[Ken Moum]

I play a course with VERY small greens, and I rarely see anyone--even the scratch players--trying to do anything except get on the green.

We do have a couple of holes with a lot of slope in the green, so sometimes people think about being below the hole to avoid putting off the green, but only there.

FWIW, our ninth hole is 450 yards and the green is about 2,800 square feet. 

It is a bit strategic for me because I can only reach the green with firm ground and a tailwind. So I do sometimes think a bit about where I'd like to leave my second shot. If I miss on the "high" side of the green, there's no chance for a par save. Of course, as a 12 handicapper, I basically have no clue where a 220-yard fairway wood is going to end up.

We do have a few larger greens, but our fairways are mostly so narrow (25-28 yards) that no one is thinking about angles for approach shots.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

Even without fw angles, I agree you can have a green too small for strategy.  Again, using the USGA handicap and slope guide, it seems most player (about 2 of 3 based on empirical evidence collected for that book) will hit a target about 15% of its width of the approach shot (i.e., 15 yards wide for a 100 yard approach shot, 30 yards wide for a 200 yard approach shot.)

If the strategy is to be aim at the middle or aim at the pin, it would seem that a green would have to be wider than the "recommemded" approach length width - aiming at the middle requires the 15% and then tucking a target requires somewhat more.  Depending on shot pattern, wind, etc., without that width, aiming at the middle may be just as risky as aiming at the tucked pin.

Which brings up the other possible reason for "oversized" greens - just whose approach shot do you design for?  The 300 yard hitter on a 450 yard hole?  Or the 190 - 230 -260 hitter on the middle tees of that hole who might have much more approach length?  Bigger greens are more conservative for play reasons, too, not just maintenance reasons.

[Ken Moum]

Again, using the USGA handicap and slope guide, it seems most player (about 2 of 3 based on empirical evidence collected for that book) will hit a target about 15% of its width of the approach shot (i.e., 15 yards wide for a 100 yard approach shot, 30 yards wide for a 200 yard approach shot.)

That's an interesting stat.

According to Dave Pelz, (and confirmed by Shotlink data) PGA Tour professionals average miss is 7% of the distance.

IOW, from 100 yards they average 7 yards from the hole, from 200 they average 14 yards from the hole. That's almost exactly what the USGA is suggesting all golfer are capable of.

No wonder I think the slope system doesn't come close to accounting for the difference between scratch and bogey golfers.

BTW, here's the chart from Shotlink:

Proximity to the hole on approach shots

From 50-75 yards 16'3"
From 75-100 yards 17'11"
From 100-125 yards 20'4"
From 125-150 yards 23'5"
From 150-175 yards 28'3"
From 175-200 yards 34'5"
From outside 200 yards 43'0"

[PCCraig]

Last night I was watching the Golf Channel and they noted that 3 out of the 5 shortest courses on tour are being played this week in the AT&T Pro-Am. What struck me was that one of the courses mentioned on this thread was Pebble Beach.

My new question is this; is the easiest way to curb the low scores of top professionals to make the greens smaller? Many on here have lamented the lengthening of new courses, equipment technology, conditioning, etc., however the courses that still stand up to the tests of the best professionals have the smallest greens.

Just a thought.

[Tim Gavrich]

I would say that the best courses often have both very large and very small greens.  The best variety among green sizes that I can recall is Shelter Harbor in Rhode Island, and that variety has much to do with why it's probably one of my 5-7 favorite golf courses.

I can't speak much for my ideal hole per se, but if I ever get to design a golf course, I'd look to have some really small greens because I've always been fond of the quaint little New England courses that are ages old aqnd have tiny greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, using the USGA handicap and slope guide, it seems most player (about 2 of 3 based on empirical evidence collected for that book) will hit a target about 15% of its width of the approach shot (i.e., 15 yards wide for a 100 yard approach shot, 30 yards wide for a 200 yard approach shot.)

That's an interesting stat.

According to Dave Pelz, (and confirmed by Shotlink data) PGA Tour professionals average miss is 7% of the distance.

IOW, from 100 yards they average 7 yards from the hole, from 200 they average 14 yards from the hole. That's almost exactly what the USGA is suggesting all golfer are capable of.

No wonder I think the slope system doesn't come close to accounting for the difference between scratch and bogey golfers.

BTW, here's the chart from Shotlink:

Proximity to the hole on approach shots

From 50-75 yards 16'3"
From 75-100 yards 17'11"
From 100-125 yards 20'4"
From 125-150 yards 23'5"
From 150-175 yards 28'3"
From 175-200 yards 34'5"
From outside 200 yards 43'0"

Ken,

My - and I think the USGA Slope guide's 15% is basically 7% each side.....

[Drew Standley]

I find large greens much more difficult to putt.  Small greens generally only have one or maybe two prevailing slopes to read.  A large green (when I say large, I mean Champions GC Cypress Creek course) can have many fall lines that make the hole play drastically different one placement to another.  So, if I were to choose large or small with strategy in mind, I would go XXL.

[Pete Lavallee]

Last night I was watching the Golf Channel and they noted that 3 out of the 5 shortest courses on tour are being played this week in the AT&T Pro-Am. What struck me was that one of the courses mentioned on this thread was Pebble Beach.

My new question is this; is the easiest way to curb the low scores of top professionals to make the greens smaller? Many on here have lamented the lengthening of new courses, equipment technology, conditioning, etc., however the courses that still stand up to the tests of the best professionals have the smallest greens.

Just a thought.

Pat,

I had roughly the same thought while watching last night. No doubt Pebble started out with smallish greens, but they have shrunk extensively since the Egan redesign. Sand splash from the bunkers has also narrowed green space and ratcheted up the difficulty factor. If Pebble were to try to restore to the Egan look of the 20's, the greens would be to big and the bunkers too flat to challange the PGA Tour at 6900 yards.

[TEPaul]

Pat Craig:

You seem to be interested in knowing or discussing whether small greens are more strategic than large greens or vice versa.

It's sort of generalizing but I think large greens that really have a lot going on inside them (what we sometimes refer to as "greens with a green") are more strategic for most golfers.

I think the reason for that is a lot of golfers just sort of concentrate on hitting a green (usually via a yardage to the middle) and not all that much on where to put the ball on the green in their approach. For that reason, to me, the larger greens that have a lot going on inside them require more concentration to approach and are consequently probably more strategic, at least to me. I might even break that down into two categories of large greens----eg those that have a wide spectrum of DISTANCE consideration (like far longer than they are wide) and those that are the opposite (much wider than long) and require a wide spectrum of DIRECTION consideration.

And every now and again you see a fairly small green with a lot going on inside it like the 1st at NGLA or the 8th at Pine Valley or perhaps even Sebonack's #1.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()