Are Big Greens Inherently Superior?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think you have to examine this ? in the context of putting surface vs green complex. 

Aren't they inextricably entwined ?[/color]

Also what is the accepted definition of Big and of Small? 


I think you know it when you see it[/color]

Also, the shape of the green can allow a green with alot of sq. footage but plays small due to narrowness. 

Agreed.
I mentioned that earlier.
But, a small green can't play large, despite Tom Doak's protestations to the contrary.
I haven't seen good examples of small greens that play large because I believe the reason the architect created a small green was so that it would ........ play small[/color]

As for maintenance, one of the biggest grip you get from supers is big rolls or nobs in greens - what you guys call contour.  These tend to dry out faster and need to be hand watered.  They also develop localized dry spot.  Also because they dry out faster, the water collects at there bases and in swales so the consistency in green speeds fluctuates.

That's an issue worth exploring and discussing.

Can't water issues be attributed to poor design ?

As to rolls and nobs drying out faster, I say, so what, it adds to the challenge.
I'm not one of those who insist that everything be perfectly uniform.
We know that downhill putts putt faster than uphill putts, that putts into the grain putt slower than putts with the grain, so having areas/crowns that may putt faster shouldn't be of any great consequence, and, they might actually place an additional premium on getting the approach and/or recovery in the proper area relative to the rolls/crowns/nobs.[/color]

Personally, I like to average my greens at 6,250 sf.  This allows some in the 5,000 - 6,000 sf range and others in the 6,500 - to over 7,000 sf.  I've even done some 15,000+ monsters that are really 2 greens in one.

Don't equate my claim that larger greens are inherently superior to smaller greens with the desire to have nothing but large greens, nothing could be further from my interest.

Variety is a, if not the critical factor.
But, a small green is essentially one dimensional when compared to a much larger one.
There are exceptions, like the 1st green at NGLA.[/color]

The size/shape/contour also has to reflect what it is you are asking the golfer to accomplish along with what the surrounds, topography and wind conditions are.  Is the green elevated or fairway level? Is there short grass or long rough off the green, can you bonce it in or is a carry required?

Agreed[/color]

Like most of the questions posted here, there is no black/white, right/wrong answer here.  That's the beauty of golf course architecture - everyone has there own preferences and peaves.  If everyone liked the same thing, we'd all be chasing one women.

Ah, but, who'd be chasing us ?

My premise wasn't about preference, it was about the inherent qualities of small and large greens and the fact that a small green tends to be one dimensional in the approach.[/color]

[Mark_F]

I stated that, but, "sometimes" isn't the issue, it's the general limitations of small greens and the variety in approach shots to large greens that makes them inherently better.

Patrick,

I am not entirely sure this is true.  A small green as part of a well designed green complex can provide a wide variety of approach shots depending on weather conditions, ground movement and the ability of the player in question.

A large, wildly undulating green could require anywhere from a 4 iron to a wedge, whereas the small green will essentially require the same club on repeat play.

But surely, because of contours and hazard placement, the wedge pin position is always going to be a wedge, the 4 iron a 4 iron?   If a pin is a 4 iron distance away, it isn't as if someone can hit a high 7 or 8 iron and stop it?

I play at a course that is generally thought to have small greens.  One in particular can be bit by the same player with a high 9 iron that lands softly, a 7 or 8 iron that hits a backstop behind and rolls back, or a 5 or 6 iron that runs through a shelf and up onto the green.

Coming from the opposite side of the ideal line running the ball up becomes MUCH less of an option - and would require a longer club - , and the aerial one the more astute play.

Similarly with a par three - a good player might hit a 2 or 3 iron to hit a high shot to land on the green, or a drawn 5 or 6 iron to bounce down a hill and onto the green. 

Maybe the courses you've played with small greens aren't as well designed as the one I am speaking about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I stated that, but, "sometimes" isn't the issue, it's the general limitations of small greens and the variety in approach shots to large greens that makes them inherently better.

Patrick,

I am not entirely sure this is true.  A small green as part of a well designed green complex can provide a wide variety of approach shots depending on weather conditions, ground movement and the ability of the player in question.

A large green, depending on weather conditions, ground movement and the ability of the player in question inherently has MORE variety.

You can't add elements/factors to a small green without adding them equally to a large green if you want a valid comparison.[/color]

A large, wildly undulating green could require anywhere from a 4 iron to a wedge, whereas the small green will essentially require the same club on repeat play.

But surely, because of contours and hazard placement, the wedge pin position is always going to be a wedge, the 4 iron a 4 iron?   If a pin is a 4 iron distance away, it isn't as if someone can hit a high 7 or 8 iron and stop it?

Mark, think of what you just stated.
You're ignoring the fact that a large green has the variety and ability to be a wedge to a 4-iron, and, you're solely contexting the play of the hole with but one lone golfer, ignoring the myriad number who trod the course day in and day out.

                                   Small green                                  large green

approach variety          wedge                                       4-iron
                                                                                       5-iron
                                                                                        6-iron
                                                                                        7-iron
                                                                                         8-iron
                                                                                         9-iron
                                                                                         wedge

That's a 7 to 1 ratio.

The large green offers inherently more variety.
It's as irrefutable as 2 + 2 = 4[/color]

I play at a course that is generally thought to have small greens.  One in particular can be bit by the same player with a high 9 iron that lands softly, a 7 or 8 iron that hits a backstop behind and rolls back, or a 5 or 6 iron that runs through a shelf and up onto the green.

OK, that's one hole location on a small green, now multiply that by at least 7 for a large green.[/color].

Coming from the opposite side of the ideal line running the ball up becomes MUCH less of an option - and would require a longer club - , and the aerial one the more astute play.

Again, the large green would offer 7 times more options.[/color]

Similarly with a par three - a good player might hit a 2 or 3 iron to hit a high shot to land on the green, or a drawn 5 or 6 iron to bounce down a hill and onto the green. 

The reality is that I haven't seen too many small greens that were intended to receive 2-3 irons from good players.

I suspect your example is more hypothetical than realistic.

If a good player needs a 2-3 iron to land on a small green, a lessor player can't reach that green.

Could you identify five (5) holes that fit that configuration ?[/color]

Maybe the courses you've played with small greens aren't as well designed as the one I am speaking about.

That's always possible.

I can't remember a small green where I had to hit a 2-3 iron just to land on the green.
Into a wind, that would require a 3-wood or more.
That sounds like an extremely difficult hole, even for good players.[/color]

[Cory Brown]

I recently played Bandon, and Pacific Dunes.  Some of the most fun shots I played were putts in the 75-85 yard range, it was fantastic, I have never experienced anything like being 75 yards out and feeling like the only way I could get close was to putt.  However the 11th at Pacific may have been my favorite hole on the course, so I guess I would have to agree that variety is inherently superior.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cory Brown,

Putts of the nature you describe seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur.

I agree, they are fun and challenging.

I also agree about # 11.  It's a spectacular hole.

Big greens inherently produce variety.

[Doug Ralston]

So, overall, the answer is yes?

I think so too.

Doug

[Tim Nugent]

Patrick, just because small greens are more one dimentional than large greens, I don't think you should make the leap to intrensically inferior.  When I said you have to look at this in the context of putting surface (green) and green complex.  A small green can play bigger than it's size if the surrounds are set up to do just that.  It depends on how the grass is treated. If shaved down, a ball can be funneled a ways away but still leave the opportunity to be putted in - from off the green.  Unfortunately US courses tend to be too soft and over-watered to take complete advantage of this.  Across the pond, I usually will take a couple clubs less and try to land the ball in front of the greens and let it chase on up.  The greens don't have to be big because they aren't my primary target.

Conversely, a multiple-sectioned big green can be more one-dimentional if the only option is to land on the green and then once there your next option to advance the ball is to use the same shot over and over - to putt.  To be multi-dimentional, shouldn't the player have multiple ooptions?
One of the problems I have with TV golf is it is boring when it becomes a putting contest.  Perhaps that's why I like Pinehurst for an open venue and why the Open is my favorite to watch. So when you state aren't they (putting greens and green complexes) intertwined. Sure, but if you wish to frame the question on just the putting green without taking into account the surrounds, you're operating in a vaccum.

Since, as you agree, variety is the spice of life, I believe the designer should offer just that to the golfer.  Since we(I) don't design greens or green complexes without takiing into account the rest of the hole (and the other holes on the course), we(I) are asking golfers to execute different things on different holes.  Therefore, there might be instances where a small target is in order, others where a bigger one is what's called for.

Is water issue on a green bad design?  Maybe, but with today's penchant for USGA greens, and inside/perimeter irrigatin, that much water shouldn't be manually applied.   If it comes from either run-on or the green is too flat for surface drainage or if the water is directed by the contours to narrow swale that don't have much pitch, then the design is problematic.

An architect designs small greens to play...small.  Not always, sometimes just to provide a small target either to reward accuracy or to create an optical illusion that the distance is greater than it actually is.

Conversely, we don't necessarily always make big greens to play...big.  That is why you will find sectioned greens or greens within a green.  This may be done for variety within the context of the hole,  offer different strategies for fairway play based upon the pin position, or to spread out the wear and tear (the may be agronomic issues like limited sunlight or breeze).

One final item (sorry to get technical) is knowing what maintenance equipment will be used - walking vs riding - to cut the greens.  The clean-up pass for a riding moxer is 3x's the width of a walker which visually make the green look smaller.  Plus, what size collars are you going to have - 18"-21" with a walker or 72" with a tri-plex?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, just because small greens are more one dimentional than large greens, I don't think you should make the leap to intrensically inferior. 

You're viewing the issue in a green specific sense, and I'm viewing it in a global sense.[/color]

When I said you have to look at this in the context of putting surface (green) and green complex. 


I agree, but that gets down to a "green specific" analysis rather than a global one[/color]

A small green can play bigger than it's size if the surrounds are set up to do just that. 

"can" is the qualifying word. Small greens usually play ....... small.  That's the inherent intent in making them small.[/color]

It depends on how the grass is treated. If shaved down, a ball can be funneled a ways away but still leave the opportunity to be putted in - from off the green. 


I have to confess that I haven't come across many, if any, small greens that are configured and play as you state above.[/color]

Unfortunately US courses tend to be too soft and over-watered to take complete advantage of this.

I'd agree[/color]

Across the pond, I usually will take a couple clubs less and try to land the ball in front of the greens and let it chase on up.  The greens don't have to be big because they aren't my primary target.

I miss the opportunity to do that in the U.S.  I think it takes creativity, thought, judgement and skill.
Although, GCGC presents an inordinate number of those opportunities, but, it's the exception rather than the rule.[/color]

Conversely, a multiple-sectioned big green can be more one-dimentional if the only option is to land on the green and then once there your next option to advance the ball is to use the same shot over and over - to putt. 

Once again, you've chosen a selective, narrow example to predispose the answer, but, even in doing so, the answer is no.
Depending upon the hole location, an approach shot short of the green may be a viable alternative, depending upon the hole location[/color]

To be multi-dimentional, shouldn't the player have multiple ooptions?

Why would you assume that he doesn't, just because the targe green is large ?[/color]

One of the problems I have with TV golf is it is boring when it becomes a putting contest. 


I couldn't agree more.
And, rarely do you see putts over 5 feet with substantive breaks because of contour and/or slope in the early part of the PGA season.

Perhaps that's why I like Pinehurst for an open venue and why the Open is my favorite to watch. So when you state aren't they (putting greens and green complexes) intertwined. Sure, but if you wish to frame the question on just the putting green without taking into account the surrounds, you're operating in a vaccum.

I don't think so when it comes to small greens.
I haven't seen many, if any, small greens with expanded fringes and chipping/putting areas at grade.
The great majority of small greens present a small target, including their surrounds
It's been my experience that small greens are designed for a specific purpose....... to offer a small target. And, that small target is usually well defended

Since, as you agree, variety is the spice of life, I believe the designer should offer just that to the golfer. 

I agree with that, and, never suggested that large greens be universally applied to the design of any golf course.[/color]

Since we(I) don't design greens or green complexes without takiing into account the rest of the hole (and the other holes on the course), we(I) are asking golfers to execute different things on different holes. 


We're in agreement again.[/color]

Therefore, there might be instances where a small target is in order, others where a bigger one is what's called for.

This is getting monotonous, we agree again.[/color]

Is water issue on a green bad design?  Maybe, but with today's penchant for USGA greens, and inside/perimeter irrigatin, that much water shouldn't be manually applied.   If it comes from either run-on or the green is too flat for surface drainage or if the water is directed by the contours to narrow swale that don't have much pitch, then the design is problematic.

I agree[/color]

An architect designs small greens to play...small.  Not always, sometimes just to provide a small target either to reward accuracy or to create an optical illusion that the distance is greater than it actually is.

Conversely, we don't necessarily always make big greens to play...big.  That is why you will find sectioned greens or greens within a green.  This may be done for variety within the context of the hole,  offer different strategies for fairway play based upon the pin position, or to spread out the wear and tear (the may be agronomic issues like limited sunlight or breeze).

That's why I think they're inherently better.
You can't attribute to or extract those qualities from a small green[/color]

One final item (sorry to get technical) is knowing what maintenance equipment will be used - walking vs riding - to cut the greens.  The clean-up pass for a riding moxer is 3x's the width of a walker which visually make the green look smaller.  Plus, what size collars are you going to have - 18"-21" with a walker or 72" with a tri-plex?

With so many clubs transitioning from walkers to riders and riders to walkers, can you ever really make a permanent, definitive call in that area ?

That would seem like betting on the come at the crap table.[/color]

[Doug Siebert]

Robert Bruce Harris used to make his par three greens the biggest, and the par fives where always his smaller greens. There is definitely something to be said for that formula.

On a par three green there are generally more ballmarks to contend with from a maintenance standpoint, and the wind is ussually more of a factor to scoring well. Definitely if you were to be deliberate or formulaic about which greens should be the biggest, the par three holes would be the first to recieve that consideration.

My home course is an RBH (Finkbine, though it has been renoved quite a bit from his original)

Its interesting that three of the four par 5 greens were expanded during renovations in the last 10 years -- not by a lot, they are still the smallest on the course despite that.  The par 3 greens are big, no doubt about that, though the three longest par 4s (all around 450) are probably the largest greens on the course.  That makes sense if you consider that these were/are the greens most likely to be approached with longer clubs.

One thing I find interesting about them was his choice for the relative dimensions of greens on different holes.  The greens on the 1st, 6th, and 10th are particularly wide, and those are the three holes where the approach shot is most likely played off a steeply sidehill or downhill lie which would hurt accuracy.  The greens on the 3rd, 9th, 14th, and 18th are especially deep, and are the four longest par 4s played into the prevailing wind.

I know RBH has a pretty bad rap for some of his really bad ideas (our renovations did move/remove his "greenside" bunkers that were a gang mower's width+ from the fringe, largely eliminating the evil 45 yard explosion shot from our shotmaking requirements)  But he did put some thought into the dimensions of his greens, though like most more subtle architectural details I expect it goes unnoticed by most golfers.