad went in a couple of years ago.

[TEPaul]

Don't forget fellows, there is no way at all to discuss this subject without factoring in greenspeed at all times!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()