eukeka!

[archie_struthers]

 


had an epiphany thinking about the tournament we just watched at Pebble Beach...maybe. Make the greens smaller not bigger and forget about fairness altogether in their design and construction. These guys have gotten too good at driving the ball and putting it too. We can't impact their prodigious distance advances much but we can make the greens a lot harder to hit. This may being a lot more bogeys back into the mix and shrink the gap between the very best in the world and the rest of us.


The main worry for me is the traffic issues on the greens and the maintenance issues it could create but maybe we cut them a little higher and promote the health , which would allow a little more creativity. Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:


That would work great.  It's no coincidence that the players' favorite courses on Tour (Riv, Harbour Town and Pebble) have the three smallest sets of greens on Tour.


The only problem is, whenever I ask a superintendent, they say they need 5000 sf minimum to handle the traffic.  The three courses I just listed are very busy places, and manage okay; but it's hard to work with someone and ignore their input.


The only really small greens I have built are at Sebonack.  Maybe someday I will get to do another set.

[Edward Glidewell]

I think small greens would slow down play considerably at most courses.


In my experience, mid to high handicappers tend to have pretty bad short games. It's a lot easier for them to putt from 90 feet away and get it somewhere relatively close to the hole than to chip it near the hole or even on the green at all. Chipping often results in a chunk, or worse, a skull all the way off the green on the other side and thus another chip. I suppose if the areas around the smaller greens were generally fairway cut it would be less of a concern because they could still putt from those lies.


I also could be completely wrong about that in general.

[mike_beene]

Although redos may have changed this, the only greens I can think of that might be smaller are Lakeside in LA and Cedar Crest in Dallas. Small greens are great if they don’t have rough all the way around.

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey EG I think you might be surprised when we analyze the short game differentials. Without any factual data just observation the biggest difference I see in scratch golfers versus pro's or even top flight amateurs is their putting. Bunker shots are pretty easy these days , chipping is a lost art , but putting separates those players the most.


So, perhaps you allow for more fringe areas, a bigger green complex but smaller green surface. Might make hitting a fairway a little more important so as to control your iron shots. Even at the club level you see the best putters generally walking away with the money at the end of the day. Hogan lamented this years ago, could be he was spot on!

[Marty Bonnar]

“Eureka” - Archimedes.
“Eukeka” - Archiestruthers.
Co-incidence?
 
F.

[MCirba]

I think the more problematic issue for the tours on smaller, slanted greens are number of hole locations.


I recall that some of the rationale for neutering the 12th and 15th greens at Merion prior to the 2013 US Open was the contention that 6 or more hole locations were needed with practice rounds and tournament play. 

[JMEvensky]

“Eureka” - Archimedes.
“Eukeka” - Archiestruthers.
Co-incidence?
 
F.

The Greeks had nothing on Archie --philosophically speaking.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I think small greens would slow down play considerably at most courses.


In my experience, mid to high handicappers tend to have pretty bad short games. It's a lot easier for them to putt from 90 feet away and get it somewhere relatively close to the hole than to chip it near the hole or even on the green at all. Chipping often results in a chunk, or worse, a skull all the way off the green on the other side and thus another chip. I suppose if the areas around the smaller greens were generally fairway cut it would be less of a concern because they could still putt from those lies.


I also could be completely wrong about that in general.

From 90 ft, the average player will get down in almost same number of strokes regardless if they are putting or chipping. This becomes more true the shorter the non-putting grass is, and if they are not in bunkers. On the whole, smaller greens surrounded by short grass will be no more challenging or slower to them than a larger green.


Contrary, the better player will always get the ball down in fewer strokes putting than chipping from the same length. Medium to long grass around the green is also preferable to them, as near approach misses are more inclined to land and stop, rather than run away. Also with short grass around the green they can not get under the ball as easily to loft it onto the green.


Small greens surrounded by short grass will be more challenging to the better player while having a minimal impact to the average player.

[archie_struthers]

 


Now we are cooking Ben !

[jeffwarne]

Always interesting to me that all the "advances" have led to more rules about what you CAN'T do in design.

[Thomas Dai]

Ref small greens and possible hole positions on them .... there was a time when the hole location stayed the same for all rounds of elite amateur and professional tournaments, even significant ones. And the players wore spikes back then.
These days they even more the hole locations between am and pm rounds at the Ryder Cup when there are only a few players involved and they are almost all wearing soft spikes or dimpled soled shoes.
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

I have to imagine the greatest elements on small green wear and tear has to be the soil and grass type. With high water demand grass on clay soil being the biggest culprit for why this won't work all over.


This reminds me of Geoff Shackelford's article from a few years ago talking about the practice in Australia of rolling your push cart across the green and how in America that action would get you kicked off the course. It also reminded me of something MacKenzie wrote about if you need to replace turf on a green, cut sod from the walkways off of tee boxes as that turf is the most compacted on the course and will make for a good putting surface.


This all being said, It would seem that it should be possible to develop a maintenance practice and/or use of a grass breed that would be more resilient to the traffic density experienced on a smaller green. Compared to the overwatered bent grass greens of yesterday, the small blade Bermuda greens that have become so standard across the South East seem to be a big step in this direction.

[Edward Glidewell]

I think small greens would slow down play considerably at most courses.


In my experience, mid to high handicappers tend to have pretty bad short games. It's a lot easier for them to putt from 90 feet away and get it somewhere relatively close to the hole than to chip it near the hole or even on the green at all. Chipping often results in a chunk, or worse, a skull all the way off the green on the other side and thus another chip. I suppose if the areas around the smaller greens were generally fairway cut it would be less of a concern because they could still putt from those lies.


I also could be completely wrong about that in general.

From 90 ft, the average player will get down in almost same number of strokes regardless if they are putting or chipping. This becomes more true the shorter the non-putting grass is, and if they are not in bunkers. On the whole, smaller greens surrounded by short grass will be no more challenging or slower to them than a larger green.


Contrary, the better player will always get the ball down in fewer strokes putting than chipping from the same length. Medium to long grass around the green is also preferable to them, as near approach misses are more inclined to land and stop, rather than run away. Also with short grass around the green they can not get under the ball as easily to loft it onto the green.


Small greens surrounded by short grass will be more challenging to the better player while having a minimal impact to the average player.

That may be true statistically (which is why I said I could be completely wrong) but it isn't true in my anecdotal experience playing with mid-high handicappers regularly. They tend to throw away the most shots from around the greens with aforementioned chunks and skulls. It's common to see someone just 20 feet off the edge of the green end up taking 2 more shots just to get on the surface and sometimes 3.

But I could just happen to be playing with a smaller subset where the short game is the biggest flaw in their game. They would all shoot at least 5 shots better every round if they didn't throw away so many greenside shots.


Also, I did specifically say that if the greens are surrounded by fairway cut it would make a huge difference compared to being surrounded by bunkers or rough. Those players I'm talking about would be fine as long as they can use a putter.

[Eric Smith]

“Eureka” - Archimedes.
“Eukeka” - Archiestruthers.
Co-incidence?
 
F.

Haha, brilliant. Some of your best work, F.

[Peter Pallotta]

Archie -
re smaller greens and shrinking the gap between the best and the rest:

Isn't there the risk of the very opposite result?

Especially today, the best are the best in large part because they hit it the furthest

Wouldn't smaller greens reward sheer distance off the tee even more disproportionately?

The longest hitters would have the shortest irons coming in -- and for both the best and the rest it's sure easier to hit a small green with a PW than it is with a 5 iron

[jeffwarne]

This reminds me of Geoff Shackelford's article from a few years ago talking about the practice in Australia of rolling your push cart across the green and how in America that action would get you kicked off the course.

another example of my above comment.
Some? courses in Australia aren't allowing that anymore?
please correct if I have that wrong

[Troy Miller]

The concept definitely has merit - the idea that smaller greens would slow play can be argued both ways - the data says players take longer over putts than any other shot, so having less putts could help. 


There's a lot of good in the idea of smaller greens from a resource and cost perspective as well.


Large greens that are segmented to the point they are effectively small and, perhaps, don't take into account "fair" could place a greater premium on putting in the same way short grass surrounds places a premium on creativity in the short game. 

The whining that would ensue among tour players over not having a guaranteed two putts would be deafening.

[Kalen Braley]

Bens comments on mid to high cappers matches anecdotally to what I've seen over the years.

Most strokes are typically thrown away before getting near the green in the form of topped shots, OB, Water,  balls hit in rough, balls hit offline, etc.  Its far easier for lessers players to mess up longer shots in much bigger ways with far larger consequences, than it is to mess up a 20 foot putt. On average HCs only have 2-3 GIRs for an entire round.  So smaller greens would have little psychological effect on the everyday joe, cause we already missing the vast majority of them anyways.

But for the better player that's used to 13-15 per round...

[Edward Glidewell]

Bens comments on mid to high cappers matches anecdotally to what I've seen over the years.

Most strokes are typically thrown away before getting near the green in the form of topped shots, OB, Water,  balls hit in rough, balls hit offline, etc.  Its far easier for lessers players to mess up longer shots in much bigger ways with far larger consequences, than it is to mess up a 20 foot putt. On average HCs only have 2-3 GIRs for an entire round.  So smaller greens would have little psychological effect on the everyday joe, cause we already missing the vast majority of them anyways.

But for the better player that's used to 13-15 per round...

You don't see mid-high cappers throwing away tons of greenside shots?


It's not that they don't also top shots etc. -- they certainly lose more overall there than anywhere else. But because they miss most greens (and will miss even more when they're smaller) they have a ton of chips, pitches, and bunker shots, and they often mishit those terribly. It's a compounding error when they finally get near the green and then take 2 or 3 more shots to actually reach the surface from there because of a poor short game. Chunks aren't a big deal because it doesn't take long to hit that shot again. It's the skulls across the green and off the other side that really slow things down.


I don't have a problem with small greens, although I wouldn't want every course to have them. Variety is important.

[Kalen Braley]

Edward,

No doubt the occasional big screw up does happen around the green, but most of the time, for most of the holes, these strokes are going to be lost due to bad tee shots and ensuing recoveries.

Consider two scenarios for say a mid length par 4:
1)  Player hits mediocre drive, after approach shot left 20 yards short of the green to the left.  Even if the next shot is a skulled wedge that goes over the back of the green, the player is still left with something that is likely no further away than their last shot and still a chance to get a up and down for bogey.
2)  Player yanks drive left OB or Lost ball in deep rough or bushes. Now they are sitting 2 on the tee and hitting 3.  They have to effectively "par" the hole just to save a double bogey, and more thank likely it ends up as a triple or worse.  Even in a scenario where they top the ball 30 yards off the tee, they now must string together 4 consecutive good shots just to save a bogey...also very unlikely.

In general the longer the shot, the bigger the punishment that awaits for lack of execution.

[Edward Glidewell]

Edward,

No doubt the occasional big screw up does happen around the green, but most of the time, for most of the holes, these strokes are going to be lost due to bad tee shots and ensuing recoveries.

Consider two scenarios for say a mid length par 4:
1)  Player hits mediocre drive, after approach shot left 20 yards short of the green to the left.  Even if the next shot is a skulled wedge that goes over the back of the green, the player is still left with something that is likely no further away than their last shot and still a chance to get a up and down for bogey.
2)  Player yanks drive left OB or Lost ball in deep rough or bushes. Now they are sitting 2 on the tee and hitting 3.  They have to effectively "par" the hole just to save a double bogey, and more thank likely it ends up as a triple or worse.  Even in a scenario where they top the ball 30 yards off the tee, they now must string together 4 consecutive good shots just to save a bogey...also very unlikely.

In general the longer the shot, the bigger the punishment that awaits for lack of execution.

Sure, but that wasn't the discussion -- my point was that smaller greens will slow down play for high handicappers because it's harder for them to get the ball on the green in general. I wasn't arguing that it would have a major effect on their score.


If the area around the greens is fairway cut it's less of a concern because they can putt, but those skulls from an attempted chip/pitch or, even more common, bunker shot, can add several minutes on a single hole.


I don't think it's a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but I just have a feeling that the average length of a round on a course with small greens would be higher than the average length of a round on a course with larger greens if all other things were equal. Of course, since some people take so long to putt, it could be an overall wash if the total number of putts decreases.

[jeffwarne]

Edward,

No doubt the occasional big screw up does happen around the green, but most of the time, for most of the holes, these strokes are going to be lost due to bad tee shots and ensuing recoveries.

Consider two scenarios for say a mid length par 4:
1)  Player hits mediocre drive, after approach shot left 20 yards short of the green to the left.  Even if the next shot is a skulled wedge that goes over the back of the green, the player is still left with something that is likely no further away than their last shot and still a chance to get a up and down for bogey.
2)  Player yanks drive left OB or Lost ball in deep rough or bushes. Now they are sitting 2 on the tee and hitting 3.  They have to effectively "par" the hole just to save a double bogey, and more thank likely it ends up as a triple or worse.  Even in a scenario where they top the ball 30 yards off the tee, they now must string together 4 consecutive good shots just to save a bogey...also very unlikely.

In general the longer the shot, the bigger the punishment that awaits for lack of execution.

Sure, but that wasn't the discussion -- my point was that smaller greens will slow down play for high handicappers because it's harder for them to get the ball on the green in general. I wasn't arguing that it would have a major effect on their score.


If the area around the greens is fairway cut it's less of a concern because they can putt, but those skulls from an attempted chip/pitch or, even more common, bunker shot, can add several minutes on a single hole.


I don't think it's a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but I just have a feeling that the average length of a round on a course with small greens would be higher than the average length of a round on a course with larger greens if all other things were equal. Of course, since some people take so long to putt, it could be an overall wash if the total number of putts decreases.

I might argue that small greens speed up play, as 2 players chipping(they tend to get on with it) goes way faster than 2 putting(they don't)
The pin in helps this equation a bit, for those who leave it in.

[Tom_Doak]

This reminds me of Geoff Shackelford's article from a few years ago talking about the practice in Australia of rolling your push cart across the green and how in America that action would get you kicked off the course.

another example of my above comment.
Some? courses in Australia aren't allowing that anymore?
please correct if I have that wrong

That's correct.  The greenkeepers in the sand belt have started asking players to take the trolley around the green so the grass will be ever more perfect.  That's the mechanism here:  the search for ever-better turf starts to impact what we can design.

[Tom_Doak]

If the area around the greens is fairway cut it's less of a concern because they can putt, but those skulls from an attempted chip/pitch or, even more common, bunker shot, can add several minutes on a single hole.


I don't think it's a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but I just have a feeling that the average length of a round on a course with small greens would be higher than the average length of a round on a course with larger greens if all other things were equal. Of course, since some people take so long to putt, it could be an overall wash if the total number of putts decreases.

I might argue that small greens speed up play, as 2 players chipping(they tend to get on with it) goes way faster than 2 putting(they don't)
The pin in helps this equation a bit, for those who leave it in.

I think you're both half right.  Greenside bunkers definitely increase playing time; so do greens that are easy to three-putt, because a lot of players take more time to line up a putt than they do a chip.