Small Greens

[Adrian_Stiff]

My Question is... "How small would you build a green"?

My thoughts are always that there is a definite minimum size in order to maintain a good healthy turf.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I love small greens because of my short game.  My favorite shots are those tht require imagination around the greens.  Green size does have something to do with amount of play a course get.  A course that gets 10,000 rounds a year can get away with maybe 5,000 square foot greens.  Not so with a course that gets 25,000 or more.  I just have never enjoyed a 60 foot putt.  I would much rather have a 60 foot flop shot.  
 

[Joel_Stewart]

I thought Olympic had smal greens until I played Pebble Beach last year.   Pebble must have the smallest greens for a championship course possibly in the world.   I give their staff alot of credit considering the number of rounds played, they are in pretty good shape.

[Glenn Spencer]

I love small greens because of my short game.  My favorite shots are those tht require imagination around the greens.  Green size does have something to do with amount of play a course get.  A course that gets 10,000 rounds a year can get away with maybe 5,000 square foot greens.  Not so with a course that gets 25,000 or more.  I just have never enjoyed a 60 foot putt.  I would much rather have a 60 foot flop shot.  
 

Funny. I love small greens because my short game is terrible. I need to see a good golf course that has smaller greens than Huntington CC on Long Island. I don't know how it could be possible.

[Andy Doyle]

My most surprising impression of Pebble Beach was just how small the greens really are.

I recently played the Links Course at Wild Dunes.  The short par 3 16th I think has the tiniest green of any hole I've ever played.  It can't be more than about 2500 sf.

Andy

[Jon Wiggett]

Really the size of green is only has to be big or small enough to cope with the amount of play and contours. Lots of play and/or strong slopes requires larger greens and less play does not. Outside that it is really a matter of the look and taste of the GCA plus maintenance budget.

[Adam Clayman]

The old nine holer in Holyoke Co. disproves the theory about minimum size. They get plenty of play and are tiny with severe movement and are in excellent condition.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Played golf at Harbour Town and Ford Plantation this past weekend-Both Pete Dye course with greens in the 4000 square foot range-tiny! We're int he ball bpark of 7700 on average with our smallest being 4200 and largest just under 14000.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Jordan Wall]

My Question is... "How small would you build a green"?

My thoughts are always that there is a definite minimum size in order to maintain a good healthy turf.

I played a hole this year that couldnt have been more than 1,000 sq. feet.

It was too small!!

I wish I had a picture.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adam,

while I can not comment on Hoylake Co. which I have never played it is unlikely that a 3'000 foot green will hold up when absorbing say 30'000 to 40'000 rounds per year. Every rule However requires an exception to prove it. Post pictures of it if you have some.

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:  I don't think you have to worry about the Holyoke golf course doing 40,000 rounds anytime soon.

However, the rationale you cited [you wouldn't be able to play 40,000 rounds on a small green] has all but eliminated small greens from the design palette of most architects today.  

When we were hired to build Stonewall years ago, I told them I wanted to build smallish greens to resemble the classic era Philadelphia parkland courses, and the client was concerned about it because Tom Fazio had told them they shouldn't build any greens under 6,000 square feet.  I countered that they had told me Stonewall was a private club which would not get heavy play [in fact they play less than 15,000 rounds per year], and I was talking about building greens out of perfect materials the same size as Merion or Philadelphia Country Club, which played 50% more rounds on poorer greens materials.  So they relaxed, and the greens have always been just fine.

You do have to be careful in picking your spots to build a small green -- it's not good to build one where there are shade issues or related traffic issues, and it's really not ideal to surround it with bunkers because of the walk-off issues and excavated bunker sand.  But where sound agronomy exists, a small green provides excellent variety, and I'm determined to keep finding spots for them on occasion so they don't go out of style.

I think the smallest green we've built to date is the ninth green at The Rawls Course -- a pinhead green for a short par five, all the more noticeable because it comes after a couple of really big greens.

[Doug Wright]

I think the smallest green we've built to date is the ninth green at The Rawls Course -- a pinhead green for a short par five, all the more noticeable because it comes after a couple of really big greens.

Tom,

Just curious--why did you build such a small green at the ninth at The Rawls Course (I haven't played it)?

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

The goal was to make it very difficult to get up and down if you went for the green in two and missed wide.  Since the hole usually plays into the prevailing wind, we thought a small green was appropriate for short third shots.  I have played the course in the opposite wind, when the golf coach could reach the green with a 7-iron second shot, but it was very interesting for him because of the small green -- if the green had been normal-sized the hole would have been defenseless on that day.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Two of my favorite short par 4's have exceptionally small greens:

#15 at Fenway
#5 at Boston Golf Club

What makes these holes so great are the options presented to the player on every shot of the hole.  You can play aggressively off the tee and go for the green or lay back to your favorite yardage.  Then, your approach must be pin point accurate or a double bogey can quickly appear on your card.  

[Doug Wright]

Doug:

The goal was to make it very difficult to get up and down if you went for the green in two and missed wide.  Since the hole usually plays into the prevailing wind, we thought a small green was appropriate for short third shots.  I have played the course in the opposite wind, when the golf coach could reach the green with a 7-iron second shot, but it was very interesting for him because of the small green -- if the green had been normal-sized the hole would have been defenseless on that day.

Thanks Tom. I'm sure paart of the challenge of a GCA is to make a hole/green works both ways--with and against the wind. I've seen that also at Pacific Dunes.

At the Pro-Am Q&A I attended at The International this year one of the Tour pros--Daniel Chopra--responded to my question about the impact of technology on golf course architecture by saying that small sloped greens were the best defense to today's modern players and equipment.

[Tim Gavrich]

Sharon CC in Sharon, CT has the smallest greens of any golf course I've played.  Many of them are under 2000 s.f., I believe.  But it's no problem, becuase the course gets very little play, seeing as most of its members are New Yorkers who go up on weekends.  A fun little golf course.

[Mike_Young]

The old Travis Course at Jekyll Island, Georgia..think it is called the Ocean Club has a 3 par green of less than 1500 square ft and it was possible it may have been 2000 ft at one time.....sits in a dune....sorry dont have a picture

[Forrest Richardson]

Phantom Horse (1985) still has my 2,000 s.f. (perhaps less) green at No. 15. I regreted it many years later — but I have forgiven myself.

[Pat Ruddy]

My smallest green, by far, is No. 11 on Montreal Island South.
A short par-3 to a pulpit green of about 1,200 square feet.
It requires a nice shot.
The run-offs are kept nicely trimmed and busy so the holeside gets not a lot more wear than any other .... and everyone does have to appoach that holeside on even the largest green.

[Jon Wiggett]

However, the rationale you cited [you wouldn't be able to play 40,000 rounds on a small green] has all but eliminated small greens from the design palette of most architects today.  

Tom,

I believe you are right on this point. I also think that we have lost out at the opposite end of the scale in green size as well. I believe that one of the main reasons that many of the classic courses have seen so many of their greens shrink is partly due to the increared amount of play and the pressure for the greenstaff to jam more maintenance work into an ever shrinking time frame. Thus the tendency is to round off the corners and maybe forget the false fronts.

Although contruction costs are higher for 27 holes than they are for 18 the maintenance there after is prectically the same if one of the 9s is closed each day for maintenance.

[ForkaB]

How small is the 10th at Painswick?  It seemed like it was only big enough for 10 tables - a very small restaurant!  I don't recall anything that small especially considering it is a blind shot.

Ciao

Sean

Great to see you finally warming up to Painswick!

That green ain't that small as I remember Robin Hiseman and I picking up our wayward tee shots (hit to within 15 feet), as our partners had both stiffed it and were conceded 2's.

And no, it is anything but a punchbowl......

[D_Malley]

my course has small greens and does over 40,000 rounds every year and they are generally in very good shape.  They are very sloped and we do not get them much over 9-10 in speed.  they are at least as small as Phila. CC, or merion, probably smaller.  i think the hole and course yardage should have more impact on how big or small the green should be, not the amount of traffic.  our course is 5800 yds. from the back tees, and is very challenging in part due to the green size and slope.

[mike_malone]

 Racetrack,

   You have so many hackers playing there that they hardly ever hit the greens ! That's why they don't get beat up

[D_Malley]

mike
we actually get some of our hackers from your club

[Adrian_Stiff]

How small is the 10th at Painswick?  It seemed like it was only big enough for 10 tables - a very small restaurant!  I don't recall anything that small especially considering it is a blind shot.

Ciao

Sean, I'd guess at somewhere around 1,500 sft. but much of it is unusuable of course, if you hit the green it all gathers so you can get a two! I cant think of a smaller green anywhere, it must be three times smaller than the 7th at Pebble. next time I am at Painswick I will measure it.