Are Big Greens Inherently Superior?

[Phil Benedict]

Looking at that picture of the Short at Old Macdonald it's pretty clear that the huge green makes the hole (for better or worse depending on your taste).  With all that green area it's possible to create day-to-day variety which you couldn't do with a green half the size.  More pinnable area creates more variety.

I realize there are great courses with small greens (Pebble Beach).

[Michael Dugger]

It's all about contour.

A huge but flat green would grow boring real quick.

[J Sadowsky]

You can do more with a big green than a small green, if you're looking at it in a vacuum.  But it's not a vacuum.  Instead of green, small greens have something else in the place where the big green has - green.  That something else can be fairway, rough, bunker, water, etc.

Many great holes are great, at least in part, because of a small green.  The Postage Stamp at Royal Troon, the 7th at Pebble Beach, the 9th (if I'm remembering it correctly) at Congressional - all of these great holes are great BECAUSE of a small green.  

Thus, while green size may be a close-to-absolute advantage when comparing greens in a vacuum, when comparing greens as to whether the green helps make the hole great, I think the answer is dependant and that variety is the spice of the life.

[JSPayne]

Justin....great points.

My mind immediately jumped to Pebble too when reading the title of this thread. I've only gotten to play there once, but the element of such small greens there stood out to me just as much as all the beautiful surroundings. I just remember thinking, "how am I ever supposed to hit these things?"

However, now I'm pondering a different question......does anyone know of any examples of courses with both REALLY big and REALLY small greens within the same layout? It seems most the courses I can think of have more or less consistent green sizes.

[Phil Benedict]

I would add the 12th at Augusta as hole which is great because the green has no depth.

Yale has mostly huge greens but the 14th is pretty small and appropriate for what the hole is asking for in terms of shot-making.

[Bradley Anderson]

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.

[Bradley Anderson]

But in answer to the question, I don't think big greens are inherently better than smaller greens. Certainly they may offer more pin placements, but then there are strategic merits to smaller greens that only smaller greens may present. The 12th hole at Old Elm is a short par 4, with a very small elevated green that falls off steeply on all four sides. A big green wouldn't have worked in that corner of the golf course where the land and the routing did not lend itself to anything else but a short par four. A small green was the right kind of green to place in that situation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

I have often said that most green complexes do one thing well. In other words, a green can't often reward both a hook and a fade, putting and chipping skill, etc. 

A big green tends to favor certain skill sets (like length and less accuracy and putting) while a small one logically favors accuracy and creativity/recovery skill.  (all assumptions on an "over time" basis)

Thus, a course should have some of all, at least IMHO.  I think part of the beauty of the big green on the short hole is goes against convention.  Golfers would expect a smaller green.  But, if there was another short par 3 on the course, I would tend to make that one a lot smaller and with a completely different type of hazards to make it stand out and play differently.

[Adam Russell]

There is less room for error on a small green than a large one. Pinnable area, variety, movement, slope, design appearance and aesthetics - all are easier to execute on a large green. Irrigation may be the only easier aspect on a small green. I consider it a greater design achievement to produce a great small green than a large one, so I believe small greens are inherently superior.

-Jeff, do you consider length a skill?? I guess it is, but I believe it to be a lower class skill than accuracy and creativity...

[John Moore II]

I would say that Large greens can be made very small by having different tiers and such. That way, only certain parts are good for specific shots. Shots not hitting the right part are pretty much dead. In that way, big greens become small. But it all depends on the type of shot required.

[Mike Mosely]

I prefer small and contoured.

Pete Dye was told that when Sawgrass opened, Tom Watson said, "he took Augusta's greens and miniaturized them.  Dye said, "Thanks!  I always thought Augusta's greens were to big..."

[John Moore II]

Mike M--Have you ever played Tobacco Road? Those greens are huge (like everything else on property) but if you are in the wrong spot, you are in huge trouble. Some of those greens have 8 feet of difference between two tiers. The contours are wild. In that way, the greens really become small.

[Andy Troeger]

I don't think there's any kind of direct relationship between green size and green quality, there's just too many factors involved. I suppose I have an affinity for small greens personally as it seems the big green can get lost in itself.

One thing I've noticed is that on bigger greens I like distinct tiers that divide the greens into smaller areas. That may be part of why I often like Jim Engh greens and find that Ken Dye used them frequently as well (maybe too much so at Pinon Hills). I may have to investigate more to figure out why I like those features.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

Inherently, I'd say yes.

Remember, big greens can play small, but a small green can't play big.

[igrowgrass]

Big greens even help the grass guys.  Being able to move traffic around with more cupping space can make it easier in maintaining higher turf quality.  I have worked at places where you only have two or three 'areas' that are acceptable spaces and those greens can show signs of stress that many turf managers do not enjoy.

[Peter Zarlengo]

Variety, Variety, Variety

I think that the best greens on a course are the ones that seamlessly transition from large to small greens (and the opposite).  There are few things more fun and enjoyable and challenging than going from shooting to open targets, to knowing you have to hit a very precise target (again the reverse applies).

I think back to my experiences at Colorado GC, where after playing holes 3-7 (all with fairly large greens), ones heads back into the trees and has to play a shot into the small eighth green.  It feels double small after the preceding large greens and open prairie landscape.

But on one shot holes, I tend to agree that the large greens tend to allow for more variety, therefore fun.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I like courses with small greens.  I would rather have to chip, blast, flop, or pitch.  100 foot putts are rather boring.

[Andy Troeger]

Variety, Variety, Variety

I think that the best greens on a course are the ones that seamlessly transition from large to small greens (and the opposite).  There are few things more fun and enjoyable and challenging than going from shooting to open targets, to knowing you have to hit a very precise target (again the reverse applies).

I think back to my experiences at Colorado GC, where after playing holes 3-7 (all with fairly large greens), ones heads back into the trees and has to play a shot into the small eighth green.  It feels double small after the preceding large greens and open prairie landscape.

But on one shot holes, I tend to agree that the large greens tend to allow for more variety, therefore fun.

Peter,
Ironically one of my favorite holes/greens at Colorado GC was #2 which had a pretty small green especially compared to some of the other greens on the course. I certainly preferred it to #11 which had a bigger green divided into sections. That left one is darn near inaccessible (unless one goes by the name Tiger).

#7 at Pebble and #16 at Wolf Run are two other short par threes I really like with little greens. The best part of your comment was about variety, that really is the key.

[Peter Zarlengo]

Andy-
#2 is a perfect example of a small green which works well on a par 3.  Amazing contours and the bunkers tight to the surrounds make it a great green.  Trying to turn a push mower without diving head-first into the bunkers is another story, however. 

[Sean_A]

The only things inherently superior in golf are sandy soil & variety.

Ciao

[Phil Benedict]

I like courses with small greens.  I would rather have to chip, blast, flop, or pitch.  100 foot putts are rather boring.

I agree that chipping is more fun than putting and smaller greens promote more chipping opportunities but at the cost of fewer hole locations.  There's the tradeoff.
 

[Adam Russell]

I would rather see three great hole locations on a small green than twenty-five average locations on a big green. What's ideal for hole locations, supers- 14,17??? I would also like to see a few of the posters list what size of greens they played on as a kid- small, large, or mix. I played small Donald Ross greens growing up, so I guess I'm biased towards small. It still seems harder to pull everything together in a cohesive design with less space to work with...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would rather see three great hole locations on a small green than twenty-five average locations on a big green.

That's a bad analogy because you've prejudiced the answer with a flawed premise.

Ask yourself, would you rather see three great hole locations on a small green or twenty five great locations on a big green ?

I'd opt for the 25 on the big green due to the diversity of the challenge presented.[/color]

What's ideal for hole locations, supers- 14,17???
I would also like to see a few of the posters list what size of greens they played on as a kid- small, large, or mix. I played small Donald Ross greens growing up, so I guess I'm biased towards small. It still seems harder to pull everything together in a cohesive design with less space to work with...


Small greens don't fare well with heavy traffic.
As golf's popularity increased heavier traffic took its toll.

A mix seems to work best for me.

Pine Tree has some very small, very large and average greens, but, architecturally, they blend harmoniously into the holes they're part of, and I think THAT'S the key.[/color]

[Phil Benedict]

One of the least remarked upon changes at Augusta is enlarging certain greens to create new hole locations.  They probably wouldn't do this solely for the members but it does show how important they feel more hole locations are in tournament play.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I like courses with small greens.  I would rather have to chip, blast, flop, or pitch.  100 foot putts are rather boring.

I agree that chipping is more fun than putting and smaller greens promote more chipping opportunities but at the cost of fewer hole locations.  There's the tradeoff.
 

It is a trade off.  I think very small greens do limit good pin placements.  I just love to hit shots around the greens.  If I look at it objectively a course needs a variety of green sizes.

Pat, agreed about size of greens and traffic.  There are some courses that do not get a lot of play that wear pretty well.  I belong to one club in SC that gets fewer than 12000 rounds a year.  Many of their greens are small and do not sow wear.