[Jim Hoak]

Pat--I don't know the last time you played Pebble but I don't think it is accurate to say that the greens are horrible.  In fact, given the climate and the amount of play and the poa grass, I think they are generally very good.  I don't know the maintenance budget, but I don't see it as excessive given all the play.

[Bill Seitz]

What are some of the best courses with a small set of greens?... And what is their average size?

Lakeside Country Club in Toluca Lake, CA (Max Behr) has easily the smallest set of greens I've ever played.  Wish I could give you more information on the dimensions.  I've only played it a couple times, but the last time I walked away feeling like I had a PGA Tour level short game.  It then dawned on me that it was just an illusion.  The greens are so small, you really feel like you have a chance to get up and down from anywhere as long as you can get the ball on the green. 

Behr also did the current layout at the Victoria Club in Riverside, which I've played quite a bit more (it was my school's home course in college for my senior year).  I recall the greens there were also fairly small, but they didn't strike me as universally tiny like the greens at Lakeside. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think many would be surprised how small their greens really are!

Pace a few off from front to back and side to side and take 80-85% of the area of that rectangle to account for curved edges.

The typical green might be 15 paces wide by 30 paces long.   45 x 90 feet x .8 =3240 SF, too small by most standards.

Recall that the USGA slope guideline basically calls an "appropriately sized green" as 15% of the approach length wide and about 23% deep (say for 150 yards, then 22.5 yards wide and 34.5 yards deep, or 67 x 104 feet deep.  That equates to 5574 SF, which as TD notes is one of the smaller greens that is typically practical.

Most gca's came to the conclusion long ago that the best way to test accuracy on those short approach shots is to build a bigger green, using internal contours to create smaller targets, while reducing ball marks, spreading wear, etc.

[Ronald Montesano]

Patrick...in the end, it's tomato, tomatoe.  You've got more people and you've got larger greens.

[Matthew Petersen]

Don't think it's forgotten at all, as the comments here prove that a lot of GCAs think about the issue and have found good reason to build bigger greens.

That said, I can think of a few places with small greens where the conditions allow. Best example that jumps to my mind is Southern Dunes, about an hour south of Phoenix. That was built as a private, men-only club. Thus the concerns about amount of play weren't such a focus. The club didn't make it, but the course survives and boy does it have some small greens.

Another point is that I've seen a number of greens where the total sf might seem substantial but because of the way the green is designed, it plays more like a series of very small greens. Consider a very skinny but very long green (or vice versa). You get the effective target size of a small green but with the flexibility to move the hole location around.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...in the end, it's tomato, tomatoe.  You've got more people and you've got larger greens.

Ron,

I think it's a case of cause and effect.

Increased traffic created the need for expanded tees and larger greens.

Larger greens and tees don't attract more members

[paul cowley]

It is rarely done, but if you wanted a hole with a really small green, you could build two 3,500 SF greens and alternate them.  Of course, given that you lose about half that green to perimeter where you wouldn't set the pin, 2 x 3500 doesn't equal the pin space of 7,000.

Jeff - I did that 10 years ago at Barefoot Landing #11...Par 3, 130 yds, two greens, each around 3,000 sg'...played alternately...fairly flat...3,500 sq' of combined pinnable space between the two.

No complaints that I know of.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When was Pebble Beach opened for play ?
Harbour Town ?
Riviera ?

Would you say, with the exception of Harbour Town, at a time when the number of rounds were minimal ?
Ergo, very little traffic ?

What modern day course has very small greens and what are the rounds per year played on it ?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Something to consider is the pass around most greens, ie the 1.75 metres the triplex mower is equal to about 1000 sq feet of putting green on most greens. You cant put the pin in that last 2 metres, so a 3,500 sq ft green really is actually very small for pinning. If they are small they need to be flat. fI you look for 3,500 of pinning space as a loose rule, with plenty of contours you often need to get up to 10,0000. Conversely another pass of that mower around a green can add a 1000 sq feet. Perhaps some older greens were larger when they mowed tighter with the pedestrian mowers to the bunkers.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

The smallest green I know of is Painswick's 10th.  I don't know how small it is, but it has to be considerably smaller than 3500 sq feet.  I wouldn't say its flat.  Sure, the club gets round the problem by not letting greens roll more than 7-8ish, but thats a valid solution. 


Ciao

[Robin_Hiseman]

Sean

I'd hazard an educated guess that the 10th green is in the region of 120m2 (1300sq.ft) all in.  Take out the 2 metre perimeter and steep interior slopes and you have a couple of legit hole locations...at best.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Delamere Forest prides itself on its small greens, a pertinent part of the course defences. They are at all times of the year some of the fastest greens in our neck of the woods and always in good condition. They are firm enough that they rarely sustain pitch marks. That said, some of the GCA people who played Delamere Forest after BUDA at Hoylake thought its small greens were much less interesting than the bigger ones at Beau Desert (also a Fowler course).

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think Robin is spot on with the size of Painswick's 10th green, whilst it has its charm, in the summer I have seen the green near bald in the centre. Coming up with small greens is fine but if you got small greens and you get lots of play its going to be a headache and thats an absolute fact.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

I am not refuting yours or Doc's claims, merely pointing out that small greens can and do work.  There is no one rule which does the job for everyone everywhere.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

I am not refuting yours or Doc's claims, merely pointing out that small greens can and do work.  There is no one rule which does the job for everyone everywhere.

Ciao

Sean - It really depends of 'degrees of working'. Painswick is the ultimate in rule breaking, it probably does less than 20,000 rounds so play is very moderate, small greens can work with low volume, I think the 10th green might only work properly for 8-10,000 rounds, if you see that green mid summer it can be like a cricket wicket after a test match. There is a one rule that is a definite though and that is foot traffic, maitenance traffic and ball marks are not good for a golf green so if you get lots of that (high volume play) you do not want a small surface. There is pretty much a formula we would all work to based on size/volume/climate. Golf course design is much more than just how a hole plays, sometimes u dare not push things to beyond reasonable limits to affect the agrinomics.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian,

I think you're correct, small greens can work on low volume rounds.

Things get dicey as the number of rounds increase.

[Pete Lavallee]

Interesting that the three smallest and argueably the best greens at Riviera, 6, 10 and 16 are all taken out of play once a week with even smaller alternate greens. Imagine getting to play Riviera on a Monday and having to skip the 6th, 10th and 16th greens. 

[paul cowley]

I'll go with Tom D's assumption of Pebbles greens averaging 4000'...but when I mowed them routinely in the early 70's they were closer to 5500'+.

Sand splash encroachment and ever steeper slopes and collars combine to create smaller green surfaces over time...especially with Pebble's climate.

I would bet from looking at early photos of the course they probably averaged 7000'+ when first opened.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

That's really interesting.

Do you think that historicaerials.com could help determine the exact amount of shrinkage ?

[Jerry Kluger]

Severe contours have become very common today and I would think that those contours significantly limit the number of hole locations on a green which in turn would cause a high amount of traffic in those areas.  Could the result be similar wear issues to those of small, less contoured greens? 

[TEPaul]

Guys:

As to whether the cause and effect of the relative rarity of small greens today really is only about more play and more traffic, it is probably more time effective to just agree with Pat Mucci on that point rather than having him spend the next ten pages endlessly arguing with y'all about it! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jerry,

Yes, severe contours on big greens can limit cup space as much as small greens.

It seems to me that every time golf enters a less prosperous era, the question of big greens with lots of contours come up, and most places decide its not worth building those kinds of greens at $6-7 per SF.  I suspect we will see a lot of 5700-6500 SF greens built with little contour - just enough to spread out the pins, but little extra for what will be seen by most golfers as "fru fru."

[Jerry Kluger]

TEP: Great to have you back.  We continue to argue with Mucci because there is always that faint glimmer of hope that one day he will say "You are right."

Jeff: I don't know that it is as much a financial consideration as it is a concession to what is in vogue.  A couple of small greens on a course with some interesting features around them can make for a couple of really good holes.  To me, recovery shots are a lot more than fun than lag putts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jerry,

Not sure what is in vogue, exactly, as it tends to be the big world theory that TePaul espouses. 

I can tell you that I have had clients who told me directly to keep greens to the absolute minimum to maintain costs.  In fact, since I typed this out, I am cost estimating a project right now, and cart path costs, greens, bridges are the big cost item.  To get anywhere near a reasonable budget I have tried to save existing path, cut irrigation down a bit, and reduced green size.  You have to cut the big ticket items to reduce budget.

I agree as an architect and player that in general, small greens and delicate surrounds are more interesting.  I usually include one biggie size green per nine for variety and spice only.  I also believe that the small greens are a bit of an equalizer between the gent who competes on finesse, over pure length, and prefer smaller greens for that reason, beyond just cost!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEP: Great to have you back. 
We continue to argue with Mucci because there is always that faint glimmer of hope that one day he will say "You are right."

Jerry, it hasn't happened yet.  But, when it does, I'll be amongst the first to say so.

Jeff: I don't know that it is as much a financial consideration as it is a concession to what is in vogue.  A couple of small greens on a course with some interesting features around them can make for a couple of really good holes.  To me, recovery shots are a lot more than fun than lag putts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()