[Mark_Fine]

There is a lot of focus these days with defending par at the green.  Look no further than the greens Nicklaus designed at Dove Mountain.  Wow! 
 
Here is another thought (surely controversial) to think about - smaller greens!  Defending par at the green doesn’t have to mean “ON” the green.  Why not a trend toward designing smaller greens and defend par around the green with interesting/challengeing surrounds?  There are a lot of advantages:

1) Smaller greens would help bring putting back into proper balance with shot making yet par would still be defended! Remember, putting (as we know it today) was never really a key part of the original game of golf.  Even as the game evolved, George Thomas proposed that putting only count as a half shot? 
2) Large heavily contoured greens add to excessive maintenance costs. Smaller greens would save tens of thousands of dollars a year on most golf courses. 
     
By the way, I don’t buy the argument about needing big greens to spread out traffic.  Unless you are into burying elephants on your greens leaving very few hole locations, 3000 ft2 or so will hold up just fine on most golf courses. With normal maintenance, 30,000 or more rounds a year are not a problem.   I am happy to cite examples.
 
Before you discount this out of hand, think about it 

[tlavin]

This is an excellent point.  Most clubs are now gung-ho about "recapturing" lost hole locations by expanding greens that have "shrunk" as a result of maintenance practices and due to other causes.  This does result in some unusual hole locations and some hard-to-get-to- pins for the average golfer, but it tends to make it easier on scratch and pro golfers.  Harbourtown is one example.  They have resisted the urge to join the expanded green brigade.  They have also resolutely refused to cut down trees that act as an active impediment to the flight of the ball toward a small green.  It seems to me that the only reason the course can still host a tournament is because of these factors.

Mind you, I'm not advocating this approach for a typical country club, because fun, playability and variety should still be at the top of the list, but some of these classic courses that would like to host pro events should consider shrinking, not expanding their greens.

[JMEvensky]

Wouldn't shrinking existing greens require moving greenside bunkers?Wouldn't smaller greens have to be flatter?

[Mark_Fine]

Terry,
I am not advocating smaller greens on older courses!  I am talking mainly about new courses and smaller green designs on these. Older/existing courses is a different matter!  Greens are designed as green complexes and everything ties in (as it should) when the greens are out to their full size and shape.  On an old classic green, some of the best hole locations are on the edges and if this green surface is lost, so is much of the strategy of the hole.  Restoring them is the right way to go unless you are going to change everything to make it all work.  

Again the idea is for new green designs.
Mark

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Mark..
I for one would rather see smaller greens athn huge greens with "crazY' undulations created to conserve par.
If you hit a good straight shot and are maybe just a few feet offline...as we saw in the wgc matchplay..you can end up no better off than a guy who hit his shot 40 feet offline...where is the fairness in that?
Small greens make that less likely...I like it!

[Mark_Fine]

JMEvensky,
Again, I am NOT suggesting making greens smaller on existing courses as many other changes would be required.  It wouldn't work and I would NOT advocate it.  Frankly I hate to see older courses with shrunken green surfaces. 

However, for NEW designs, wouldn't it be cool if someone like C&C built their next great golf course with greens that averaged less than say 4000 ft2 (let's not get too radical to start).  In some industries, this would be called "disruptive" innovation.  In golf, it might be called the same and could create a trend that might prove to be a good one.   

[Bill_Yates]

Mark,
When I think of the perfect green, the one that comes to mind is Riviera #10.  It is perfectly suited (small size, narrow shape, orientation, tilt and deep frontal bunker protection) to challenge "the specific shot" needed to reach it safely from any location of the approach shot.

On the other hand, none of Oakmont's greens are "small" in size, but likewise, because of their contouring and more laying with the land design, they present very small targets for "the specific shot" demanded for success from any second shot location.  In this case "small" is not strictly defined as the square footage of the green.

I know that the "the specific shot" comment will offend some who see that comment as anti-strategic architecture, however, in my opinion, I see it as designing for and demanding the ultimate strategy.  The architects took into acount and protected against not one way to play the hole, but every possible way to play the hole.

[JMEvensky]

JMEvensky,
Again, I am NOT suggesting making greens smaller on existing courses as many other changes would be required.  It wouldn't work and I would NOT advocate it.  Frankly I hate to see older courses with shrunken green surfaces. 

However, for NEW designs, wouldn't it be cool if someone like C&C built their next great golf course with greens that averaged less than say 4000 ft2 (let's not get too radical to start).  In some industries, this would be called "disruptive" innovation.  In golf, it might be called the same and could create a trend that might prove to be a good one.   

My bad,I answered without fully understanding that you meant new construction.

I agree with your idea.I prefer smaller greens,personally,but traffic would probably be a deal-breaker.Still...

Maybe the more important question is why does par even need defending.For all but a few,par defends itself without anyone's help.

[PCCraig]

I LOVE small greens. One of my favorite par-4's anywhere is the 4th at TCC. The hole is 340 but the green is the size of the hood of your car, surrounded by deep deep bunkers...that makes that sand wedge shot a little tougher!

[Mark_Fine]

Another issue with greens is that somewhere along the line, greens suffered the same fate as other design features - they had to be designed to be fair    Though there are always exceptions, most greens were designed to be a certain size to accept a certain kind of shot.  You couldn't (or at least shouldn't) design a small green for a long shot or a large green for a short shot.  Why not?  Well because that wouldn't be fair!  A small green would be too hard to hit with a long shot and too easy to hit with a short shot.  I think much of this also had to do with the growing importance of putting.  And I'm not sure that was a good thing.  This has in some ways almost single handedly dramatically increased the cost of the game.  Think about the impact of greens (perfect greens) and their maintenance on the cost of golf.   

I think smaller greens could lead to paradigm shift and restore a lot of positives but it will take a noted architect in the field to step up to the challenge.  I suspect a lot have thought about it, but doing it is another matter 

[Jim Franklin]

Wouldn't smaller greens suffer from more concentrated foot traffic? I love small greens, but if the course gets a fair amount of play, that could become an issue.

[Tom_Doak]

The main reason there are not more small greens is the PERCEPTION that those greens won't be able to handle golfer traffic.  Certainly, heavy traffic on a small green is not ideal, although places like Harbour Town and Pebble Beach handle it [with a lot of effort, and with people looking the other way about their conditioning more than they do for other courses].

The problem for practicing golf architects is they are afraid a superintendent or owner will accuse them of "malpractice" [not actual malpractice] for building a green that causes difficulty to maintain -- so most architects take the easy road of erring on the safe (larger) side.

Mark, you should check out Sebonack, where the greens are sometimes tiny AND severe.  Mr. Pascucci really wanted to defend par!  Personally, I don't care about that so much, but sometimes small greens can make the game more interesting.  [Other times, big greens can do the same thing ... see Old Macdonald.]

Terry:  Those people who complain that expanding classic greens to their original size will make the course "easier" just don't understand the full equation.  Yes, larger greens will increase the % of Greens in Regulation by a little bit.  But restoring hole locations at the edges of greens will likely encourage people to play more boldly and miss the green into the guardian hazards, while those playing safely will also see an increased number of three-putts.  It doesn't make the golf course any easier.  We must have DOUBLED the size of the greens at Yeamans Hall and I don't think the course rating or slope went down; I'll have to check and see if it actually went up.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
As I said in my initial post, I don't by into the argument about foot traffic.  It can be managed. 

Tom,
I have played Sebonack and I do like some of the small greens.  And yes we are very much in agreement about expanding greens to the edges of the fillpad on classic courses.  I actually think by doing so, it can make the hole harder (increases temptation) for the better player and easier for the higher handicapper who is just trying to land anywhere on the putting surface. 

But again getting back to new courses, maybe someday someone will do something special with a collective set of very small greens and it will have a positive impact on golf course design and the game itself. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()