[Randy Thompson]

As a player whats your opinion of small greens?

[Mike Nuzzo]

It depends on the miss.

[archie_struthers]

 


I built a small green on the 5th hole at Twisted Dune (NJ) . It's ok but pretty bland. Thought that more players would take a shot at the green if the conditions warranted. I just never liked the way the bunkers sat on this hole. The idea was to make anyone who tried to drive the green and missed right would have a nasty flip over the bunker and if you laid back the angle would be better . Just never worked as intended.


If able to redo would replace with a green without bunkers, raised up above the grade and falling away from the fairway a bit. But that being said I'm cool with small greens that are hard to hit.

[Forrest Richardson]

1,800 s.f. becase I was naive...lots of environmental pressure. Arizona Grand No. 16. Still there.

33°22'00.31" N 111°58'35.33" W

[Tony Ristola]

Must have been about 270 sq.m. …Perched up a bit, no bunkers on a par-5. Hollow behind the green.


We had a pocket of peat we needed to excavate as it was the best place to put the green (sun & wind). Little did we know, the ancient main drain line from the field cut diagonally through this pocket to exit the property. Operator busted it. Next thing we knew we had a nice big wet area.


It was at the far end of the property, and was difficult to access. Luckily we had a week of freezing weather to drive sand in to fill the greensite and surrounds.


The green would have been small in any event as the fairway was generous on the tee shot and about 70-meters wide for the second which is played over a pond and big waste area skirting the pond. It looks narrower from the fairway… needed that width to prevent balls from running into the trees. The idea is to have guys play aggressive, biting off as much as they dare to have a short 3rd. The further out, the tougher the 3rd shot becomes, and you’re likely looking to bounce your approach into the green.


Anyone taking on the green over the pond for their second hits down the length of the green, those playing it as a 3-shotter are hitting at a thinner target… about 15m deep.


With even an average size green, the hole would have been blah.

[Jeff_Brauer]

True to form, I once calculated that the minimum size green you could have and still have enough pin positions would be about 4,040 SF, I did one at 4,500, just to allow for the normal grow in that occurs over several years.  Even that probably wasn't enough.  Haven't been back, but a 4,000 SF green would maybe be a 40 SF after 20 years at the typical course, LOL>

[Kyle Casella]

Maybe what matters more is how small the the green "plays" v. the actual physical footprint. The 5th at Boston Golf is maybe 10 yards 12 feet wide by 60 feet yards long but it plays much smaller due to a significant false front and looks even smaller from the approach due to the contouring. The hole is 315 yards.


Note: Modified for horrible estimation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,


No doubt about that.  The basic rule of them is sunken greens, i.e., punch bowls, play larger than they are, and raised "fortress greens" play smaller than they are, while greens near grade level, with soft slopes around the perimeter play about the size they really are.


Given the need for minimum pin spots on all but the most exclusive golf courses, designing a 720 SF green (can it really be feet, or did you mean yards?) I doubt many designers would further reduce the target area and pin space by devoting some of that to a false front (or side, back).


I remember Jack Nicklaus telling me he wouldn't shoot for a target under 40 feet wide and deep.  I figure that any green smaller than that would be unplayable by all of us not as talented as JN in his prime.....which is pretty much all of us.

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Randy:


I have built three greens that were all around 2500 square feet - two at Barnbougle and one at Aetna Springs.  I chose that number because that’s the same as the smallest greens I’ve seen on top-notch courses, that seemed to play ok despite being “too small to maintain”.


The 12th at Barnbougle is that small because most of the material we pushed up to build it on the first pass was blown away while awaiting irrigation, and that was all the material we could scrounge up for the second attempt. 😀


The 8th at Aetna Springs was a tiny green on a very short par-5.  Easy to reach in two but hard to actually hit and hold.  Plenty of short grass around it after you got past the two streams on the second shot.


The 7th at Barnbougle is the smallest of the three because it is being eaten by the bunker to the left and the constant wind.  We are going to have to rebuild it one of these years.

[Carl Rogers]

Hi Randy:


I have built three greens that were all around 2500 square feet - two at Barnbougle and one at Aetna Springs.  I chose that number because that’s the same as the smallest greens I’ve seen on top-notch courses, that seemed to play ok despite being “too small to maintain”.


The 12th at Barnbougle is that small because most of the material we pushed up to build it on the first pass was blown away while awaiting irrigation, and that was all the material we could scrounge up for the second attempt. 😀


The 8th at Aetna Springs was a tiny green on a very short par-5.  Easy to reach in two but hard to actually hit and hold.  Plenty of short grass around it after you got past the two streams on the second shot.


The 7th at Barnbougle is the smallest of the three because it is being eaten by the bunker to the left and the constant wind.  We are going to have to rebuild it one of these years.

Tom, the green at Riverfront 13 is quite small also.

[Kyle Casella]

Kyle,


No doubt about that.  The basic rule of them is sunken greens, i.e., punch bowls, play larger than they are, and raised "fortress greens" play smaller than they are, while greens near grade level, with soft slopes around the perimeter play about the size they really are.


Given the need for minimum pin spots on all but the most exclusive golf courses, designing a 720 SF green (can it really be feet, or did you mean yards?) I doubt many designers would further reduce the target area and pin space by devoting some of that to a false front (or side, back).


I remember Jack Nicklaus telling me he wouldn't shoot for a target under 40 feet wide and deep.  I figure that any green smaller than that would be unplayable by all of us not as talented as JN in his prime.....which is pretty much all of us.

I meant yards!

[Ally Mcintosh]

5th at Boston is one of the skinniest I've ever encountered, even more so than 10th at Riviera...  Green is probably about 8 or 9 yards wide and 30 yards long.

I have less greens to choose from than most. Smallest is about 3,500 sqf

Ally

[Jeff_Brauer]

I had a summer job at a course where my mentors just out of school (Killian and Nugent) had been doing 1-2 greens per year.  My boss (the superintendent) pointed out the flaw in their design for the 6th green.  It was less than 40 feet wide, which, after subtracting the 12-15 foot minimum they wanted to put the pin from the left or right edge, left 10 feet, or basically one pin wide.


Had the green been a bit wider, they could have at least moved the front, middle, and back pins left and right, i.e.,


- two buffer zones of 12-15 feet (24-30 total)
- Two pin settings 8 foot diameter (the super used the standard 8ft flagstick as his measuring device for the minimum space between two cup locations, or 16 feet
- 2-3 feet each side for collars,  for 4-6 feet


That puts the minimum width (or depth on a shallow green) at 44 to 52 feet total, at least on a higher play course. 


I have measured the damaged areas around a cup setting, and they are 3-4 feet radius circles, but closer to 4 feet on busy courses, so the flagstick measurement makes sense to me.


If you want to figure some of the eventual growth inwards.....maybe as wide as Nebraska, I don't know, LOL.

[Matthew Petersen]

1,800 s.f. becase I was naive...lots of environmental pressure. Arizona Grand No. 16. Still there.

33°22'00.31" N 111°58'35.33" W

It has a pretty good back to front tilt, too. Probably wasn't as severe back when the course opened.

[Kalen Braley]

As a comparison, the smallest green at Pebble Beach is #11 at just over 2,000 sq ft. (Using Google Measurement Tool)

And while there are 5 greens under 3,000 sq. ft there are also only 4 over 4,000.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()