[Adam_F_Collins]

In the "Character of the Greens" thread, Mark Brown commented:

"Overall, I think greens have gotten too big. We need to mix in some creative small greens

In addition, with large "greens within greens" I find it harder to focus, aim and hit the ball close to the hole because there's usually less definition"

I find this interesting. I play a lot of small-green courses and am sometimes shocked at modern developments, with their enormous greens.

Is bigger better in terms of greens? How much is added to cost of overhead and maintenance by large greens? I know that a green has to be large enough to accommodate traffic - but is there a lot of overkill in newer developments?

Do you find that you prefer larger greens?

[Tyler Kearns]

Is bigger better in terms of greens? How much is added to cost of overhead and maintenance by large greens? I know that a green has to be large enough to accommodate traffic - but is there a lot of overkill in newer developments?

Do you find that you prefer larger greens?

Adam,

Personally, I like to see greens vary in size, shape, orientation and contour - variety is king.

Larger greens are certainly more condusive to the creation of "greens within a green" design concept, because each "green" requires a decent amount of area to offer multiple pin positions. Further, they offer more variety in terms of club selection. My home course features a green nearly 60 yards deep, which personally demands anything from a PW to 5-iron approach, depending on the pin position.

As far as costs are concerned, building larger greens is not very cost-prohibitive. Labour costs will remain approximately the same, and the extra costs are tied to added materials, which in the overall scheme of a golf course construction project would be deemed rather minor. Long term, I think the most relevant cost to big greens would be the additional man-hours in the maintenance budget. The extent of which would best be answered by a superintendent, not me.

TK

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

Don't projected traffic patterns play a significant role in determining the size of greens today ?

How would 2,500 sq/ft greens on a course that gets 60,000 rounds per year fare ?

I think one of the beauties of larger greens is the ability for them to be diverse and to house greens within greens.

[Bill_McBride]

Our 14th green at Pensacola CC was the smallest on the PGA Tour for years, until 1982 when the Pensacola Open moved away because of the tight grounds.  Maybe 1800 SF, the green falls off abruptly in the back.  The 2nd green at Presidio in SF reminded me of that green.

A large deep bunker guarded the left side, and a fall off on the right penalized slightly off line shots.  The green was only 20' across the front and 60' deep.

Oh yes, this is at the far end of a 560 yard par 5.  During Q School the last few years, the young bucks actually learned our usual approach shot, which was a knockdown aimed for the front of the green.  Lofted approaches to the rear pins routinely bounced over, leaving difficult pitches.

Pat Mucci is right, wear was heavy, our 30,000 rounds a year saved it from being torn up.

I'm using the past tense here because the green has been torn up.  Jerry Pate is planning to build a similar green, only 2700 square feet.  Still small but 50% larger!

****
I personally prefer smaller greens.  Three putts from 60' are not unusual.  At PCC, if you hit a green, you had a makeable birdie putt!

[Jordan Wall]

I sure dont think greens are too big. Out of the three courses I most regularly play, the biggest green is like 5200 sq. feet.  There are three greens under 3000 sq. feet, and one of these courses is 7100 yards long with a 140 slope and 74.8 rating.  Actually, I wish greens were bigger.

Thats just me though...

[Jari Rasinkangas]

Patrick,

The projected traffic has to be the starting point when determining the size of greens.  Other design ideas come after that.

My home course, 27 holes, had 50 000 rounds in just about five months the active season lasts up here in Northern Finland.  The course is fully packed from morning till late evening (midnight sun golf) from June to mid August.

When course was designed in late 80's no-one could predict the amount of play we are now having.  The worst situation is on tees that are way too small.  Also some greens should be bigger.  When new 9 holes were designed both the tees and greens were designed much bigger to give some rest for the grass to survive the stress.

Jari

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Mark.  (He'll like Sebonack.)  Some architects have convinced themselves that 6000 square feet is about the minimum for most courses, and anything less will be worn out.  To me, that's an overreaction.  On a very-high-traffic course I might try to keep everything above 5000 square feet, but Pacific Dunes has a couple that are just over 4300, and they seem to hold up reasonably well.  Entry and exit points do become more important at that size.

Jack Nicklaus asked me before we started Sebonack what was the largest green at Pebble Beach, and how large it was.  It's the eighteenth, and I think he told me it's 3700 square feet.  Tiny greens on a busy course!  Harbour Town is another.

[S. Huffstutler]

Ihave 18 itty-bitty greens, largest is 6k sf. I have 1300 members, we go off both nines at 7 am, the greens are fine, the walkups are dead, though.

Regards

Steve

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()