Conflicts ?

[JESII]

I just do not see how this "green within green" concept presents a smaller target. On the green is usually going to be easier than off it. What is the most expensive part of a golf course to maintain acre for acre? If it is the greens (which I suspect, but really do not know) why would we be looking to increase costs without increasing the return. Unless, that is, you are looking to make the game easier.

JES II,

Have you ever played the 3rd and 6th green at NGLA ?

Being on the green is no guarantee that you'll get down in two or three.

I see the transition areas in this "green within green" concept as expensive unuseable space. Can we find a better solution?


Not really.

If wear and tear causes a green to have TLC & $ poured into it, it's more expensive than maintaining a larger green.

Pat,

I have not played NGLA but my point is this; it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from the areas you referrence when they are prepared as green than if prepared as fairway. These bigger greens designed as "greens within greens" cost more to maintain every day than a green with the same amount of pinnable space but no unuseable transition areas.

My opinion is that from a cost/benefit perspective the size of the greens needed to do what you're talking about are far costlier than alternative designs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have not played NGLA but my point is this;

it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from the areas you referrence when they are prepared as green than if prepared as fairway.

I don't know that I agree with that.
Being in the fairway allows one to use Lob-Wedges or 6-irons or any other club of choice depending upon the situation.

In addition, the orientation of the green may favor the short ball, or ball that's missed the green versus a ball that's already on the green, but, in a highly unfavorable location.

A visit to NGLA would help you visualize and understand the predicaments caused by being on the right green, but, in the wrong place..

Being short or in a fairway, where possible, on # 1, # 3 or # 6 doesn't make it more difficult to get up and down as compared with being in other sectors of the green.

These bigger greens designed as "greens within greens" cost more to maintain every day than a green with the same amount of pinnable space but no unuseable transition areas.

I don't agree with that either.

And, even if it was true, the differential in cost is nominal, with no substantive impact on the budget.

You're suggesting that costs dictate flat, easily maintainable greens, which would squeeze out the disinctive character of the golf course, that which seperates it from other golf courses.

There are reasons that CBM and others designed unique, functional greens within a green.  For challenge, interest, fun and strategic purposes.

My opinion is that from a cost/benefit perspective the size of the greens needed to do what you're talking about are far costlier than alternative designs.

Identify the elements that would make maintainance "FAR" costlier ?

There are none.

And, you've conjured up a false image with respect to the concept of greens within a green.  The 1st hole at NGLA is probably 5,000 sq/ft or less, yet, there must be five or six micro greens within the overall green.

[Jlyon]

The small green concept that I have seen work best is a long two shotter (440 yds) to a Ross style elevated small green with closely mown fairway grass around the green.  Very few ball marks.   Most of the beating takes place in the chipping areas.  The green is in great shape which can't be said for the chipping areas.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Lyons,

Isn't the establishment chipping areas drainage dependent ?

I've also noticed that when these areas are bowl shaped that there tends to be a spot where most balls come to rest, causing bad lies for many unfortunate golfers.

Would a false front qualify as a green feature within a green ?

[JESII]

I have not played NGLA but my point is this;

it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from the areas you referrence when they are prepared as green than if prepared as fairway.

I don't know that I agree with that.
Being in the fairway allows one to use Lob-Wedges or 6-irons or any other club of choice depending upon the situation.

In addition, the orientation of the green may favor the short ball, or ball that's missed the green versus a ball that's already on the green, but, in a highly unfavorable location.

A visit to NGLA would help you visualize and understand the predicaments caused by being on the right green, but, in the wrong place..

Being short or in a fairway, where possible, on # 1, # 3 or # 6 doesn't make it more difficult to get up and down as compared with being in other sectors of the green.

Re-read my post please, I said it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from a specific area if it is green cut as opposed to fairway. I am leaning on the greater margin for error characteristics of a putter as opposed to some chipping implement. I do not need to see NGLA to visualize how an easy chip is easier than a difficult putt. Virtually every green I have ever seen has this same characteristic you referrence, it is not solely illustrated at NGLA. Take those tough to putt from areas on #1, #3 or #6 and putt a lob wedge in someone's hands and tell me it's not more difficult than with a putter.[/color]

These bigger greens designed as "greens within greens" cost more to maintain every day than a green with the same amount of pinnable space but no unuseable transition areas.

I don't agree with that either.

Pat, I'm not concerned whether or not you agree, it's a matter of common sense. Whatever amount of square footage on a green surface that is not useable for hole locations because it is a steeply banked transition area still needs to be maintained at the same cost per foot as the pinnable space. So now you end up with X% of green space that is not useable for hole locations and the overall effect would be better with long flowing contours that present the same challenges as your "greens within greens" from an accuracy demand perspective but do so a bit better and a bit cheaper.[/color]

And, even if it was true, the differential in cost is nominal, with no substantive impact on the budget. You may say that, but in a time when every dollar counts I'd say that comment is irresponsible. Whatever area of internal greenspace that is devoted to transitioning from one "green within green" to another "green within green" is wasted money.[/color]

You're suggesting that costs dictate flat, easily maintainable greens, which would squeeze out the disinctive character of the golf course, that which seperates it from other golf courses.

No I am not, I am dictating continuity on the putting surface. Long flowing contours that create interest from the fairway, and even back to the tee, and help drain water off the green instead of creating the small collection areas so popular on USGA greens.[/color]

There are reasons that CBM and others designed unique, functional greens within a green.  For challenge, interest, fun and strategic purposes.

My opinion is that from a cost/benefit perspective the size of the greens needed to do what you're talking about are far costlier than alternative designs.

Identify the elements that would make maintainance "FAR" costlier ?

Size alone Pat. And it does matter. [/color]

There are none.

And, you've conjured up a false image with respect to the concept of greens within a green.  The 1st hole at NGLA is probably 5,000 sq/ft or less, yet, there must be five or six micro greens within the overall green.

Pat, If you are talking about a green having distinct small segments of a green, that is fine. My impression of the "green within a green" technique is to make it very challenging to make par from one of these sections to another. To say that #1 at National has 5 or 6 micro greens within its 5,000 sq/ft gives me the impression of something different.

Is there a "green within green" green at some course we have both played so I can really understand what you mean. Pine Valley perhaps?[/color]

[Bryce Mueller]

i know that obviously i am brining up a unique place, and probably one of the best short par 4's of all time, but i love how pine valley uses two greens on #8 to avoid the problems of such a small green, and therefore is able to keep the conditioning of the small greens fantastic. I played both greens on back to back days, and spent most of 9 the 2nd day trying to figure out which was better...

is it that much more expensive to make two smaller greens, or that much tougher to create/ design?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Re-read my post please, I said it is easier to get down in two, three or whatever from a specific area if it is green cut as opposed to fairway.

That would depend upon the orientation and configuration of the green and the location of both balls.

From the back of # 1 at NGLA it's doubtful that you'll get down in fewer strokes to a front pin location than from the fronting fairway.


I am leaning on the greater margin for error characteristics of a putter as opposed to some chipping implement. I do not need to see NGLA to visualize how an easy chip is easier than a difficult putt. Virtually every green I have ever seen has this same characteristic you referrence, it is not solely illustrated at NGLA. Take those tough to putt from areas on #1, #3 or #6 and putt a lob wedge in someone's hands and tell me it's not more difficult than with a putter.[/color]

It's not, because you can get spin on the wedge.
Before the back left bowl on # 1 was altered, no approaching putt could hold the green, but, a wedge with spin could get to, and remain within the bowl.


Pat, I'm not concerned whether or not you agree, it's a matter of common sense.

No, it's not.
It's convoluted thinking contrary to the principle of creating greens with character.

Whatever amount of square footage on a green surface that is not useable for hole locations because it is a steeply banked transition area still needs to be maintained at the same cost per foot as the pinnable space. So now you end up with X% of green space that is not useable for hole locations

So what ?
Under your convoluted thinking every area of a green must be pinnable in order to cost justify it's existance.  Ergo, you favor boring, uninteresting greens that have moderate slopes.
The inherent purpose of a green isn't to have every square inch pinnable.


and the overall effect would be better with long flowing contours that present the same challenges as your "greens within greens" from an accuracy demand perspective but do so a bit better and a bit cheaper.[/b]

But, they don't present the same challenge, and you've contradicted yourself.  The "Long Flowing Contours" you seek require large greens, which as you said, are more expensive to maintain.

Your taste in design is large boring greens with little in the way of contour.

My taste in greens is for the 1st, 7th and 9th at Friar's Head, # 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 at NGLA.  The 13th at Somerset Hills, the 8th and others at Hidden Creek, Plainfield, Winged Foot, etc., etc..  

And, even if it was true, the differential in cost is nominal, with no substantive impact on the budget. You may say that, but in a time when every dollar counts I'd say that comment is irresponsible.

Then you have a lot to learn about maintainance costs.

What you don't understand is that by creating large boring greens without contour, the golfer's interest will wane, causing play to be reduced, along with revenues.  That cycle usually leads to the demise of the golf course.


Whatever area of internal greenspace that is devoted to transitioning from one "green within green" to another "green within green" is wasted money.[/color]

That may be the dumbest statement I've ever heard on this site, and I've heard some really, really dumb ones.

Please, think about what you just said.

You would squeeze the distinctive life out of every green, and stifle the creativity of every architect to save a nominal amount of money.

With 40+ years of serving on green committees and as a green chairman I"m qualified to draw that financial conclusion.

You're suggesting that costs dictate flat, easily maintainable greens, which would squeeze out the disinctive character of the golf course, that which seperates it from other golf courses.


No I am not,

I am dictating continuity on the putting surface.

That's absurd, putting surfaces have inherent continuity.

Long flowing contours that create interest from the fairway, and even back to the tee, and help drain water off the green instead of creating the small collection areas so popular on USGA greens.[/color]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

USGA greens are extremely difficult to construct with pronounced contours.  It's rare when it's attempted.

As to drainage, pitch and perc removes water and highly contoured greens drain very well.

"Long flowing contours require large greens, which as you stated, are expensive.  You can't have it both ways.

As to interest from the fairway, and "even back to the tee", are you telling me that you can detect contour from a quarter of a mile away from a green ?

Do you feel that the vast majority of golfers study the green on a par 4 and par 5 from the tee ?

Would you also name me five courses with small collection areas that are so popular on their USGA greens.  I'd appreciate it if you could cite the greens as well.

There are reasons that CBM and others designed unique, functional greens within a green.  For challenge, interest, fun and strategic purposes.[/b]

My opinion is that from a cost/benefit perspective the size of the greens needed to do what you're talking about are far costlier than alternative designs.

Identify the elements that would make maintainance "FAR" costlier ?

Size alone Pat. And it does matter. [/color]

But you've stated that you want, that you prefer, "Long flowing contours".  That feature inherently demands a large green, the very thing you're against.  You're confused or conflicted.

And, you don't need a large green in order to create pronounced contours, that's just one of the flaws in your position.

There are none.

And, you've conjured up a false image with respect to the concept of greens within a green.  The 1st hole at NGLA is probably 5,000 sq/ft or less, yet, there must be five or six micro greens within the overall green.

Pat, If you are talking about a green having distinct small segments of a green, that is fine. My impression of the "green within a green" technique is to make it very challenging to make par from one of these sections to another. To say that #1 at National has 5 or 6 micro greens within its 5,000 sq/ft gives me the impression of something different.

That's why I suggested that you try to see it in order to better understand the concept.

Is there a "green within green" green at some course we have both played so I can really understand what you mean. Pine Valley perhaps?[/color]

Have you played Hidden Creek ?

If not, would you like to play Hidden Creek ?

If so, would you like to bring that Cretin who lives down the street from you, TEPaul ?

Bryce,

It is more expensive to create two seperate greens and maintain them.

If you liked # 8 at PV, what did you think of # 9 ?

[Bryce Mueller]

well to me, 9 at pv is a totally different kind of hole depending on the green. granted, the first day i hit a poor drive and had 6 iron in to the back left pin on the left green, and the 2nd day i pounded a drive and had pw into the right green...

personally, i just found the left green so much more attractive than the right, where as on #8, i thought they were both exceptional...  having only played each green once though, i probably don't understand the merits of the green right on #9 enough though, to definitively say that it is a weak link...

[JESII]

Pat,

In your post #32 I got cross-eyed and was really not sure who wrote what due to the bold type and blue type and the combinations of the two. I'll try to reiterate my position on this.

My impression of the "green within a green" scenario is that a large percentage of the total green space on a particular hole is dedicated purely to transition from one "green" to another. This large percentage may be 20%, 30% or even 40% of the total green space on a single hole and from a strategic perspective (I call it value added to the hole) can be a negative because the shot demands after missing those areas, but still hitting the green, are not as interesting as when the player actually misses the green. On top of that, the penalty is lower because the player is putting and not chipping. Remember, when I say that I am referrencing putts versus chips from the exact same spot but with the requisite fairway or green presentation.

Now again, if you are going to tell me that a fraction of a green that has room for a single pin position which is totally and completely segregated and distinct from all other pin positions on that green exemplifies teh "green within a green" philosophy I would probably retract everything I have said so far on this thread. I am under the impression that this term, "green within green" means some area, or space greater than just one hole location.

Trouble is, if you are going to take that position I'll have a completely different argument about why it is not "the solution".

[TEPaul]

Sully:

As you've probably guessed, I am somewhat fixated on creating and using a bunch of little "catch" phrases and terms---eg "Maintenance Meld", "Big World" theory, "turbo boost" and "anti-turbo boost". I like them anyway but I also think if they can gain some currency they tend to help define certain things far more clearly and definitively for many more people. I think "Maintenance Meld" (MM) or "Ideal Maintenance Meld" (IMM) is getting there.

I tell you this because the term "greens within a green" (GsWG) is my term----you can look back deep into the orignial threads on this website and see that.

And I also tell you this because it will act as a reminder to one Patrick Mucci that every time he uses that term he either needs my written permission or he owes me one American greenback in royalty via copyright laws or his lawyer will be hearing from my lawyer and I will sue Patrick's ass clear across the state of New Jersey, or even America or the rest of the world depending on the purview of the term "GsWG".

But what does it mean and where did I get the term? I got it at NGLA after playing my first National's Singles tourney there. Basically, I'd rarely seen a situation on a green where if you happened to hit your approach into the wrong area of some greens your ability to two putt was virtually nil. The reason for that was that if you were in the wrong section of some of those greens (ex.#1,3,6,11,12,15) your chances of two putting was very poor to virtually impossible and on a few of them such as #1 or #3 your chances of even holding the ball in that segregated area ("green with the green") of the pin might not be good.

We've had a bunch of threads in the past on this website on the "greens within a green" concept and most of them concentrated on those NGLA greens.

The playability factors of "greens within a green" like those mentioned at NGLA is that they are highly strategic in an approach shot sense, perhaps way too intensely strategic for most golfers.

The reason they are that way is the transition areas on the green to get from one green section to another green section (with the pin in it) within the entire green are such that the golf ball will either build up too much speed or too much break on those transition areas and will simply not stop anywhere near various pins or even in the area ("green" (within a green)) that the pin is in.

But that's the "greens within a green" concept and theory at least the way I coigned it and used it on here about six years ago.

But the really cool thing about the "greens within a green" concept is if there actually is some way to transition the ball to the pin from one area ("green within a green") but it takes a huge amount of imagination and adept concentration and execution to do so. In that vein we are of course getting into the mind and imagination and execution ability of a putter like Ben Crenshaw.  

[JESII]

It's a cool concept Tom, and based on this thread it looks like I may owe you a few greenbacks as well which I would much prefer to pay in red wine some time.

As stated, I cannot really referrence the greens at NGLA within this conversation but I can certainly understand the situation you and Patrick have described.

Tell me, on those 5 or 6 greens at NGLA that you two point out as tremendous examples of the "greens within a green" ($$$) concept, how large are the specific micro greens that are really distinct and segregated from the rest of the features of that green? Not the entire green space, but rather, the actual (approximate) square footage of the small segments of green space that are so difficult to recover to.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
I may be mistaken, but I think one of the CBS talking heads referred to #14 at AGNC as having greens within a green.

Much better than my only contribution  - zamboni (-ing) - verb- to use a towel to move leaves or other loose impediments from a green surface.  For some reason, it never caught on  

[Jlyon]

Patrick, I'm not a drainage expert so I will defer on that issue.  The key in my mind is the counter intuitive mixture of a long hole with a small green.  From my experience this green has the fewest marks and seems to be in better shape than the larger par 5 or par 3 greens.  Very few golfers are able to hit this green from outside of 120 yds. More and more golfers are putting the ball onto the green (putter or fairway wood) because the small green has 3 false sides where an errant chip from a tight lie will result in the "still your turn" comment.  So your comment that this hole represents the "green within a green" is very insightful.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I may be mistaken, but I think one of the CBS talking heads referred to #14 at AGNC as having greens within a green."

Dan:

Did he refer to it that way six years ago or more? If not, my GsWG term is getting some pretty good currency in some pretty interesting places.