Mark:

We just built a really tiny green on our nine-hole renovation at Aetna Springs in California.  It's maybe 2,500 square feet.  

My thought was that the hole is a very short and reachable par-5, but that unless you hit the second really close to the green, you are still chipping for your third ... and if you miss the green pin-high, even though there aren't any hazards around it, it's only 40 feet across so it might be intimidating to get your chip to stop on the putting surface.  It will also be difficult to hit with a third shot if you scuff the second on the par 5.

I am fairly certain that it will not be a popular design strategy among many players, because it has the potential to embarrass them.  (I was also told that the one other architect who came to visit the site was completely befuddled and had no idea what to say.)  Mostly, though, I'm just curious to see how the hole plays.  I wouldn't have tried the idea on a full-scale course, but if it works as I think it will, I might be more likely to try it again someday.

<>

JMorgan, more freakiness...can't imagine the hell of that bunker!

Tom,

I think Simpson and Wethered wrote that reducing the size of greens was one strategy that could be used as a defense against increased length.

Is Aetna Springs a private course? It's likely hard to embarrass that lot; the regular golfers I played with at Rockport were not phased by the green pictured. We played it mostly in silence -- except for my "holy !#%$$, what is that?!"

It's a little 335-yard par 4 that closes like a vise on you. (335 is the way backs; it's just 291 from the member tees.)

Off the tee, if you choose an iron, the trees to the right direct you to hit your tee shot left, but there's plenty of room.



Past the trees on the right side of the landing area, the fairway is wide -- but who cares! On the approach, note the trees closing in.  Also, there's just a tiny opening front left.  Left, right and front right is bunker -- brutal when you consider you're faced with a tiny green sloped from back to front, meaning also that long is death.



Off the tee the ideal line is to hit as close to the trees on the right as you can -- but obviously not so close as to stymie yourself.  If you hit out to the "safe" left side, you must negotiate trees near the green that block your route.  

It turns out all that fairway is more like a mirage: the ideal route off the tee is really narrow.  Basically, you have to take a risk on either your tee shot or your approach shot if you want to make a score; you cannot avoid risk if you seek reward!

All of this is another way of saying: next time, I think I'll just try to blow it over the tree on my tee shot and take my chances with a flip wedge!

Mark

Ron, that sounds like the Wethered and Simpson idea.  How has the course been received? Are there any greens where you thought, "Maybe that one should have been bigger / smaller?" Was the client taken aback: did you have to sell them on it?

Lastly, I went to the site but couldn't find any pics -- do you have any to share?

Many thanks!
Mark

(Note: I tried the search function for "tiny greens," "smallest greens," "tiniest greens," and "freak show" but no luck! Apologies if this topic's been done...)

Tiny greens: I don't mean Pebble Beach-sized "small" greens, I mean really tiny "grotesques:" shrunken-head greens that aren't much in the CB Macdonald "portrait" department, the Eddie Gaedel of greens if you will. (Less than 3,000 sq ft seems to be the standard, but the pics below tell the story better.)

When and why do tiny greens get built?  Is there a certain proportionality to length that should be followed? I can see how a short par 3 or 4 can "support" a tiny green; on the other hand, par 5s are the longest hole of all yet sometimes are where you find the smallest green on the course -- but I dunno, ever see a tiny green on a par 5?!

Something about their size freaks me out, maybe it's a violation of some implied "law of proportionality" -- but I can't discount tiny greens as poor design, not when some of the best minds in the business have built them.

Such as...

Tillinghast -- Fenway 15


Crump -- Pine Valley 8


Coore -- Rockport 16


Steve Smyers -- Wolf Run 7 and 16 (the latter pictured here)


We also have Jerry Pate's 5th at Pensacola, according to Panhandle Bill's write-up.

Do you like tiny greens? When do they work best -- what element of the game are they best for testing? (Besides the "aerial wedge!")
Do you have any other examples / pics?
What are best practices in design? Should they present a ground game option, should they be defended by anything other than humps and short grass?

Thanks,
Mark

I grew up on a 9 hole golf course that the size of the town eventually outgrew but in it's time it fit need of the community.  The course has good vertical relief, perched on the highest property in town but is relatively short in length. No par 5's, 2 par 3's and only 2 holes over 400 yards.  The longest par 4 is 440 with the last 290 yards going downhill.  

The key feature of the course is small greens that seem to fit the length of the holes.  All in all, the green size/course length defends par quite well.  There are very few bunkers on the course and the rough is allowed to grow without narrowing the fairways or preventing bump and runs in front of the greens.

This little golf course is still a challenge requiring precise approaches and the rough puts pressure on recovery shots around the green.  Every year, there is a 3 day city tournament on all 3 city courses, including twice around this 9 holer.  It is very interesting to see how year after year that the tournament is won/lost by those who cope best with this little golf course.

Here's the 7th and 16th at Wolf Run.

#7, par 4 350 yds. Cool little hole that's made pretty unique by the TINY target on the second. There is some room short/left to bail though. The fairway is more generous than it appears from the picture.


#16, par 3, 130 yds. One of the scariest little wedge shots around. This hole I'm sure yields a fair number of birdies, but a greater number of others. Not much room to miss, but the hole does not even play its 130 yards because of being downhill.

I think tiny greens really work well for drivable par 4s, particularly when the green is set up to be much more receptive to wedges.  (That may kind of be a redundant thought)

It is tempting to try to drive such a green or to blindly hit a driver 50 yds short of the green when the smart shot is to lay back to a full wedge shot but does the golfer have the discipline to do so?  

On par-5's one tiny green concept works where you've got the option for guys to lay up near a series of hazards, or take the risk to get close to or on the green for their approach. If the green is too big, the guys won't have to take the risk. They can simply lay-up and hit a short iron onto the surface.

What's the design philosophy of tiny greens?

How could it be anything other than to create both strategic planning in play and a real demand for accuracy in play?  

And don't forget the mother of all small and STRATEGIC  greens---Riviera's #10

Unfortunately, very tiny greens do have one major drawback on some golf courses (with a lot of play). They tend to get beaten up pretty easily, and that's why some of their holes have ended up with double greens like Riviera's #10 and PVGC's #8.

What's the design philosophy of tiny greens?

How could it be anything other than to create both strategic planning in play and a real demand for accuracy in play?  

Exactly.

Cuscowilla's 5th and 12th are the best tiny greens I've played. Both require some tough choices from the tee and approaches that vary dramatically depending on the line you picked. Great holes.

Another is the 7th at Sand Hills.

Bob

I dont care for the last picture.I love small greens,but not when there is no dry place to miss.To me,the point of small greens is to bring the short game from defense to offense.That water looks difficult to play from.

Mike,
While the picture does not show it well, you can miss that shot as far right as you want. Good luck getting it up and down, but the ball is dry and findable. The bunkers are tiny, but they're dry too. If you want to try to hit the green you have to be precise, although its only a flip wedge. I love it.

Also:

Aren't bunkers, water, etc overkill? Don't we suffer enough?
What about contour and slope? What's the most you've seen on one of these?