News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Conflicts ?
« on: September 09, 2006, 04:24:50 PM »
Small greens tend to present difficult targets, and would seem to be desireable features yet, increased play almost demands larger greens.

Is the solution to that inherent conflict the greens within a green concept ?

How else can architects present a small target while at the same time allowing heavy play/traffic ?

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2006, 04:32:49 PM »
Patrick,
   Most courses I have seen with really small greens get quite a bit of play and I don't find conditioning to be a huge issue. How many square feet are you calling small greens on average?

The problem with many greens within greens is the way they are tied together with boring tiers. However, they do pose a solution to the issue you raise.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

wsmorrison

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2006, 05:14:22 PM »
With firm green surfaces, not only do you get better playability but you get less footprints, spike marks and pitch marks.  The ideal maintenance for classic era designs and many of today makes it hard to find any ball mark at all.  This all helps the smaller greens stay functional.

A problem I see in some designs are that nearly everybody, despite pin positions have to walk off the greens in a very narrow path.  In the classic era, there was probably a lot less play than there is today.  Are the architects today sensitive to these walk off issues and if so, how do they ensure less traffic in one area?

One thing that really irks me is when people do not fix or do not properly fix their pitch marks.  I make a habit of fixing several on each green and I wish others would be more considerate to their fellow golfers.  This issue can be reflective of the club ethos.  My old club was notorious for poorly keeping up with pitch marks.  My new club does a terrific job in upkeep.  My old club has much better maintainence practices so their should at least be fewer ball marks.  My new club has firm and fast whenever nature allows and that's a good thing!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2006, 05:15:30 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2006, 05:23:40 PM »
But do firm and fast conditions cost more?

It would seem so - it's easy to overwater and green a place up, but to keep a course in playable condition while getting the grass and surfaces firm seem to this non-expert to be tougher.

Besides, don't most golf members want that AGNC look (which admittedly is very firm and fast).

John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2006, 05:33:38 PM »
Patrick,

A very good obeservation. A large green should be made up of a number of greens to provide interesting targets.

Ideally large greens are preferable to small greens to allow enough space for the firm and fast game and very definitly the “greens in greens” concept provide targets within the green surface which spices up the approach shot. I especially like the greens where there are more than three different internal greens – thus a shot that lands at the front of the green may require a player to chip or putt through 2 “internal greens” in order to reach the “pinned” internal green.

In fact I would go so far as to say a large green that doesn’t provide internal greens or putting areas has failed in it’s purpose to provide interest and entertainment to the golfer.

A featureless green is perhaps simpler to construct, simpler to maintain and simpler to get birdies but it is simply “boring”.

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2006, 05:41:41 PM »
Patrick,

St Andrews Beach is the perfect answer to your question. Smallish greens (but still sufficient variety in size) but with extensive closely mown areas around all putting surfaces which are maintined firm. No rough in sight around those greens.

A player missing these greens by up to 30 feet may still putt most of the time.


Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2006, 10:15:56 PM »
Domed greens where short siding yourself leaves a better chance at an up and down than being on the wrong side of the green

TEPaul

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2006, 10:45:55 PM »
"Is the solution to that inherent conflict the greens within a green concept ?
How else can architects present a small target while at the same time allowing heavy play/traffic?"

For God's Sake Patrick do I need to explain every solution to you? About 15 years or so ago golf managed to go from metal spikes to soft spikes, didn't they? The obvious solution now with small greens is completely obvious---eg all golfers must be required to only wear espadrilles on them. Personally, I'd be inclined to allow both bedroom slippers and Indian moccasins too. But under no circumstances would I allow bare feet as Athletes Foot can be far more deliterious to golf agronomy than pithium root rot.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2006, 07:19:35 AM »
Wayne Morrison,

Firm & Fast conditions can only be achieved if Mother Nature co-operates, and if the club has elected that presentation.

Mother Nature hasn't been kind to F&F this season.

I like the "Ladies Aids" that some architects created for exiting a green.

What you perceived, that others didn't, is the traffic patterns on a green that lead to excessive wear and tear with heavy play.  Small greens are usually entered and exited by the same route, day in and day out, thus causing stress.

TEPaul,

Frank Sinatra was refered to as "Old Blue Eyes"

Now I know why you've been refered to as "Old Blue Foot"

I was told that prior to a round, you took off your socks and shoes and splashed an abundant amount, if not the entire bottle of "footrub" on your feet.

This excessive amount of alcohol based product is what was killing your greens.

Unfortunately, your superintendent, a color blind "old timer" mistakenly believed that his greens were dying due to pithium root rot.

It wasn't until his assistant pointed out that the tiny little blue footprints all over the greens were evidence of your presence and penchant for dancing about after every two putt.

P.S.  Did you ever get refitted for your powder blue tutu ?

LBaker

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2006, 08:14:37 AM »
Dan Herrmann,

It cost less to have a firm and fast golf course.  I'll give you a few of the reasons.  
1. Less irrigation means lower electric bill
2. Less disease which means less spraying
3. Healthier soils.  This means the plant is self efficient.  Roots drive deeper, plant is harder which is a big factor with disease resistance
4.Thatch is reduced and now you're managing a "mat".  (a mat is a living profile instead of a grave yard for leaf tissue.)

Starting a firm and fast program could cost $$ in the beginning with overseeding, etc.  But the long term goal is cost effective and the playing conditions are far superior to any other.

TEPaul

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2006, 08:22:56 AM »
Patrick:

I'll tell you a pretty clever requirement that one club came up with when soft spikes were coming in and some of these clubs were concerned that some golfers might slip in certain areas, hurt themselves and sue the club for responsibility for making them slip and hurt themselves.

This club instituted a soft spike policy but only for the greens!  ;)

Pretty clever, huh?  :)

Jim Nugent

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2006, 09:36:11 AM »
Patrick:

I'll tell you a pretty clever requirement that one club came up with when soft spikes were coming in and some of these clubs were concerned that some golfers might slip in certain areas, hurt themselves and sue the club for responsibility for making them slip and hurt themselves.

This club instituted a soft spike policy but only for the greens!  ;)

Pretty clever, huh?  :)

Tom -- the obvious solution:  retractable spikes.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2006, 10:06:39 AM »
LBaker,
   Could you go into the "mat"/living profile a little more? I have not heard that term before.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2006, 11:05:49 AM »
Pat, I think you identify the most important reason that small greens present some problems as far as the compaction of few pin placements confined space and perhaps fewer options for walk-off.  

The only real answer for the archie to design smallish greens is to create appropriate surrounds, IMHO.  While Rustic Canyon does not have small greens, they do have appropriate surrounds maintained short and with their own set of contours.  Wild Horse is like that as well.  Firm fast and apron cut is also important in the surrounds if you are going to have a compliment rather than a conflict to small greens.  

Cultural practices to cope with increased traffic in a confined space is mostly about aeration and verticutting with light top dressing.  The living mat is the thatch layer of active organics rather than dead clippings.  Obviously, the superintendent plays the vital role in maintaining the smallish green.  the archie and super need to be on the same page.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2006, 11:43:06 AM »
Pebble Beach would qualify for a course with plenty of foot traffic and small greens.

I never saw a "real" problem, there.

Exit paths, on or near any green, may look like eyesores, to some. I find them beautiful and telling. It's evidence that golfer's walk, while simultneously telling the virgin where to go next.

When I see those little footpaths cut through native areas, I just feel better about a place.

Lawsonia's ramps, are another example where un-Augusta like conditoning, should be acceptable.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2006, 06:30:05 PM »
Adam Clayman,

Pebble Beach also enjoys cool nights and daytime temperatures and plenty of moisture in the air.

If if was 20 miles inland the wear and tear would be substantive, and a major problem.

Patrick Schultheis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2006, 11:54:15 PM »
Patrick and Adam -

I played Pebble Beach yesterday. While I love the course (I've played it ten times or so) I don't love the condition of the greens.

The greens have been very bumpy the last few times I've played. The fairways were punched in the last week or so, but not the greens. I assume that the heavy play and the moisture combine to keep the greens bumpy.

Patrick

Patrick Schultheis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2006, 11:54:19 PM »
Patrick and Adam -

I played Pebble Beach yesterday. While I love the course (I've played it ten times or so) I don't love the condition of the greens.

The greens have been very bumpy the last few times I've played. The fairways were punched in the last week or so, but not the greens. I assume that the heavy play and the moisture combine to keep the greens bumpy.

Patrick

wsmorrison

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2006, 08:04:43 AM »
Perhaps if the hole following one with a small green was designed with multiple tees so that golfers would walk off different parts of the green on different days, the small green wouldn't be stressed so much in one spot.  

The 12th at Rolling Green is a wonderful short par 4 with a very small green.  All the foot traffic exits the left rear portion of the green.  I suggested they rope off the exit at various times to force golfers to exit in other locations.  

Small greens can be a great feature.  Solutions to maintaining them with a high number of rounds played is key.  My point, though not well made, is that there can be design and maintenance practices that make small greens practicable.

T_MacWood

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2006, 08:10:13 AM »
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this or not, but what about the green within the green concept. Where the larger green is designed to have two or three or more distinctive smaller areas.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2006, 09:53:03 AM »
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. ;)

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

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2006, 10:29:39 AM »
Patrick Schultheis, Hello. I'm sorry to hear about the poor conditioning of the course. Especially if you actually had to fork over the cash to play there.

It's very commonplace for Pebble Beach to have less than desirable greens speed. Several factors are responsible, but clearly the worst time to play, is anytime near the concourse de elogance. (sp?)


Most of the green within greens I have seen are separated by higher ridgelines, These high spots are frequently prone to desication. The one's that don't have this problem, cascade downward to the other levels but don't quite create the same green within green feel.

I like Waynes suggestion of designing-in the next hole's teeing grounds, creating multiple paths.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 10:31:33 AM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2006, 03:42:41 PM »
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.



Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2006, 04:06:43 PM »
Patrick,

Again, a nice discussion topic. I recall commenting on the basics of spreading wear out last year in a similar topic.  I don't have time to type all that out, but here is an excerpt from some other writing where I do:



The classical design idea of small greens for short approaches is impractical today. Green size is a function of spreading play around, requiring bigger greens on all holes.  
 
That's because the 3-foot diameter around the pin setting gets worn, requiring daily cup movement to allow recovery. Full turf recovery takes three weeks, varying with agronomic problems like traffic, shade, humidity, and air movement. So, I actually plan for at least 24 cup locations, because we usually lose some cup areas somewhere between planning and playing.  
 
Each course must develop a cup-setting scheme that rotates wear areas and provides balance of length, hole-location difficulty, and that doesn't unduly favor any shot pattern, say, by having five cups in a row set on the left side of a green.  
 
I have seen superintendents divide greens into three (front-middle-back), four (a four square), five (four square with diamond), eight (sliced pizza pie) and nine (tic-tack-toe) sections for systematic rotation. (A seven-day rotation puts cups back in the same location for Saturday-morning regulars.) I design for six-cupping areas, using an abbreviated tic-tac-toe board:  
 
LEFT BACK/RIGHT BACK
LEFT MIDDLE/RIGHT MIDDLE
LEFT FRONT/RIGHT FRONT  
 
Each of the six areas boxes usually has four to six pin positions, or about 24 to 36 cup areas total. We add 12 feet around the green perimeter to keep the pin 10 feet from green edge, plus a few feet for a collar.  
 
We encourage the superintendent to set three pins daily in each green area, generally following the numbered sequence above on each green to move the pin as far as possible from the previous day's location. Play variety comes from setting the back left pins on Holes 1, 7, and 13, Holes 2, 8 and 14 would be right middle, etc. However, they must customize their settings to balance a mix of easy, medium and hard pins daily. They can also maintain the scorecard yardage daily by using back pins when tee placements are forward, and vice versa, but many feel varying yardage is better for variety.  
 
Minimum green size (based on width of eight 6-foot-wide pin diameters, and length of 13 6-foot-diameters) is about 48 feet by 78 feet, or about 3,000 square feet. This allows adequate cup rotation, but only if the entire green interior has slopes of less than 3 percent. In practice, most greens are bigger, with 6,500-square-foot average, and have many more interesting interior contours where they never set a cup.  
 
Forty-eight feet is the narrowest practical green width to avoid concentrated foot traffic and excessive turf wear. I have also found that if the edge diameter is less than 48 feet, mowing damage occurs along the green edges, leading to fairly simple green shapes.  
 
Like golf architects of the past, we design for a mix of play and aesthetic factors. While we can debate the merits of the first two endlessly, practical experience shows that if we don't design for heavy play by providing enough pin setting, we won’t get the level of maintenance golfers expect.

 


BTW, there are other things we can do to minimize wear on the greens, including:

Making the green WIDER on the cart path side, all other things being equal, to provide more walk up area

Design at least a foot of walk up width from the path for every thousand rounds, or ten feet for every thousand rounds in the busiest month (i.e. 50 foot wide for a 50,000 round course or 70 feet when 7000 rounds are played in the busiest month)

Make the walk up area for both the front of the green and from the cart path a constant slope to avoid "cow paths" in the most level area.  Avoid green shapes that funnel traffic (i.e., generally a simple shape or outside curve that is parallel to the path allows traffic to spread over the whole width of the intended area.

Avoid bunkers or mounds between the path and green that funnel traffic.


The 24 cup settings above translates to 48 X 100' (with rounded corners, this is about 4400 sf) which is the smallest practical on a high play course.  This assumes the entire green surface is useable for cup settings.  Any tier or slope steeper than 3% means we have to add area - usually depth or width should be increased by six feet to create a fully useable pin spot.

Those who say greens can be too big are right, if we consider maintenance costs.  Those tiers and unused pin areas must be maintained just the same, which is why so many courses have bland greens.  For that matter, the steeper slopes are always harder to maintain and require special care, doubling the cost of those areas on a SF basis.

If those green dividers can shoot a ball away from the pin, a larger subdivided green may actually be harder than one with gentle rolls throughout.  Economically, and strategically, a gently rolling green that can be cupped anywhere, but which presents generally harder putts the further you are from the hole because of moderate contours seem to work best as a compromise.

BTW, I think the bumpy greens at Pebble are a result of a mix of turf types rather than overwatering.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

LBaker

Re:Conflicts ?
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2006, 04:22:40 PM »
Getka,

My theory about mat in lue of thatch is that the mat has organic matter that feeds the soil organisms that live in the mat, which then the organisms help the plant cope with summer stress, etc.  To have F&F conditions, the mat has to be less than a .5 inch thick.  Why, because of water retention.  If you're thatchy, you get that spongy, sloppy, bumpy putting surface.  With the mat, the water can penetrate through the profile faster which in return benefits the grass and most important, the putting surface.  Basically, it's a natural aeration process.