What's the Design Philosophy of Tiny Greens?

[Mark Bourgeois]

(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

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[David_Tepper]

Tom D. -

Speaking of Aetna Springs, can you give us an update on when the course will re-open? I had heard a target date of around July 4.

DT  

[JMorgan]

<>

[Tom_Doak]

David T:

The opening date for Aetna Springs has been pushed back because we couldn't get a permit to turn on the pump station as early as planned.  [Believe it or not, they had to get a permit to turn on the pumps, even after they were installed, and even after the separate hold-up for an electrical permit.]

I was there one week ago and about half the course had been seeded.  With that in mind, it will probably be late fall before the course is ready to open.

[Mark Bourgeois]

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 Farris]

I built small greens on a lot of holes at the Golf Club at Red Rock.

The price of sand was high for the area but it had nothing to do with the design philosophy.  What I wanted to do was bring chipping more into the mix and require shots into the greens to be very precise.  This was a design element that does not exist in the area.  Given the slope of many of the small greens it is important that the approach shot be missed on a certain side for a reasonable chance at par.  People have learned to use the slopes and in some instances aim away from the flag, much like the chip-in by Tiger at the Masters.

[Mark Bourgeois]

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

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - good thread.
Ron - good post. I too would like to hear more.

Thanks
Peter

[Dan Smoot]

(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.

[mike_beene]

The smallest group of greens I can think of are at Lakeside in LA.It is a chipper's paradise.

[Andy Troeger]

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.

[mike_beene]

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.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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?  

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Your post made me think of Woodlands in Melbourne, Australia which has three sensational holes with tiny greens ... two short par 4's (the third and fourth holes) and one great par 5 (the fifteenth).

In each case, you are tempted to try and get your ball up close enough to the green to play a little running approach, because the green is too small to play a comfortable pitch, even from 100 yards.

[Tony Ristola]

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.

[Sean_A]

Being a person who appreciates economy in design, I have always appreciated small greens.  It is especially cool when a wee green is used for a par 4 or 5.  The 13th at Stoneham strikes me as a great example.  Its a blind drive over a slight ridge and very reachable, but the target is so small that going for it is foolish.  The play is to get an angle, but not necessarily lay back too far because even a 100 yard wedge into this green is tough.  At all costs, do go pin high right ot left - you could end up going back and forth all day.

Does anybody have pix of Stoneham?  It really is a hidden gem not known by many folks, even the English.  

http://www.stonehamgolfclub.org.uk/?pg=0df87091e786fe64&v=1&mpd=6c37f0139cfe5a81&catid=8313678674660c02&mp=c08c0f66dbecdfd8&-session=ldcms:CBC9D5A2132200A1EE9CB0C992202FD1

Ciao

[TEPaul]

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.

[Adrian_Stiff]

From the angle of turf preservation an important aspect to remember is that small greens amongst a number of normal sized greens can cause maintenance headaches, the foot pattern and compaction/wear problems will be much different over a 300sq Metre green than one of 500sq metres and in time the greens will likely perform differently. Ofcourse it could be possible to build two small greens for the same hole and alternate their use.

[BCrosby]

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

[john_stiles]

The 11th at Hidden Creek (by C&C) is a very small green.

It is a short 120 yard uphill shot to a blind green.  
An sharp upslope at the front, and the obvious location at the top of a small hill,  really lets you know the shot better be accurate.

[Andy Troeger]

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.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm surprised there apparently are many tiny greens. (Do you too hear a jingle when you read or write "tiny greens?")

I'm also surprised to hear so many like them. Instead of a tiny green, why not build a big green with lots of tiny sections divided by big humps? Or a boomerang green? Or a clover leaf green?

When I think of tiny greens, i think of what's in the display cabinets in the pathology wing at med school.

Why should I not think that way? Show me the beauty of proportion in these things!

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

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?

[Andy Troeger]

Mark,
To me its about variety. To me 18 huge greens with the features you mention gets redundant, even if the greens are unique and interesting themselves. 18 tiny greens would probably have the same effect.

I think they work best on short holes, and don't see a lot of problem with having trouble around them, although I do think that Mike B made a good point about having SOME spot to miss, even if its a difficult recovery.

I know a lot of you will disagree, but I think huge greens make golf significantly easier. Its a heck of a lot easier to figure out how to lag putt than to hit out of bunkers, thick rough, water, etc. Even more than fairway width, size of greens probably has the fastest impact on whether I play a course well.