At what point are greens too big?

[Mike_Sweeney]

This group has a love affair with large greens. I don't think I have ever seen an architect panned for creating a large green or for expanding an original green. Is there such a thing as too big of a green?

Patrick has been know to praise the #11 Biarittz green at The Creek for its flexibility. It is a monster.

The 10th at Friars Head is widely praised.

The 18th at Yale now has a sprinkler on the edge of the green post expansion.

The Eden Green at National has been expanded and the old bunker back right has been eliminated.

At what point is a green too big?

If it is too big, does it eliminate chipping?

What is the cost of maintaining a 5000 sq foot green vs 10,000?

What are examples of greens that need to be shrunk?

How many pinnable locations does a green need for regular member play of say 25,000 rounds a year?

[JESII]

Mike,

Other than Mr. Mucci's "Greatest Par 3 in the World" rant, are these large greens praised simply for being large or do they each have characteristics that do make them great that would be lost at 50% or 60% of current size?

[Dave Bourgeois]

RTJ courses seem to have large putting surfaces, but I never hear about the greatness of his greens. In some cases are the greens you listed praised because they have been restored to their original sizes (for the older courses)?  

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, "Too big" becomes an issue when the massive size negates any strategic opportunities. i.e.
 Someone recently posted about a specific archies use of large greens, I assume, combined with a flattish character, removed any strategy out in the fairway.

[mike_malone]

 I recently played two courses with huge greens---Yale and Wilmington (De.) CC.

   Dave,

      The greens at WCC were impressive but were much less intriguing than Yale. It seemed that Yale's were more playful and diverse. WCC were more engineered.

   Also, even though Raynor/MacDonald are famous for placing template holes that are manufactured , the WCC greens seemed less harmonious with the land.

[Joe Hancock]

Architecturally or economically?

Joe

[Mike_Sweeney]

Architecturally or economically?

Joe

Joe,

Since we focus here on the Top 1000 courses or so, I would say we can assume a bigger budget, but let's throwout clubs such as Augusta with abnormal budgets.

[JohnV]

Anything bigger than the 5th/13th green at the Old Course is too big.

I'd say it depends on the internal contours of the green.  If they are interesting enough, they can get very big and still be great because they will still require the player to hit a precise shot to the correct part of the green.

[Jim Franklin]

The 10th at Dismal River is 60 yards long with maybe 4 pin placements possible. That is way too big, way too undulating for a green that big. Oh, and there is a bunker in the middle of the green.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that outrageously large greens tend to eliminate chipping and devalue it as a golfing skill.  Now, I'm all for having greens with a multitude of different pinnable areas, but when we have greens that require relatively little skill to hit in regulation, we devalue the idea of a birdie putt.

The "greens within a green" concept is definitely acceptable to me, but at some courses, there seem to be a lot of greens out there with excess room.  The time to make a big greeen is when there will be sufficient penalty in hitting the wrong section.  Greens like that of the 9th at TOC seem like there would be plenty more interest and challenge if they were cut in size by at least half.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I grew up on a course with small greens ie less than 4000 sqaure feet. I loved it for it took a well played shot to hit the green and your short game had to be very good to score. However, links golf and many of the classical designs designed for firm and fast have large greens which are very interesting to me. I do find some of the greens Mike mentioned to be on the wrong side of big now. Also it is seldom one finds the greens as firm as the original course was. I find it more interesting to chip etc than to hit a 20 yard putt after a poorly hit iron. The Eden at NGLA may be too big now. Eden at TOC is just perfect. lol Champions in Houston has a 60 plus yard, maybe 100, deep green as well. It seems they keep saying it is a football field long. However it does fit the hole course and does not seem anything but fun to play.

[Michael Simes]

The architecture of a green, to me, should be such that it rewards precise iron shots, and that the penalty of an imprecise shot is proportional to the imprecision.  The 9th at Engineers (among many others on the same course) is a perfect example of a large green that fits the right model.  A very large green, and the penalty for missing it depends very much on the quality of the miss.  With a front pin, missing in the first bunker right leaves a relatively easy up and down.  Missing deep into the center of the green will almost guarantee a three-jack.  With essentially four little greens inside the larger green complex, it is a large green that still demands a great deal of precision.

It is only large greens that, as another author put it, devalue the birdie putt, that annoy me.  As long as the shot value of the approach remains the same, I'm not sure I care how large the green is.

[tonyt]

At what point is a green too big?

Adam nailed it with the point about loss of strategy.

A green can be 4000 sq foot and too big, or 9,000 sq feet and not big enough, all depending on the rest of the hole. It is a topic as wide open as "are short par 3s better than long ones?" Everything about this topic is on a case by case analysis to determine quality.

Needless to say, the more extremely large a green or the more tiny it is, the more is asked of the rest of the hole or the shots to that geen to make that size ideal.

[Joe Hancock]

Architecturally or economically?

Joe

Joe,

Since we focus here on the Top 1000 courses or so, I would say we can assume a bigger budget, but let's throwout clubs such as Augusta with abnormal budgets.

Many of the top courses must have deemed their greens too big from an economics standpoint at some time, based on all the talk about shrunken greens, underutilized greens pads, etc.

But, I understand. I think the answer is site dependant. Wind, elevation change, etc. all comes into play.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

At what point is a green too big?

When the incremental increase in size ceases to yield increased interest and strategic options.

If it is too big, does it eliminate chipping?

No, because chipping may not be an option in light of the surrounds or lack of surrounds.

What is the cost of maintaining a 5000 sq foot green vs 10,000?

You're asking: what is the cost to maintain the 1st green at NGLA versus the 6th green at NGLA ?

Does it matter ?
It is what it is.

Architectural merit and not cost should be the determining factor with respect to the viability of a green.

To state that: cost to maintain per square foot, should now be the deciding factor in determining green size, is to do a great injustice to the creative talents of an architect, at the expense of the golfer.  I'd go as far as to state that it would stifle creativity and result in bland design.

What are examples of greens that need to be shrunk?

TEPaul's bank account.  

I'd say that its greens that have been expanded beyond their original configuration.

How many pinnable locations does a green need for regular member play of say 25,000 rounds a year?

That's not the issue.
Now you're letting the tail wag the dog.
And, you can't answer that question absent the configuration of the green, along with its internal form.

Can we agree the the 1st green at NGLA had/has very few pinnable locations in terms of square footage ?

Can we agree that # 5, 7, 9 and 10 have a far greater number of pinnable locations ?

Is any of these greens less functional than any of the others ?

Or, do they stand on their individual merits, in harmony with the hole within which they reside ?

The relationship of the distance of the approach shot, the configuration of the green, the surrounds and other elements serve to form a critical mass where a green is highly functional in both the architect's and the golfer's mind.

All greens aren't created equal.

Nor should they be.

[S. Huffstutler]

I like small greens.


There, I've said it, I feel better.

Steve

[Tim Gavrich]

All greens aren't created equal.

Nor should they be.[/b]

While that may be true, I still believe that lately, the mega-green madness has gotten out of hand.  I believe that while there may not exist the plethora of pin positions that so many GCAers value, a tiny, well-appointed green can be at least as good as a grandiose one.  After all, you can only play to one pin placement at a time.  But that's neither here nor there.

Case in point: 18th green at the K Club.  Though it's guarded by water in front and left, there just seemed to be too much bailout room to inspire the heroic shots that the Ryder Cup necessitates.  Players were hitting into the middle of a gigantic green, often taking the water out of play, and walking off with a relatively simple birdie.  I think that if the green were halved and all grass to the right of center (of the current green) were maintained as vicious rough height, we would have been in for some more interesting nail-biters at the end of matches.

[Michael Moore]

I find it very difficult to hit the irons close to the pin on a huge green. The target gets swallowed up.

[Doug Siebert]

Michael, are you sure that's the case or is that just your memory being affected because you hit more greens when they are large, so you recall having some really hefty putts that would have been chips or pitches on a course with more petite greens?  Most of us hit a lot of greens at TOC, but man a couple of the putts I had I felt like I needed to tee it up to get it all the way to the hole

IMHO it all has to do with having reasonably accurate information about the distance to the pin, having front/center/back markers is probably not of much use on a green that's 70 yards deep, but so long as it has some shape and features about you can usually get a pretty good idea of where the pin really is, especially if you have a group ahead putting there to look at as they enter and exit the green -- if they walk towards the back I'll sometimes count how many steps the guy who puts the flag back takes before he gets off the green (and then guess about how long his strides are )

For pros with pin sheets down to the yard or guys carrying rangefinders, I don't see why the biggest of greens would present a more difficult target than the smallest.  Its all psychological at that point, some people need a good challenge on their approach, others get psyched out looking at tiny little greens that leave no margin for error.