[David Harshbarger]

Are there contemporary designs that emphasize small greens?


I ask because of two observations:


1 The US Open was noted to have small greens while also being one of the challenging courses played by pros; and


2 Sustainability demands will place pressure on resources and my understanding is greens consume the most resources per sq ft.

These observations suggest that small greens can be lauded on a top tier and challenging course and may be a required component of designs where resources are under pressure.


Are contemporary designers thinking in these terms and are new courses being built with small greens?

Tia Dave

[Tom_Doak]

David:


I think in those terms.


However, it's hard to build small greens now because


1) superintendents will say a small green doesn't give them enough space to move the hole around and keep the green from wearing out, and


2) many clients want bigger greens because they want golfers to be happy with hitting more greens in regulation [sadly, seriously]


Back in the 1990's it was pointed out to me that Tom Fazio's construction contracts specified that every green had to be at least 6000 square feet, and even if they drew one that wasn't, the contractor should plan on building a 6000 square foot green unless specifically told not to by Tom Fazio in the field.


He did that because he assumed that all the courses he built would be relatively busy with golfers, and he didn't want the superintendent to be in a tough spot.  That's become the standard.  [Note, too, that it was Tom Fazio who built an alternate green next to the 8th at Pine Valley, because the original green was "too small".]

[Tim Gavrich]

Very few modern golf courses I've played have had any greens that stand out for their smallness, and even fewer have small greens as a general rule.


One hole that comes to mind is the 7th at Shelter Harbor in Rhode Island, which I played about 15 years ago. That green was tiny but I recall it sitting almost in a little punchbowl feature. It was very cool. I note that around 2010 the hole was redesigned a bit and the current green is much larger.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tom,
Rather than building 1 green of 6000sqft per hole, what would be the impact to construction and upkeep if 2 greens of 3000sqft were built per hole?

I could see 2 smaller greens where the pins were rotated between the each green each day would help to provide the challenge of small greens while limiting the impact and wear to each individual green. Being they are only in play every other day, it may be possible to only mow 1/2 of the greens on a given day, reducing the amount of mowing time each morning.

More space around each green site would be required to locate each green within the routing and more irrigation may be required to properly cover each green. But the possibilities around hole design and setup that would be available would be very interesting.

[Wayne_Kozun]

What about courses that are being built that will have very limited amounts of play?  Do they have small greens or larger size greens?
Clubs here in Canada that fit this model would be Redtail or Memphremagog, and I believe that there are a number of similar courses in the US.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dumb question:
How does Pebble Beach host 60,000+ rounds a year at $500+ each on those small greens without golfers complaining, superintendents pulling their hair out, or surfaces being torn up?

[Tim_Weiman]

Dumb question:
How does Pebble Beach host 60,000+ rounds a year at $500+ each on those small greens without golfers complaining, superintendents pulling their hair out, or surfaces being torn up?

I think most people are just happy to be playing Pebble Beach. It might be a once in a lifetime experience or part of corporate entertainment where regardless of whether one is the host or the guest, complaining seems inappropriate.

[David Harshbarger]

Tom,
Rather than building 1 green of 6000sqft per hole, what would be the impact to construction and upkeep if 2 greens of 3000sqft were built per hole?

I could see 2 smaller greens where the pins were rotated between the each green each day would help to provide the challenge of small greens while limiting the impact and wear to each individual green. Being they are only in play every other day, it may be possible to only mow 1/2 of the greens on a given day, reducing the amount of mowing time each morning.

More space around each green site would be required to locate each green within the routing and more irrigation may be required to properly cover each green. But the possibilities around hole design and setup that would be available would be very interesting.

Sounds like the Japanese model though there they rotate greens by season from what I have heard. Interesting they went the same direction though the general unsuitability of Japanese hills to golf also contributes there as well.


Interesting.

[Carl Rogers]

Don't small greens require subtle slopes so that 90% of the green can be pinnable meeting the market demand for high green speeds?

[David Harshbarger]

Don't small greens require subtle slopes so that 90% of the green can be pinnable meeting the market demand for high green speeds?

If there was a trend towards smaller greens I would think that there would be more use of tilt and less of contour for that reason.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Rather than building 1 green of 6000sqft per hole, what would be the impact to construction and upkeep if 2 greens of 3000sqft were built per hole?

I could see 2 smaller greens where the pins were rotated between the each green each day would help to provide the challenge of small greens while limiting the impact and wear to each individual green. Being they are only in play every other day, it may be possible to only mow 1/2 of the greens on a given day, reducing the amount of mowing time each morning.

More space around each green site would be required to locate each green within the routing and more irrigation may be required to properly cover each green. But the possibilities around hole design and setup that would be available would be very interesting.

Ben:


Tom Fazio actually did something like that on a bunch of courses 25 years ago.  But, it’s not really two 3000 sf greens - you lose a lot of hole locations on the perimeter - something like 1500 sf - and if you build two small greens, you lose it twice.  So you need to build a total of 7500 sf to get the same number of hole locations as a single 6000 sf green.

[Tom_Doak]

What about courses that are being built that will have very limited amounts of play?  Do they have small greens or larger size greens?
Clubs here in Canada that fit this model would be Redtail or Memphremagog, and I believe that there are a number of similar courses in the US.

I wondered aloud why Shadow Creek had normal sized greens, and then it occurred to me that it might not stay super exclusive forever.


The two courses where I built smaller greens because the client said they wouldn’t be busy are Stonewall and Sebonack.  But you have to have a greenkeeper who is on board with taking care of small greens, too.  The 6000 sf standard is partly practical but also partly defensive; there are plenty of older great courses with greens smaller than that.  But some struggle with keeping their putting surfaces at the new highest (unnecessary?) standard.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben:


Tom Fazio actually did something like that on a bunch of courses 25 years ago.  But, it’s not really two 3000 sf greens - you lose a lot of hole locations on the perimeter - something like 1500 sf - and if you build two small greens, you lose it twice.  So you need to build a total of 7500 sf to get the same number of hole locations as a single 6000 sf green.

Tom,

I find this really interesting, could you please walk me through this a little bit more?

I can understand that there is area on the perimeter of a green that is not pinnable simply because of is proximity to the edge of the green. I believe the recommendation from the USGA is to keep a 5 yard buffer from the edge of the green to any pin position. So with 6000sqft divided into 2 regions the combined internal putting surface for each green becomes much smaller and less usable that the internal putting surface for one large green.

But how does this apply to the playability of the putting surfaces. Roughly how many pin locations would you be looking for when building a 6000sqft green? If to acquire the same number of pin locations between two smaller greens every pin on the pair of 3000sqft greens was required to be 5 yards from the nearest green edge, what would be relative impact to play compared to the inherent smaller size of the green? Meaning is the larger adjustment in play and difficulty related more to the reduction in green size or the proximity of the pins to the greens edge?

Beyond the pin proximity, If the practice was undertaken to rotate pins between greens day after day and between the 2 greens only ~6 total pin positions could be used, what other concerns would there be around the functionality of the setup?

Finally, Are any of the Fazio courses left that still use separate greens, or were they all eventually combined?
Thanks for chasing me down this rabbit hole.

[Niall C]

Ben


That's interesting about the USGA advice to keep a 5 yard buffer from the edge of the green. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of similar advice here in the UK and not sure who would offer it in any case. I think I'm correct in saying that the hole location has to be 6 feet from the edge (is that a rule or just how things work in practice ?) and I've occasionally seen it in practice, even on competition days.


Niall

[Mark_Fine]

Years ago, Riviera added alternate greens on holes #10 and #16 to spread out wear and tear on the primary greens.  It is always disappointing to get there and find out you are playing to the alternate that day 

[Tom_Doak]

That's interesting about the USGA advice to keep a 5 yard buffer from the edge of the green. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of similar advice here in the UK and not sure who would offer it in any case. I think I'm correct in saying that the hole location has to be 6 feet from the edge (is that a rule or just how things work in practice ?) and I've occasionally seen it in practice, even on competition days.

Niall:


There used to be something in the USGA Rule Book "suggesting" that hole locations should be at least five paces from the edge of the green.  Forty years ago that was pretty standard on Tour . . . over time they have gone from five to four to three.


On a small green [50 x 60 feet], if you take out 10 feet on all sides, you're only left with 30 x 40 = 1200 sf for hole locations.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:


Tom Fazio actually did something like that on a bunch of courses 25 years ago.  But, it’s not really two 3000 sf greens - you lose a lot of hole locations on the perimeter - something like 1500 sf - and if you build two small greens, you lose it twice.  So you need to build a total of 7500 sf to get the same number of hole locations as a single 6000 sf green.

Tom,

I find this really interesting, could you please walk me through this a little bit more?

I can understand that there is area on the perimeter of a green that is not pinnable simply because of is proximity to the edge of the green. I believe the recommendation from the USGA is to keep a 5 yard buffer from the edge of the green to any pin position. So with 6000sqft divided into 2 regions the combined internal putting surface for each green becomes much smaller and less usable that the internal putting surface for one large green.

But how does this apply to the playability of the putting surfaces. Roughly how many pin locations would you be looking for when building a 6000sqft green? If to acquire the same number of pin locations between two smaller greens every pin on the pair of 3000sqft greens was required to be 5 yards from the nearest green edge, what would be relative impact to play compared to the inherent smaller size of the green? Meaning is the larger adjustment in play and difficulty related more to the reduction in green size or the proximity of the pins to the greens edge?

Beyond the pin proximity, If the practice was undertaken to rotate pins between greens day after day and between the 2 greens only ~6 total pin positions could be used, what other concerns would there be around the functionality of the setup?

Finally, Are any of the Fazio courses left that still use separate greens, or were they all eventually combined?
Thanks for chasing me down this rabbit hole.

Ben:


I really just think about it in terms of usable area (see above response to Niall), and I don't really ever put numbers to it when we are building greens on site, but I am certainly making sure we have enough area not to wear out the hole locations.  It doesn't really matter how it's broken up, except if one of the areas is so small that you can't come back to it again a second time that week, that's probably too small.


For examples of Fazio alternate greens:  one of the back to back par-3's at Pelican Hill was that way; the 11th at Shadow Creek; and there was also a hole at World Woods (Pine Barrens), though I can't remember the hole number.  I think he did it on 8-10 courses but those are the only ones I remember off the top of my head.

[Michael Felton]

[Note, too, that it was Tom Fazio who built an alternate green next to the 8th at Pine Valley, because the original green was "too small".]

Dan Jenkins wrote in his book the best short par 4 is:


The eighth at Pine Valley. Put it down the hill on this dogleg right [left?] and you're left with only a wedge to a green guarded by bunkers, except that the green is only the size of a dinner plate. Actually, that's an exaggeration - it's more the size of an ashtray.


I think about that quote a lot. It's a wonderful hole, but my goodness does it tighten up the shoulders when you stand there. It looks to me though like both greens are about the same size - both in the 2,200 sq ft range (can't quite tell because the google maps picture of the left green has shadows on it that obscure the edges). I don't remember ever seeing a smaller green (other than on pitch and putt courses anyway).


Regarding newer courses, Friar's Head has some relatively small greens. 16, 17 are both in the 3,200-3,600 sq ft range and also the second largest green on Long Island (I hear) at almost 15,000 sq ft.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()