[Mark_Fine]

Greens, as we know them today, are a relatively new thing (less than 150 years old in a game played for hundreds of years before that). 

Would this change the game for the better or for the worse?  One challenge is obviously wear  on a small green. 

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,


I assume your thread title is your question?


If so, I think it wouldn’t make the “game” better. Aside from things like agronomics and expectations, the limited pin positions would hinder variety in the daily set-up of the course.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
I agree agronomic issues would be a challenge.  Multiple pin locations wouldn’t matter much because just like early on, putting was not an integral part of the game.  Some even wanted to reduce the value of a putt. 

[Joe Hancock]

OK. So, if we’re not putting (any more? Again?), then there is no need for a green at all, making the whole “1000 sq. Ft.” A moot point.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
As I said, maybe it is good for golf maybe not. 


Tons of people are using simulators these days for all kinds of reasons.  Some just want to hit balls, some want a golf fix in the winter, some want a quick round, some want to play a famous course,…, the reasons go on and on.  But one thing is pretty universal with simulators, the putting sucks.  Most don’t even putt and play 6-10 foot gimmies. 


Again it is just an idea.

[Tom_Doak]

OK. So, if we’re not putting (any more? Again?), then there is no need for a green at all, making the whole “1000 sq. Ft.” A moot point.

You’d still be putting, but maybe only inside 15 feet.


It’s an interesting concept, for places where you have to import sand to build the greens, and money is tight.  Doing it eighteen times might be limiting from the standpoint of variety, but you’d just have to rethink how you use that term.


Greens construction and irrigation are the biggest cost factors for golf course development; anything that helps limit them would enable better golf in places where the economics are marginal.

[Tom_Doak]

Edit:  I wasn’t thinking about simulators as that post crossed with my own, but of course simulators address my point very well - you don’t need good drainage or irrigation for a simulator.

[David_Elvins]

The purpose of greens is is much about a predictable surface to land your approach on, as much as it is about putting.


Some courses offer a predictable surface around the green, most do not.


Of the limited budget courses I have played with greens (or sand greens) approaching 1000sqft the enjoyment has been largely influenced by the conditions around the green.  If they are firm and predictable, the game is fun, if they are not, it makes for a pretty poor experience.

[Mark_Fine]

As I said, I don't know if it is a good idea or not but it is one to ponder over.  Taking away putting altogether might be too radical which was why I suggested a very small green surface where you could putt if you wanted to.  I am sure there are ways to mix it up.  And as Tom said, it is more the general concept of super small greens so the emphasis on the game goes to tee shots, approach shots and all kinds of creative shots around the small green surfaces.  Putting not so much. 

[Thomas Dai]

Question, genuine one .... given foot and maintenance traffic what would be the best way to make grass based putting surfaces more hard wearing? Suggestions taking climate, location etc into consideration welcome.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

One idea and one way to play it would be once a ball is on the small green it’s deemed holed.  However to retain interest and encourage short game prowess maybe the hole size is 8 inches or even bigger so if you just missed a green you still can chip in and save a shot.  Just an idea. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Mr Hogan[size=78%] would be all over this idea ..::particularly in his later years [/size]

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
He did think putting was way overrated 

[Ben Hollerbach]

At a certain distance, something like 35 or 40 feet from the hole, the average player is no better putting the ball than they are chipping the ball. But for the very best in the game they are much much better when putting than chipping from equal distance.

Ignoring the agronomy standpoint for a moment, smaller greens would increase the challenge for the better player while not impacting the challenge for the average player. Leading to a much higher demand on approach accuracy.

Now, the agronomy is a big hurdle and the feasibility of keeping good grass on a small surface can be too much for many non-sand sites, so maybe the best solution is to go back to dual greens. Alternating greens on a daily basis could help to reduce the wear and tear while still providing the same benefit of a small green.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I'm not so sure I accept your premise of smaller greens making no difference for average players, as average was the best I ever became.  For me the challenge in golf has always been getting the ball on the green, but once I did, that's where I excelled. 

So overall, this idea sounds awful to me, but at least now I know Mark must be an awful putter to even propose this wretched idea!

[Tim Martin]

One idea and one way to play it would be once a ball is on the small green it’s deemed holed.  However to retain interest and encourage short game prowess maybe the hole size is 8 inches or even bigger so if you just missed a green you still can chip in and save a shot.  Just an idea.

Mark-It wouldn’t appeal to me if the ball is not holed out. I’ve never been interested in playing temporary greens either as you don’t get to play the hole as intended and normally two putts is the max.

[Mark_Fine]

It was just an idea that might have merit and be another form of golf.  Who would have guessed a sport like Pickelball would catch on?  No overhead serves, you are using a wiffleball with a solid paddle, it is played in an area half the size of a tennis court, ..., and now it is everywhere and growing like crazy.  As I said below, more and more people are using simulators and some are skipping the actual golf course.  There are even simulator leagues and rarely does anyone putt inside 10 feet. 

In this case, there is no reason you couldn't putt on the small greens if you wanted to.  I can think of all kinds of variations you could have and design into a course like this. 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's true, I suppose, Mark.
I mean, look at the 'networks' -- can most people now even remember a time when "television" meant NBC, CBS, and ABC, with a little PBS thrown in for the eggheads?
I don't doubt that, like "television", "golf" will similarly mean something else in the years to come.

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
Golf as we know it will be here for generations and generations to come.  No worries there.  But it would not surprise me if more hybrid versions come out in the coming years.  Golfers love to hit golf balls (hence the popularity of driving ranges).  Putting adds a lot of time to a round of golf and large greens are expensive to build and maintain.  Again maybe there is a hybrid version?  Time will tell. 

[Mike Hendren]

One answer:


https://www.golfdigest.ie/the-digest/our-crusade-for-pitch-and-putt-golf.-where-it-began-golf-with-a-touch-of-irish-spin

Mike

[Jason Topp]

One possible modification of this idea - maintain a larger area like fringe which would allow putting but over a slower surface and only maintain the 1000 square feet area like a modern green.  It would be goofy but would hearken to the old days when the concept of a green did not exist. 


I am not too optimistic about this idea.  It sounds a bit like temporary greens all of the time.

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
Great article.  Thanks for sharing 


Jason,
Just remember, most temporary greens are put in the fairway in locations where the greens were never intended to be.  These would be purpose built greens with all the normal surrounds as you would see on a regular course. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()