[PCCraig]

If you were to build your perfect golf hole, would you make the green large or small? While big greens ultimately allow for more pin positions, do they always make a hole more strategic? Do you prefer a larger Augusta National type green or a green the size of many at The Country Club of Brookline?

What are some things a designer must do in order to make a hole with a smaller green more strategic? Would a big green be wasted on a narrow hole?

Building on this…would you say that large greens need to be more undulating because of their size in order to be interesting, and do small greens have to be more flat in order to be considered fair? 

[Anthony Gray]

  As a mid to high handicapper I prefer larger greens. The larger the target the better. If the green is missed the resulting play is easier to a larger green. A larger green does allow for more variety. Variety is always good in golf.

   A small green here and there works well. Variety. TOC.... all those large greens then 17.

  Anthony

[PCCraig]

  As a mid to high handicapper I prefer larger greens. The larger the target the better. If the green is missed the resulting play is easier to a larger green. A larger green does allow for more variety. Variety is always good in golf.

   A small green here and there works well. Variety. TOC.... all those large greens then 17.

  Anthony

It's obvious that larger greens offer more variety, but are they more strategic? You seem to feel that as a high handicapper, a larger target is more fair because if you mishit your approach you can still hit the green. However if a green is smaller, is there not more thought put into playing the entire hole (placing you tee shot) in order to gain the best angle to the green?

[Greg Chambers]

 "However if a green is smaller, is there not more thought put into playing the entire hole (placing you tee shot) in order to gain the best angle to the green?"


yes

[Kalen Braley]

Pat as a high capper myself, I don't have a preference either way as to small or large greens...it really depends on the hole length, countours and otherwise as to whether its appropriate.

CPC #8 is one of the best examples of a large green I've ever seen.  A pretty decent size green, yet if you are in the wrong spot, forget about a 2 putt and just make sure to do no worse than 3 putt.

And then you have a green like PacDunes #6 where your just trying to hit it anywhere on the green due to its small size. They are both a blast and they both work very very well. 

In answer to your question, I don't think high cappers in general can adapt any kind of effective strategy when it comes to small greeens. 99% of the time if its a small green your just trying to get the ball anywhere on it, much less picking a precise spot to hit to.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Statistically, average handicappers don't miss left and right much more than scratch players.  They do miss long, and especially short by 1.5 times as much.  At some point, as mentioned, the larger dimensions just make it a bit easier, especially if correlated somewhat with shot length.

In a "perfect" 18 holes, I would have a mix of each.  I gather the strategy of really small greens is nil - hit it or else.  Strategy of sorts can be added by leaving a run up, or creating a back or side board for kick in shots on well guarded greens.

Its hard to say how the strategy for mid to large green varies.  Isn't the basic choice to aim for the fat middle of the green or play closer to the pin, if tucked?  If the middle is bigger, do you still aim at it, rather than a tucked pin, or simply aim the same distance away from the guarding hazard?  

It seems that the strategy of either is really related to each golfers relative skill set in recovery - if you are a good chipper, bunker player or approach putter, it may dictate that you aim closer or further from those hazards or situations.  I actually think most high handicappers would prefer medium size greens and a chip to a monster putt at least most of the time.

Some think you can fall asleep playing to "too large a green." I am not sure I have ever sensed this, but could be wrong.  Certainly playing to a small green can heighten the senses.

[PCCraig]

Kalen-

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

So back to my first question, if you were to build a hole from scratch, would you build a large or small green?

Jeff-

Also a great response, when designing a bigger green, do you feel you need add more undulation in order to make it interesting? Or when its small are you almost forced to leave it pretty flat?

As a GCA, do you subscribe to the idea that a large green can be made, but with smaller tiers and aiming points incorporated within? I think a great example of big greens on a consistent level throughout the entire course is Bellerive CC outside STL. When the course was under construction and redesign, R. Jones said that he wanted to leave the large size of the greens but to add strategic contour to them so that if a player misses to the wrong side of the green, he would have a heck of a time two-putting.

However, in doing this, are you essentially making the greens smaller?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

there is a lot of maintenance pressure to make small greens flat.  There is some theory - oft debated - about making them flat for a reward for hitting a harder target.

On big greens, they sure look dull without contours, and tiers, valleys, rolls sure help that out. The also require more accuracy to hit the green within the green.  Then I have to ask myself if I want to saddle golfers with long putts and supers with more maintenance by using a huge green.  Once in a while yes, but budgets usually dictate smaller to medium greens, which then in turn limits contouring.  It would be great to build a course on native sandy soils where the green could be anywhere you wanted!  I still wouldn't do all big ones - I get tired of long putts all day and I am sure others do too.

[Anthony Gray]

  As a mid to high handicapper I prefer larger greens. The larger the target the better. If the green is missed the resulting play is easier to a larger green. A larger green does allow for more variety. Variety is always good in golf.

   A small green here and there works well. Variety. TOC.... all those large greens then 17.

  Anthony

It's obvious that larger greens offer more variety, but are they more strategic? You seem to feel that as a high handicapper, a larger target is more fair because if you mishit your approach you can still hit the green. However if a green is smaller, is there not more thought put into playing the entire hole (placing you tee shot) in order to gain the best angle to the green?

  Pat,

  I would think that larger greens would offer strategy for a golfer of your abilities as well. The Augusta example of having to be on the desired side of the hole to avoid a three put is very strategic I would think for a premiere player.

  Anthony

[Andy Troeger]

Kalen,
I like the 8th green at CPC--but I sure wouldn't consider it all that large compared to what else is out there (on other courses). I think the characteristics you describe about that green also make good large greens work though.

To be honest I'm having a hard time coming up with a really big green that I really like, but my mind is pretty fried this afternoon so I'm sure there are some. I do have an affinity for small greens, probably one of the reasons I like Pebble Beach more than some. I also think the 7th and 16th greens at Wolf Run are wonderful little things.

I find that small greens tend to help the better ball strikers whereas big greens lend themselves more to putting contests. I think that's probably where some of my preference comes from historically (since I'm not doing either particularly well of late).

I also don't buy the variety angle on having lots of big greens. You get variety by varying the green size. By having large greens you end up with many long putts, as Jeff just pointed out.

[Anthony Gray]

Statistically, average handicappers don't miss left and right much more than scratch players.  They do miss long, and especially short by 1.5 times as much.  At some point, as mentioned, the larger dimensions just make it a bit easier, especially if correlated somewhat with shot length.

In a "perfect" 18 holes, I would have a mix of each.  I gather the strategy of really small greens is nil - hit it or else.  Strategy of sorts can be added by leaving a run up, or creating a back or side board for kick in shots on well guarded greens.

Its hard to say how the strategy for mid to large green varies.  Isn't the basic choice to aim for the fat middle of the green or play closer to the pin, if tucked?  If the middle is bigger, do you still aim at it, rather than a tucked pin, or simply aim the same distance away from the guarding hazard?  

It seems that the strategy of either is really related to each golfers relative skill set in recovery - if you are a good chipper, bunker player or approach putter, it may dictate that you aim closer or further from those hazards or situations.  I actually think most high handicappers would prefer medium size greens and a chip to a monster putt at least most of the time.

Some think you can fall asleep playing to "too large a green." I am not sure I have ever sensed this, but could be wrong.  Certainly playing to a small green can heighten the senses.

  Jeff,

 As an architect do you buy into the short hole-small green long hole-big green thinking?

  Anthony

 

[Charlie Goerges]

  Jeff,

 As an architect do you buy into the short hole-small green long hole-big green thinking?

  Anthony

 

Not to answer for Jeff, but at his Quarry at Giants Ridge I recall a couple of short holes (one a par 3 and one a drivable par 4) that both had quite large greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Charlie,

Yes and what has the smallest green at the Quarry? The 269 Yard par 3 4th!  Actually, in looking back at that design, I was surprised that one of the short par 4's didn't come up with a smallish green.   6, 9, 10 and 13 all have pretty large greens.  Of course, the greens are all fairly large to contrast the course with the medium sized green first course there.  So, there are a lot of factors.

Anthony,

I believe that statistically its usually true that greens need to be bigger for longer approach shots.  i tend to design the holes in groups (3,5, and long and short par 4) and make at least one in each of those groups smallish and one largish.....If all greens followed the USGA chart for "average difficulty" on the slope ratings, then all approach shots would be, in theory, equally difficult.  I like some more than others, so I vary the size.

[PCCraig]

It's interesting as it seems to go in trends...the new course at bandon has some huge greens, while some older courses that I love have some super small greens. For example one of my all time favorites, the par-4 4th at TCC of brookline, has pretty much the smallest green I have ever seen on a par-4.

While the hole is short at about 340 yards, there are many options to attack the small green. Option 1 is to hit a long iron short and way safe, which your approach is totally blind to the tiny green, option 2 is a hybrid/wood to about 100 yards to the middle of the fairway, which is also the most narrow part of the fairway but the flatest, option three is to hit a driver or hard 3-wood either at or around the green, which flirts with the super deep bunkers around the green. (Long explination...sorry!)

My point is that I think your tee shot becomes far more important to a small green, and while more tough to hit, can it not also be fair to the high handicapper? Really, if more people are missing the green (good and not-so-good golfers alike), does that not level the playing field for the player that would miss the green regardless???

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I know "trends" had nothing to do with the size of the greens at Old Macdonald.  They are big because

a)  Macdonald's greens were generally large;
b)  We wanted to build something bold, and all the rest of the committee (more than myself) thought large greens should be part of that; and
c)  With the fescue in Bandon, there isn't much difference between green and approach anyway ... you'd putt from 20 yards off the green, so that might as well be green, too.

I've done courses with small greens (Stonewall Old), courses with large greens (The Legends), and courses with both (Pacific Dunes).  I tend to agree with Jeff that "both" is a good option ... but if you look at the top ten you find:

Pine Valley - from very small to very large
Merion - very small to very large
National - large to very large
Shinnecock - medium
Crystal Downs - small to medium
St. Andrews - huge except for the Road hole
Dornoch - medium to large
Muirfield - medium to large
Cypress Point - small to medium
Pebble Beach - tiny

So you can make any of these options work pretty well ...

[Cristian]

I wonder how much green size really dictates strategy; I think bunkers and surrounds dictate the relevance of green size. ie A really big green with no danger lurking would make everybody aim for the pin, regardless of skill or handicap. A really small green with deep bunkers all round would have everybody aim for the middle. (except maybe on really short holes). So in effect both opposite designs would result in the same thing; a hole with 0 strategy with every golfer aiming for the same spot.

It would seem that almost everything in between ( both size wise and in terms of the swayles/surrounds and hazards around the green) could potentially create something interesting, so the options are endless regardless of green size.

If my theory is true, then green sizes therefore are rather meaningless. Or am I overlooking something? 

[Damon Groves]

There is certainly a strategic element to the size of the green and a lot depends on the hole itself as to what size green is warranted. However, just because a green is large overall does not mean it doesn't play small.

For me, I like larger greens with different areas to play to like at Ballyneal. It allows a greater variety of shots and choices. Similar to wider fairways. If you play to the correct side you are rewarded and vice versa.

[Tom_Doak]

On this topic, I remember many years ago having lunch with Herbert Warren Wind in NYC, and one of the things he said that stuck with me was that he thought architects put too much effort into designing greens with "special" hole locations.  He said he thought a truly great hole was a great hole even when the flag was right in the middle of the green.

Now there has been 27 years of technology between that comment and today ... but I appreciate the sentiment.

[PCCraig]

On this topic, I remember many years ago having lunch with Herbert Warren Wind in NYC, and one of the things he said that stuck with me was that he thought architects put too much effort into designing greens with "special" hole locations.  He said he thought a truly great hole was a great hole even when the flag was right in the middle of the green.

Now there has been 27 years of technology between that comment and today ... but I appreciate the sentiment.

Tom-

Would you say that today most GCA's build large greens with the sole purpose of creating 4 or 5 special or obvious hole locations?

Thanks.

[Ron Farris]

FYI
For more insight into some prominent courses, here is something that was posted a while ago regarding green sizes:

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Bigger greens are the norm today because golf course architects are generally a conservative bunch, and are afraid of ever building a green which might "fail" or give the superintendent headaches and be criticized.  Easier to build big greens and not worry about any of that.

Of course going back in and fixing a problem is expensive and inconvenient ... but making every green you build bigger than it needs to be also has a cost.


Ron:

Thanks for posting that chart again.  It's a bit hard to read, but it is full of useful tidbits AND distractions ... for example neither the 3rd or 4th green at Brookline is even half the quoted 10,000 square feet, today.  The variety of green sizes at Cherry Hills is worth noting; also that the biggest green (#4) follows the smallest (#3).

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I admit I hate to build a green that might give a super problems, although having problems due to over play for greens size might be considered a good problem to have these days.  However, its also a problem to build too big, simply for the initial construction AND long term maintenance budget as you note.  If a typical superintended built a green, it would probably be almost all flat and no more than 6500 SF.

My idea is based on total play, the tree cover and air movement of the particular site and the turf type - the combination of which should tell me how many levelish areas the superintendent might reasonably need to move the pin around.  I find myself building smaller greens - and tees! - these days, presuming more like 30,000 rounds rather than 45,000.

RTJ wrote of having 4 or 6 pin spots in the 40's.  Hurdzan writes of 21 pin spots in the 90's, based on the number of days it takes for a typical hole location to recover.  Most superintendents I talk to would say you can cut the 21 days depending on how agressive your maintenance practices are, in all but the off season. 

The problem is, if a superintendent won't or can't budgetarily aggressively maintain his greens to help them recover, I am not sure that extra pin spots are going to help him make the green look better.  I also used to do bigger greens in shade, but also found that they either have the air movement they need or they don't - kind of like not being able to be a "little pregnant."  Now, I just clear the trees.

Would you care to flesh out what you consider "bigger than it needs to be" for us?

[PCCraig]

FYI
For more insight into some prominent courses, here is something that was posted a while ago regarding green sizes:

Ron-

In looking at the numbers for both TCC and Indian Hill I notice a lot of the noted sizes are a lot bigger than they are today. For example, the 3rd and 4th greens at TCC are listed as the largest, when I would bet that the 4th is the smallest on the course. I'm not sure in the 90 or so years since that chart was made that either 1) the configuration of the holes changed or 2) the greens just got smaller.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

"Bigger than it needs to be" is a function of several things, as you know ... volume of play, harshness of climate, amount of contour, etc.  And, in general, you don't want to be right on the edge of too small, either.

But some architects just insist that every green be 6500 square feet (or even bigger) no matter the project, just to be safe.  That was one of the points where Tom Fazio disagreed with my future clients at Stonewall ... they wanted the course to look "classic", but he said that building any green under 6500 square feet today was basically malpractice, in his view ... even on a course that was going to play less than 15,000 rounds per year.


Pat:

The fourth hole at Brookline was changed completely by Geoff Cornish in the 1960s and again by Rees Jones in the 1980s.  I didn't know it was so big to begin with.  I also didn't know the third was ever anywhere near that big ... I'm guessing that was changed by William Flynn when he built the third nine.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Thanks for that ancedote.  I wouldn't have guessed anyone would be quite that dogmatic.  I don't know that anecdotes like that universal, but they are probably representative.

I have done the math here before, and even shooting for 21 pin spots, a completely pinnable green can be as small as 3800-4000 SF.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()