Percentage Pinnable Area per Green Size

[Carl Rogers]

As a companion thread to the maximum slope of a pinnable area (a consensus in the group of more or less 3% -- ok?).

What percentage of a green should be pinnable?

For the life of the green, wouldn't a small green need a very high percentage of pinnable area??

How many pinnable areas should a green have?  6? 10? 4?

[paul cowley]

Carl

I try to have a minimum of 3500 sq' per green....regardless of it's size.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,

good question. i agree with Paul mostly.  The texts say that a cup and the 3-4 feet around it that get worn take 14-21 days to recover.  So, that works out to 21 x perhaps 64 Sq Feet (8' box) or about 1400 sf.  But, in reality,that seems small and the smallest green I will do is about 48 x 80, or just less than 4000 sf, which if you draw a bunch of circles representing the pin areas, gets you 24 spaces.  (I do a few extra to fudge a little, knowing contours get changed, greens grow in over time, etc.)

[Jon Wiggett]

Paul,

does it not depend on the amount of play the course has?

[Mike_Young]

I'm not real good with formulas and it sounds like a lot of the ODG's just eyeballed their stuff......so I usually just think about it...then think about it some more and if looks ok I go with it....NOW I have learned not to do that with slope....al of us can get fooled there

[paul cowley]

Paul,

does it not depend on the amount of play the course has?

Jon

I mean 3500 sq' per green of pinnable space...ie areas that contain less than a 3% slope.
I've done 4,000 sg' greens that were almost all pinnable, and 8,000 sq' greens that only have 3500 sq' of pinnable areas.

For tournament set up I consider a fair pin to be at least three paces in all directions from the edge of the green or any slope that exceeds 3%, whether they be up or down slopes.....does that make sense?

I'm like Mike in that I rarely measure slopes in a green during construction, preferring to eyeball instead.

I am not particularly formulaic....in fact I resist it least I gel. I tend to learn more from my mistakes than from my successes.

[Bill Rocco]

Would it make sense to have at least 9 (front - left, right, middle, middle - left, right, middle, and back - left right middle) ? I know there are golf courses that do not have this due to slopes and that is understandable because they are achieving something completely different. I think more than 9 is necessary but those will give you a lot of variety since in theory you would of been on every major part of the green...for 9 or 10 pins per green, 300 sq feet per pin I would say you need around 3000 sq ft per green, breaking that down in percentages depends on size of green...

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think the formulas for pinnable areas and days of recovery are useful as long as you don't get too attached to them. You certainly don't want to give the super 18 greens where he's going to be fighting recovery issues because you built such small, severe greens. The key for me is a good balance. No problem pushing the envelope on a few if you’re going the other way on a few as well. Every course (at least all the ones I've been on) always has a few greens that seem to require more work than the others. I've learned to predict which they will be and I think if there is good reason to build a green like that, its fine as long as you understand it may require some extra attention and you give me a break on some of the others.
You can keep maintenance in mind during the design and construction phase and still build bold stuff, just don't over do it.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

I think I have built two greens that really didn't have enough pinnable areas on them.  One of them is at your course -- the 9th at Riverfront.  There is no way that one has enough useful area.

I have not seen it in years; so, how has it held up?  Is it in worse shape than the rest because of the concentration of traffic?  Because, if it isn't, this whole discussion is pretty meaningless.

P.S.  By nearly anyone's formula, at least half the greens at Pebble Beach would be dismissed as too small.  But, indeed, they used to have real problems keeping them well maintained with all of the traffic on such small surfaces.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Good points,although I only know a few supers in a rebuidling or new course situation that would want to purposely build tougher to maintain greens, which is understandable.  But, like you, I have seen some superintendents who might argue that all 18 greens should be huge with no contours anywhere, i.e., designed purely for maintenance over character.  Those help maintenance even more by reducing the number of players who want to play the course.....

I read the 14-21 day rule in Hurdzan's book and a few other texts.  In asking superintendents I work with, many really only have 6-10 good pins, although they are slightly bigger than a six foot circle, so you can see the old cup holes within a few feet of each other.  So, most have done well with less than perfect theoretical conditions for so long they might not know what to do with "perfect" condtions.

In real life, it seems most do very well with fewer than 14-21 pinnable areas, so trying too hard for 21 cup setting areas may be a theoretical need and a practical waste.  It might be that different cultural practices, greens construction method, etc., actually allow quicker recovery in the growing season.  And then in the shoulder seasons when grass grows slower, there are also fewer players, so the area around the cup doesn't get beat up as much, so it recovers faster or can be used again in slightly damaged condition with few complaints.

In any case, its not yet an exact science, BUT if the question is the minimum SF of cup space, I think its valid to ask what you can get away with......even if the answer may vary quite a bit from region to region, public to private, etc. and can't be answered well on a public forum.

TD,

You would actually be a good test case (as one known for highly contoured greens) to go back and ask the supers at courses you designed what THEY think of the useful area on your greens.  I suspect you do that when possible. I know I ask the supers what features I put in that give them the most trouble (occaisionally asking them to limit it to the top five to save time.......) Very few say they have too few pin locations, unless they think that the 2-3% slopes are now just too tricky given the faster greens.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
I didn't say I want a tougher to maintain green, but I'm a golfer first and if you build me one that doesn't meat every "criteria" and I have to spend a little more time on it, I'm OK with that. We need to be careful of all the systems management approach to greenkeeping. Just because a green or two on the course requires a little more thought and effort on the super’s part doesn't mean we have to blow it up and build a new one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Oh, I'm agreeing with you and appreciate that attitude in a superintendent. I recall being surprised one day when the superintendent casually shrugged when looking at a steep green contour and said, "Yeah, I just need to hand water that section."  As you suggest, most like their system, putting it on the blackboard and sending guys out to do the same thing every day.

But, even hand watering may be different than just not having enough space to move cups around, eh?  How exactly does a super spend extra time on a green with only 4 useable pin spots and 7 days in a week?  Can you make that green acceptable or is it visibly of less quality than the other 17?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
Obviously if you’re on a busy course with a green that only has four useable pin positions you’re going to have problems.
But, if I was stuck with that what would I do?
I would hope that if you built such a green you gave me some great traffic patterns with no pinch points for foot traffic or equipment.
I'd probably have this green on a nutrient program that included more fert at a higher frequency and I might walk mow it with a mower set just a tad higher. (every course I’ve ever worked at we had a walk mower set up for the step children)
Most importantly I'd had a well trained guy (or I'd do it myself) change the cups using a cutter with a depth gage and always use hole cutting guide...  

http://www.standardgolf.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=317&category_id=9&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=66

I'd replace the plug keeping the same orientation (match up the grain and knit in the edges and you’ll be hard-pressed to see the old hole) and always use a watering can. Lastly, I’d spend a little extra time fixing ball marks and applying sand by hand to any blemishes or areas showing wear. And, I’d make sure I had a good nursery.

I'm not advocating anyone build a green on a busy public course with only 4 pinnable areas, but supers all across the country find ways to deal with issues like that and quite honestly it becomes sort of fun to try and make something work that really shouldn't. For me pinnable areas aren't nearly as bad as greens in the shade or greens with terrible traffic patterns. Give people ways to get on and off the green and give the grass drainage and sun and you can make it work...but I'd still have a good green’s nursery.

  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
I didn't say I want a tougher to maintain green, but I'm a golfer first and if you build me one that doesn't meat every "criteria" and I have to spend a little more time on it, I'm OK with that. We need to be careful of all the systems management approach to greenkeeping. Just because a green or two on the course requires a little more thought and effort on the super’s part doesn't mean we have to blow it up and build a new one.

Wow, thanks Don. Are you married?

Huh?

[Carl Rogers]

Carl:

I think I have built two greens that really didn't have enough pinnable areas on them.  One of them is at your course -- the 9th at Riverfront.  There is no way that one has enough useful area.

I have not seen it in years; so, how has it held up?  Is it in worse shape than the rest because of the concentration of traffic?  Because, if it isn't, this whole discussion is pretty meaningless.

Tom,
I would say the ninth green has held up well through the years and particulary so in relation to the rest of the greens at Riverfront.  What has happened is that during the week, they sneek the cup into or very close to the 'unpinnable' areas.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

I'm sure it helps a lot that Andy Woolston, who came on board when we were building the course, is STILL the superintendent there.

When they hire somebody new he will probably tell them right away that the green HAS to be changed.  Maybe he can even quote Jeff Brauer on why it doesn't work.