The actual sizes of the putting swards , 1923

[Neil Regan]

Click to follow the link:


The Size of the Putting Sward
Research by C.V. Piper in the USGA Journal December 1923  

including a chart of green sizes of all 18 holes on each of 12 great courses. (The chart doesn't reproduce very well here on GCA as text, but it's clear at the MSU site)

Excerpt below, with some notable OCR malaprops:
 Putting Swarms  (weekend play at a metro muni ?)
 Ridiron shots (A water hole where your club follows your ball into the depths ?)

The actual sizes of the putting swards on twelve golf courses may be
of interest and are here tabulated. The same data were also requested from
a number of other well-known clubs, but have not been received. Analyses
of their sizes so far as type is correlated with area of putting sward, show
wide diversities. The total area devoted to putting swards also varies
greatly.
Some of these holes are not familiar to the writer; so there is doubt
as to the type of play the design calls for. Holes built for long high shots
are not very common; so in cases where the facts are not known it is
assumed there is an ample approach to the green.
It is worthy of note that only four of the twelve courses have swards
as large as 10,000 square feet.
TOTAL AREA OF PUTTING Swarms.-The total areas of putting swards on
these 12 courses range respectively from about 87,000 square feet to nearly
152,000 square feet. The average for the twelve courses is 117,781 square
feet. If one may place dependence in averages, this total area of 18 swards
is approximately what should be desired.
AVERAGE SIZE OF SINGLE SWABus.-This is least at the Apawamis Club,
where it is 4,852 square feet. It is nearly identical at Rhode Island and
Columbia. It is largest at Indian Hill, 8,428 square feet. The average
size of all the smards of all the courses is 6,544 square feet.
HOLES 115 TO 155 YARDS LONG.-Each of the 12 courses tabulated has
at least one hole in this class. Chevy Chase, Country Club, Inverness,
Cherry Hills, Indian Hill, and Rhode Island each have two. The smallest
putting sward in the class is No. 16 at Columbia, 4,000 square feet; the
largest is NC. 4 at Chevy Chase, 11,439 square feet. In the entire series
18 holes are found in this class. The average size of the swards of these
holes is 6,420 square feet.
HOLES 160 TO 195 YARDS LONG.-Nine of the 12 courses have holes in
this class. Of these 9, Columbia, Kittansett, Merion, Pine Valley, and
Indian Hill each have 2. Presumably most of these holes are designed to
be played with a midiron, or at least not with a spoon, The smallest sward
in the class is No. 13 at Columbia, 4,043 square feet; the largest is No.
13 at Indian Hill, 9,250 square feet. The green at Columbia slopes quite
strongly to the approach. The average size of the swards of the 14 holes
in this class is 6,389 square feet.
Dec. 15, 1923 UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION 317
HOLES 200 TO 235 YARDS LONG.-Ten of the 12 courses tabulated each
have at least one hole in this class, while Apawamis and Cherry Hills each
have 2. Columbia and Country Club (Brookline) have none. The smallest
swards in the class are No. 16 at Apawamis, 3,900 square feet; No. 10 at
Rhode Island, 4,480 square feet ; and No. 12 at Apawamis, 4500 square feet.
The largest is No. 9 at Chevy Chase, 10,695 square feet. The average size
of the 12 swards in the class is 6,867 square feet.
HOLES 290 TO 360 YARDS LONG.-All such holes, it is assumed, are of
the drive-and-pitch type. All the 12 clubs have holes in this class. Columbia,
Chevy Chase, Kittansett, and Indian Hill each have 3; Cherry Hills,
Hollywood, Pine Valley, and Country Club (Brookline) each have 4 ;
Rhode Island, Inverness, and Merion each have 5 ; Apawamis has 7, without
counting its 260-yard hole. The smallest sward in the class is No. 8 at
Pine Valley, 2,500 square feet ; the largest is No. 4 at Country Club (Brookline),
10,800 square feet. The average size of the 50 swards in the class
is 5,722 square feet.
HOLES 361 TO 500 YARDS LoNo.--Whether drive-and-pitch holes should
be limited to 360 yards or should be allowed greater length, is open to
question. IIowevcr, most of the holes of 361 to 500 yards usually require
more than a drive and a mashie shot. Among the 12 courses tabulated,
there are 103 holes in this class, distributed as follows : Xpawamis, 4;
Merion and Indian Hill, each 7; Cherry Hills and Pine Valley, each 8;
Rhode Island, Inverness and Hollywood, each 9; Country Club (Brookline)
and Chevy Chase, each 10; Columbia and Kittansett, each 11. The
three smallest swards in the class are each 3,600 square feet, being No. 13
at Rhode Island and Nos. 1 and 15 at Apawamis. The largest are No. 3 at
Chevy Chase, 12,565 square feet; and No. 18 at Pine Valley, 13,000 square
feet. The average of the swards in the class is 6,916 square feet in area.
HODES 500 YARDS IN LENGTH OR LONGER.-All of the courses except
Kittansett have at least one hole in this class. Apawamis, Cherry Hills,
Hollywood, Merion, and Pine Valley each have 2. Indian Hills has 3. The
smallest in the class is No. 14 at Apawamis, 3,200 square feet; the largest,
is No. 15 at Indian Hill, 10,185 square feet. The average size of the 18
swards in the class is 6,486 square feet.
It is dangerous to deduce conclusions from statistics alone, but the
above data are certainly significant. As before stated, the desirable size
of any particular putting sJv_ard depends on a number of factors, and unless
one is familiar with all of them, any criticism is apt to be gratuitous.
Eased on quite other studies than statistics, the writer believes the
sizes of putting swards generally desirable are about as follows:
Mashic holes____________ 4,000 to 6,000 square f&
Rlidiron holes~__________ 6,000 to 7,500 square feet
Spoon holes_____________ 7,000 to 8,000 square feet
Drive holes-____________ 8,000 to 9,000 square feet

[TEPaul]

nregan;

This early article and this type of article is what could fairly be called attempts to develop "scientific" architecture.

The author, C.V. Piper, was a US Dept. of Agriculture agronomist who with his partner R.A. Oakley were initially brought into the business of golf agronomy and eventually architectural analysis by the likes of C.B. Macdonald and particularly Hugh and Alan Wilson of Merion in and around 1910-1912.

Initially they were merely forage agronomists for the US Dept of Agriculture and they had no thought whatsoever for golf course agronomy. Their interest in golf agronomy and eventually other things golf architecture was primarily developed by the Wilsons of Merion who corresponded with them weekly for perhaps 10 years until they moved from the US Dept of Agriculture to become the Chairman and vice chairman of the new USGA Green Committee which in 1926 became formalized as the USGA Green Section during the USGA presidency of William Fownes (Oakmont).

A group of them (including the Wilsons and Toomey and Flynn) became the world's experts on golf agronomy through their experimentation with various grass strains, maintenance applications and disease analysis.

During this early formative time they also became interested in what might be referred to as a "scientific" analysis of golf course architecture such as green size compared to shot requirement, the expected cost of building anythng architectural and the manner in which to do it. In my opinion, this was the beginning of an analysis of "formulaics" in golf architecture.

Their initial efforts, particularly in organizing an informational clearing-house that eventually became the USGA Green Section began with the death of a fascinating man from Philadelphia by the name of Fredrick Taylor who invented a green construction method that could be called the precusor to the USGA spec green. Taylor also invented a process that became the basic structure of industrial employer/employee relationship that became the fundamental of American business.

Their efforts at the time of this article also included asking existing architects to expound in writing on their theories and principles of golf architecture. This is what inspired the USGA Green Section articles on architecture of the like of William Flynn and Max Behr and a few others current architects but by no means all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

nregan,

The concept is sound and widely practiced.

It equates to Risk/reward & shot value.

Imagine coming into # 12 at ANGC with a 2-iron or # 9 at Yale with a sand wedge.

I can hear TEPaul and others crying "formulaic", when it's just common sense.  

By the way, where is Mike Cirba ?
One of the great, anti-formulaic critics.

[TEPaul]

"I can hear TEPaul and others crying "formulaic", when it's just common sense."

Oh really, I thought we were talking about green size here, nothing more? Then the next time you get to the enormous green at #6 NGLA's "short" with your short iron in your hand or pehaps the ultra narrow and functionally small green of the very long #6 Creek with a long iron in your hand, perhaps you should just walk to the next tee as some kind of protest! They certainly aren't formulaically SIZED greens for their particular hole!  

This man is talking about size here! This thread is entitled;

"RE; The ACTUAL sizes of the Putting swards, 1923."

[A_Clay_Man]

It equates to Risk/reward & shot value.

Mouthful!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Please go back and reread post # 2.

I was talking about size.

How did you miss that ?  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Please go back and reread post # 2.
I was talking about size.
How did you miss that ?"

Pat:

I didn't miss a thing. I read exactly what you said in post #2 but you also said:

"I can hear TEPaul and others crying "formulaic", when it's just common sense."

All I said is that that article by C.V. Piper who was definitely not a golf architect was something that was attempting to study architecture in a "scientific" manner that dealt with the desirable size of greens for various lengths of holes.

I do admit that generally that's true in architecture (although just look at Chevy Chase's green sizes in 1923!) but not always so and I gave you a couple of good examples of a very short hole with a really large green (although functionally smaller) and another good really long par 4 with a functionally very small green.

Those examples only go to show that good architects do not always stick to formulaics in design with green sizes.

 

[RSLivingston_III]

Are some of the closely mown areas around the green included in his definition of Sward? They are discussing approach putting, I assume from off the green.
R3

[TEPaul]

"Are some of the closely mown areas around the green included in his definition of Sward?"

Yes, back in those days apparently there was a 20 yard radius rule around the hole that was considered putting green as long as there was no bunkering within that 20 yd radius. The putting green grass could be inside or outside the 20 yd. green or sward radius.  

As C.V. Piper points out in the article a perfectly round putting green with a 20 yd radius would be 11,310 sf.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I think that definition of "green" is something that prompted George Thomas to build his bunker in the middle of the green on #6 at Riviera.  

By the 20-yard-circle definition, Thomas correctly pointed out that there were lots of holes that had bunkers within the green.  The drawings of the 8th and 11th holes at St. Andrews in his book show that circle with the bunkers inside it.

Anyway, thanks to nregan for printing these numbers.  I think Tom is right that Piper was trying to make things a bit too scientific, yet it's instructive to see that there was a wide variety of green size among famous courses even back then.  Too bad they didn't collect data from more courses, since the numbers would be of great help in restoring any of the courses they measured.

THE LINKS has a short list of the "championship" yardages of courses in 1926 which is also great to have.  I reprinted a few of them near the back of the Anatomy book ... National was 6,163 yards in Thomas' day, Garden City 6,417, Pine Valley 6,446, and Oakmont about the longest at 6,707 yards.  Merion was the only course on the list which hadn't added tees.

[Neil Regan]

Does anybody here know the current green sizes at Pine Valley ? I will post the completed table below if somebody can tell me the numbers.
Neil

[/i][/u][/size]	PineValley[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]
[/i][/u][/size]	1923[/b][/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]	2003[/b][/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]
Hole#[/b][/i][/u][/size]	Length[/b][/i][/u][/size]	Size[/b][/i][/u][/size]	Length[/b][/i][/u][/size]	Size[/b][/i][/u][/size]
1	421	8,200	427	0
2	352	10,000	367	0
3	184	8,500	185	0
4	431	8,000	461	0
5	205	8,200	226	0
6	365	8,000	391	0
7	551	6,300	585	0
8	303	2,500	327	0
9	411	7,000	432	0
10	134	7,500	145	0
11	395	6,300	399	0
12	312	5,200	382	0
13	433	10,000	446	0
14	164	5,000	185	0
15	597	7,000	603	0
16	428	9,000	436	0
17	335	4,500	344	0
18	425	13,000	424	0
[/b][/size]	6,446 [/b][/size]	134,200 [/b][/size]	6,765 [/b][/size]	0 [/b][/size]

[ForkaB]

Toms P and D

If a bunker within that 20 yd. radius was considered to be part of the putting green, did the rules specific to the putting green apply, i.e. could one mark, lift, clean and replace a ball which happened to land within that bunker?

nregan

Thanks again for pointing us to this great resource.

[Neil Regan]

A great site with the history of the rules of golf, simple and clear. Excerpt below.

Rules History: The Putting Green [/b]

The Putting Green
The area around the hole, also called the 'hole green' or 'table-land' in the 18th and 19th centuries, was not distinct from the rest of the course, nor specially prepared, until a separate teeing ground came into use from 1875.

The 'putting green' made its first appearance in 1812 without definition, in Rules 8 and 13, then defined in the 1815 Aberdeen code as being within 15 (13.71m) yards of the hole, and in 1829 St. Andrews rules as being within 20 yards (18.28 m).  Both the terms 'putting green' and 'table land' were used in 1875.

1882 definition amended to be within 20 yards of the hole, excluding hazards.  That definition lasted until 1952, when the putting green was given its present day definition of being an area specially prepared for putting.  But, references to being within 20 yds of the hole still existed in relation to a ball striking the flagstick until 1956, or a competitor's ball in stroke play until 1968 when finally, all 20-yard references were removed.

Also in 1968, putting astride or touching the line of putt banned.

The hole size was standardised in 1891 at the dimensions of today.

[TEPaul]

"Toms P and D
If a bunker within that 20 yd. radius was considered to be part of the putting green, did the rules specific to the putting green apply, i.e. could one mark, lift, clean and replace a ball which happened to land within that bunker?"

Rich:

Unfortunately, I don't have that book that tracks the entire evolution of the rules of golf to refer to the exact meaning of the old 20yd radius rule which apparently was considered "the putting green" in 1923.

I got that from C.V. Piper's article here about the putting green. He refers to the "putting green" as a 20 yds radius around the hole as long as a bunker was not within that dimension. I believe he also mentioned that the height of cut was not a factor--in other words if fairway height was within that 20yd radius that was also considered the putting green and if green height grass was beyond that 20yd radius it wasn't.

As to marking and lifting one's ball in 1923 that was basically not allowed unless controlled by the rather elaborate "stymie rule" which allowed marking and lifting only within a scorecard length (6") of the hole or perhaps the other ball. I believe the manner in which the stymie rule worked changed too over time.

But the stymie was an interesting wrinkle. Some think it was something someone came up with in golf but it really wasn't, I don't believe. The stymie was simply something that developed due to a restriction in golf from touching one's ball.

The point is the original Rules of Golf worked under what were known as the "Two Great Principles". They were;

1. You play the course as you find it.
2. You put your ball in play at the tee and you DO NOT TOUCH IT until you remove it from the hole.

One can see that that second great principle basically prevented a player from marking and lifting his ball in almost all circumstances except those special rules that allowed relief from the so-called "styme". Again, those special stymie rules involved measurement with the length of a scorecard (6").

So, in a way the stymie merely became somewhat of an inconvience over time only because doing something about it involved tampering with that second great priniciple of golf preventing a player from touching his ball before he removed it from the hole.

As we know they finally removed the stymie in 1950 and now we can lay our hands on the ball on the putting green at will after marking it. Traditionalists still believe this violates that second great principle of golf!

[Neil Regan]

So, at 4.41 am, I ask: Does anybody know the sizes of the greens at Pine Valley ?
At 5.06 am I get the numbers, from Tom Paul (is anybody surprised ?)
This GCA site is a remarkable place.

Regarding the numbers, a note, and a question:
Obviously, the 1923 numbers are rounded, and presumably refer to something a little different than the current meaning of "putting green".
Are there any significant changes, or is the consistency significant itself ?

[/i][/u][/size]	PineValley[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]
[/i][/u][/size]	1923[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]	2000[/i][/u][/size]	[/i][/u][/size]
Hole#[/b][/i][/u][/size]	Length[/b][/i][/u][/size]	.    Size[/b][/i][/u][/size]	.     Length[/b][/i][/u][/size]	Size[/b][/i][/u][/size]
1	421	8,200	427	8,307
2	352	10,000	367	11,361
3	184	8,500	185	8,740
4	431	8,000	461	9,686
5	205	8,200	226	5,707
6	365	8,000	391	5,918
7	551	6,300	585	7,647
8	303	2,500	327	left=2,977,    right=2,685
9	411	7,000	432	left=6,316,    right=6,379
10	134	7,500	145	5,185
11	395	6,300	399	4,622
12	312	5,200	382	5,934
13	433	10,000	446	9,910
14	164	5,000	185	5,680
15	597	7,000	603	6,825
16	428	9,000	436	11,399
17	335	4,500	344	3,975
18	425	13,000	424	11,070
[/b][/size]	6446 [/b][/size]	134,200 [/b][/size]	6,765 [/b][/size]	131,259  131,030 [/b][/size]

   

[TEPaul]

"Obviously, the 1923 numbers are rounded, and presumably refer to something a little different than the current meaning of "putting green"."

n;

The 1923 sizes are rounded but if by refer to something other than "putting green" you mean that 20yd radius rule in 1923 I doubt it. I believe those green sizes in 1923 are actually the square footage of greenspace prepared with grass for only the purpose of putting (although the numbers are rounded to one hundred).

There are some very interesting differences in some of the green sizes from back then to almost now. I believe those differences tell a very intersting story. If anyone is interested in what that story very likely is I'd be glad to explain it.

[Neil Regan]

Tom,
  I see that since 1923,
  greens # 2, 4, 7, and 16 have grown, and
  greens # 5, 6, 10, 11, and 18 have shrunk.

What happened ?
The 5th and 10th especially interest me.

Neil