Heavily contoured, and small

[Don_Mahaffey]

I can't speak for everyone, but I like contoured greens. However, it seems one major result of an architect adding contour is the size of the green grows. From an agronomic standpoint this makes sense as heavy contour and transitions reduces area for cups, so if you want contour and an abundance of hole locations, you need size.

I think you can build contour without large greens. One thing you have to do is make sure the traffic patterns don't exacerbate the fact that hole locations might be limiting. On the positive side, heavy contour encourages surface drainage so that may be a plus when dealing with limited cupping space.

I think the modern agronomic models outlaw heavily contoured greens that are on the smallish side. But, with agronomic advancements, why shouldn’t we be gaining the ability to push limits instead of going in the other more conservative direction?

I realized I don’t have any real good pictures of our 14th at Wolf Point. I’ve attached two, the first from the right side bunker, and the second from the much smaller left side bunker. Neither really shows off the wicked contours of this green.  This is not only one of our smaller greens, but also the only green with bunkers tight to the green on two sides.

This green is heavily contoured, but just a touch under 5K sq ft. obviously we don’t get much play so a green like this would never be built in the “real” world. Why? If we have the tools, and require our supers to have advanced degrees, and years of experience, why do we have to play it so safe?

[David_Elvins]

Don,

Some of my least favorite greens are small and heavily contoured.  I think they work ok in short par 4s but if you are hitting a 5 iron into a small target and it is pinging off slopes or pure luck that it finishes in a safe spot (not neccessarily close to the hole, just a possible two putt) then I think it is a bit silly.  Ridges, spines, tiers, etc don't belong in small greens IMO unless it is a short hole or devoid of surrounding hazards.

[Don_Mahaffey]

David,
I understand the formulaic view of green size and contour and how all should be calibrated against length of shot and all that. But what if the hole is really long and most of the “real” world is actually hitting a short approach shot since they can't get home in two? (this is often the case at the 14th at WP)

 And what if Johnny Good Golfer isn’t wise enough to figure that out? Is that bad formula because it breaks the “rules” of length/difficulty proportion?

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I've had this discussion with my associates (and Tom Mead) more than once.  Tom used to take care of Crystal Downs' greens, none of which are over 6000 sf, and nearly all of which have severe contours.  He always wondered why we had to make our contoured greens so big.

That said, the very example you picked from Wolf Point was the one green on the course that I thought was totally impractical.   There was some cool stuff on it, but it is barely big enough for your 2-4 rounds a day!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom,
I would agree that the 14th is too severe for a busy course, but melted down a bit, I think it could work. Maybe not for an LA muni, but certainly for 20K a year.

That said, if we are getting better at what we do, why the need for huge greens?

[Tom_Doak]

That said, if we are getting better at what we do, why the need for huge greens?

I agree with you there.  The only two places I've gotten away with building relatively small greens throughout the course were at Stonewall, on their original 18, and at Sebonack.  At Stonewall, I used the same argument you just made ... Tom Fazio had told them he did not want to build any greens under 6000 sf, for agronomic reasons, but I said if they wanted the golf course to be comparable to Merion and Rolling Green and the rest of the Philly courses, they couldn't get away with bigger targets.  And if Merion could maintain its small greens on old construction, why couldn't Stonewall on brand new USGA spec greens?

[Of course, Merion lost their greens the next winter due to ice damage, and again one or two summers after that.]

Everyone comments about how difficult Sebonack's greens are, but I rarely hear comments about how small some of them are.  One thing I will say about Jack Nicklaus is that he is not afraid to build a small green [4000-4500 square feet] and also not afraid to put the pressure on the superintendent's shoulders to maintain it.

But you probably wouldn't want to hear his assessment of 14 at Wolf Point, either. 

[David_Elvins]

David,
I understand the formulaic view of green size and contour and how all should be calibrated against length of shot and all that. But what if the hole is really long and most of the “real” world is actually hitting a short approach shot since they can't get home in two? (this is often the case at the 14th at WP)

 And what if Johnny Good Golfer isn’t wise enough to figure that out? Is that bad formula because it breaks the “rules” of length/difficulty proportion?

Don,

I like 'small' targets on long holes but I think it depends a bit on what we consider small. I would consider a 5000sq ft green to be normal, not small, in my mind.  Lets say you have a 3500 sq ft green, and then it has a spine bisecting it, all of the sudden your effective target area is >1000 sq ft.   Unless the hole is short, or it is designed very very well, it is going to be pretty horrible IMO.  A small titling green on the other hand will easily provide oodles of interest and strategy. 

[Connor Dougherty]

That said, if we are getting better at what we do, why the need for huge greens?

I agree with you there.  The only two places I've gotten away with building relatively small greens throughout the course were at Stonewall, on their original 18, and at Sebonack.  At Stonewall, I used the same argument you just made ... Tom Fazio had told them he did not want to build any greens under 6000 sf, for agronomic reasons, but I said if they wanted the golf course to be comparable to Merion and Rolling Green and the rest of the Philly courses, they couldn't get away with bigger targets.  And if Merion could maintain its small greens on old construction, why couldn't Stonewall on brand new USGA spec greens?

[Of course, Merion lost their greens the next winter due to ice damage, and again one or two summers after that.]

Everyone comments about how difficult Sebonack's greens are, but I rarely hear comments about how small some of them are.  One thing I will say about Jack Nicklaus is that he is not afraid to build a small green [4000-4500 square feet] and also not afraid to put the pressure on the superintendent's shoulders to maintain it.

But you probably wouldn't want to hear his assessment of 14 at Wolf Point, either. 

Tom,
My recollection was that St Andrews Beach's greens were quite small too, and had a bit of contour themselves.

[David_Elvins]

Tom,
My recollection was that St Andrews Beach's greens were quite small too, and had a bit of contour themselves.

It seemed to me that the smaller greens at St Andrews Beach had the least contour.  Of the greens with shelves, tiers or ridges in them - 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 18 - only 9 could be considered small and the back portion was a gathering bowl.  

The small greens 1, 5, 8, 10(!) 13, and 16 were all relatively devoid of internal contour compared to the other greens on the course.  If you put a ridge/tier/spine in the tenth or 16th green it would be mickey mouse IMO which was what I was sort of imagining in my comments to Don above.  

I ridge, spine, tier or anyhting else through the middle of this green (10th at STAB) would be silly, IMO. 

[V. Kmetz]

All interested in this debate MUST check out Siwanoy...highest inverse ratio of contour to size anywhere.

Everything that D.E. disdains is there (of course there are only three par 5s and only two par 4s at, or over 400...so the definition of long hole requires calibration)

cheers

vk

[Jim Nugent]

Don, how many reasonable pin positions are there on the 14th at Wolf Creek?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jim, Wolf Point.

Reasonable? I can tell you how many I use.
Front right, front left (some may not call this one reasonable)
The entire middle of the green, and back right.

There is a transition in front that is not usable, and back left has some humps and bumps that are not usable (but you get to deal with them when you wimp out to the wide bail out area on the left).

While Tom calls the green impractical, what I think he means is impractical for a busier course. We are not busy, thus the green is totally practical for our application.

 

[Adam Lawrence]

I recall the front left pin on that green being especially brutal....

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam, yes that is a fair statement; you have a good memory.

We don't use it often, but our "golfer" loves hard pins and whenever it is there he tells us how much he loves it.

Conversely, front right is a "catcher's mitt" and although it looks very hard, in my group we usually end up with a few kick in birdies. (Nuzzo and Ran both birdied it, so you know it is easy)

[Tim Gavrich]

While Tom calls the green impractical, what I think he means is impractical for a busier course. We are not busy, thus the green is totally practical for our application.

This is a key statement. Greens less than 4 or 5,000 square feet tend to be pretty untenable for heavily-trafficked courses, at least if you want them to be in good shape often. Add in significant contours to those greens, fuhgeddaboutit. Minimal-traffic course, do whatever you like, I say. But I think this explains why larger swaths of the golfing populace aren't exposed to this kind of putting surface.

[Travis Dewire]

Greens at tcc are tiny . Def Some slope and a killer downhill par 3 target pushed up green @ 130 #butter

9th green par 3 myopia hunt another small green but slightly larger than your pic . Not heavily contoured

How do small green sizes effect compaction ? Play is confined to smaller area = more traffic . Could u realistically initiate a separate cultural program for one or two greens much smaller and more affected than the others ?

[D_Malley]

i would throw Paxon Hollow out there as an example of a course with some heavily contoured, small greens. with green sizes of about 4500-5500 sq. ft. and some really good slopes on many of them.  the course does about 40,000 rounds per year and the greens are usually in pretty good shape. we do have excellent drainage and keep the speeds very manageable.

in october and november they can get much faster, the greens are alot of fun.

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed with the Paxon Hollow comments.

Also another one with small and ferocious greens is Phoenixville CC in Valley Forge, PA.  Its a short course so you will have wedges into most holes, but if you miss the green you are going to pay for it!

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags: