Small Greens

[Jordan Wall]

In a post on Sebonack, Alex Wyatt states "Sebonack's greens are too small. The absolute fatal flaw of the golf course. "

I personally dont mind small greens in the least bit.
Yet, I also like big greens as well.


But, as long as greens have interesting contours which blend nicely with a hole, does the green size really matter?

Should a respective type hole (short par-3, long par-5, etc) have to have a certain sized green?

Do people prefer smaller or larger greens?  Why?

Why would or should a course be deemed flawed due to inexcessive green sizes?

In my other thread on my latest discovery, I made a quick note that Skagit CC had small greens, and I loved them.  On Chambers Bay, I dont think small greens would work as well.  Are there certain types of golf courses that need larger greens or smaller greens in order for the course to work?

Should courses which are more open to wind be proned to larger greens?


Just some interesting questions on greens and green sizes I contemplated when I saw Alex's post.  I'm not bashing his quote, I am just trying to approach it with an open mind, and would love to hear what others feel on greens, and whether they agree or not with Alex's statement.  It's an interesting statement to think about, in my opinion.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jordan- The size of the green could be too small to perform well agronomically.... hence flawed. On this site sometimes not so much importance/ discussion is put into how a green will actually function in terms of maintenance. It is surely a balance of whats good for golf and good for the turf.

[Michael Blake]

I prefer large greens.  They allow the better player to play to the correct half or third of the green or even fire at the flag.  And they also allow the mid-handicapper to feel satisfied just to have "hit the green."

But from a practical standpoint of designing small greens, I would surmise a few factors would have to be addressed:

rounds per year/foot traffic
less hole locations
maintenance issues

Perhaps some architects/superintendants can respond.


I remember in Mr Doak's 'Anatomy' regarding green sizes he relates the size of the hazardous area (or is it hazard-free area--i forget) near the hole vs the difficulty of the approach as being more important than size vs length of shot.

* somebody please correct me if i have butchered Tom D's analysis.  i don't have the book handy.

[Tom_Doak]

Jordan:

Alex is just the naysayer of Sebonack ... if it had big greens, I'd guess that THEY would be its fatal flaw.  So don't worry about quoting him too often.

As far as green size, in general, I prefer a variety within a course.  I don't like a bunch of large greens because players get sick of having 50-foot putts all day.  There is more variety of shots to be found around a small green.

I am sure some of the professional architects here will weigh in on whether small greens are practical in the modern era of busy golf courses.  Certainly, in many cases, they're not -- the traffic would beat them up too badly.  (Although, the irony is that two of the busiest public courses in the world, Harbour Town and Pebble Beach, have the smallest greens of any great course.)

We took the chance to build small greens at Sebonack because traffic was not a limiting factor, and because the client wanted a course that would be really challenging for great players.  Many great players equate challenge with small greens, that's why Harbour Town and Pebble and Riviera always show up on the short list of Tour players' favorite courses.

The funny thing about it is that our client at Sebonack told me before we started that he "likes big greens", but he's enjoyed Sebonack's even though they are not.  

[Steve Kline]

Having just played two rounds at Pebble one could also say that they make pretty lousy putting surfaces - especially the second. I heard Palmer tried a new strain of grass for the course on that green and it failed miserably. I can see why Tour players complain about those greens being bumpy.

But, I really liked the challenge of those smal greens. Hitting to 7, 8, and 9 was almost frightening.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think the size of the green really depends on the individual situation. I worked at a small 9 hole course where the first hole was a 150 yard, uphill, par 3. The green, that was set in a gathering bowl and where anything upt 15 yards lond would roll back was almost perfectly round and only 9 paces across. Admittedly the course saw a max of 5000 rounds a year but the green was alway in top condition.

[Tom Birkert]

Having just played two rounds at Pebble one could also say that they make pretty lousy putting surfaces - especially the second. I heard Palmer tried a new strain of grass for the course on that green and it failed miserably. I can see why Tour players complain about those greens being bumpy.

But, I really liked the challenge of those smal greens. Hitting to 7, 8, and 9 was almost frightening.

I noticed that the 2nd green looked worse than all the others too, but didn’t realise that was the reason behind it.

There was no wind when I played recently, and I have to say I didn’t think 7 was hard at all in those conditions, simply a flip with a sand wedge – you shouldn’t be that far off line with a wedge in your hand… However, 8 truly was scary, really visually intimidating approach shot.

Edit: Forgot to say that personally I like a mixture of green sizes on a course - it makes you change your mental approach as there are some smaller greens where you can't afford to miss the green in certain places and some larger greens where you can be faced with a long, undulating putt. I would say that I prefer smaller greens to be less contoured than larger greens - if you hit the small target you should be rewarded with an easier putt than if you hit the larger green but a long way away from the hole.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Pebbles green's are not that small are they? I only played it once but 1st, 2nd, 3rd were normal size (500sqyds) 4th was a bit small..5 and 6 normal, 7 was tiny id guess 325 sq yards. the rest seem normal, although 14 was limited in its positions.. perhaps I am wrong it was a lot of beers ago.

[Jordan Wall]

Edit: Forgot to say that personally I like a mixture of green sizes on a course - it makes you change your mental approach as there are some smaller greens where you can't afford to miss the green in certain places and some larger greens where you can be faced with a long, undulating putt. I would say that I prefer smaller greens to be less contoured than larger greens - if you hit the small target you should be rewarded with an easier putt than if you hit the larger green but a long way away from the hole.

Just curious.

Do you consider a long putt, say 60-plus feet with some contour harder or easier than a chip or bunker shot of 20 yards or less to a small green?

That is why i think variety is good on a course.
I think a player should be forced to have a long putt and a ticklish putt if he misses throughout the round.  Challenge all aspects of the game.

[Tom Birkert]

Edit: Forgot to say that personally I like a mixture of green sizes on a course - it makes you change your mental approach as there are some smaller greens where you can't afford to miss the green in certain places and some larger greens where you can be faced with a long, undulating putt. I would say that I prefer smaller greens to be less contoured than larger greens - if you hit the small target you should be rewarded with an easier putt than if you hit the larger green but a long way away from the hole.

Just curious.

Do you consider a long putt, say 60-plus feet with some contour harder or easier than a chip or bunker shot of 20 yards or less to a small green?

That is why i think variety is good on a course.
I think a player should be forced to have a long putt and a ticklish putt if he misses throughout the round.  Challenge all aspects of the game.

Jordan,

Personally I’d take the putt every time. As long as it wasn’t on a goofy slope I’d expect to get the first putt within 5 feet or so and I’d expect to make the second putt. But then again I have confidence in my putting, certainly more so than my bunker play at the moment!

Chipping from light rough is probably easier for the handicap golfer. I certainly prefer that to having a chip from a closely mown area below the level of the green where contact must be perfect or the ball is going to be knifed over the green (witness Tiger on 3 at Oakmont!).

My order of preference would be long putt, chip, bunker shot. But I agree about the variety required, and this can also impact mentally on someone when standing over a shot – for instance a poor lag putter would be under pressure to fire more at the pin on a large green than a good putter. The opposite applies if they are a very good bunker player / chipper when approaching a small green.

Adrian,

I played it a couple of weeks ago and I can’t remember seeing a group of greens that small (previously on my travels I recall Riviera having a pretty small overall set of greens).  As I mentioned previously, 8 looked miniscule and my caddie told me that 11 was the smallest green used on the PGA Tour (although this might be incorrect, I have not verified this). Playing Rustic Canyon shortly after Pebble was a hell of a change in green size!!

[Kalen Braley]

Jordan,

I'd agree with Tom that its nice to have variety during the round.  It makes sense at least to me to have a large green on a long par 4, and a small green on a short one.

Tom,

Did your crew build the practice green at Pacific Dunes?  Because as Sean always says, its a real "Cracker" and easily both the funnest and most difficult green I've ever putted on...  

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

Yes, Jim Urbina built the practice green at Pacific Dunes.

For all:

The greens at Pebble Beach average less than 4000 square feet, small by anyone's standards.  The eighth green is under 3000 sf.  And, you are correct, they aren't always in very good shape because of the size-versus-traffic issues.

[Steve Kline]

As a plus 2 handicap he's my order of preference:

1. Putting  from on the green no matter how long, unless we're talking from the other side of one of TOC's double greens.

2. Chip from rough. Don't have to worry about fatting/chunking it.

3. Bunker.

4. Tight fairway lie. These always generate bad thoughts in mind and can lead to the worst results. My worst bunker shot will still be better than skulling it over the green or fatting it 5 feet from a tight fairway. And yes I still do that kind of stuff.