[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Golf writers throw around the meaningless phrases "small greens" and "deep bunkers" all the time. I wondered how those in the design business defined those terms so I polled 14 architects and/or architecture writers to get some answers.

Thoughts on their thoughts?

http://anthonypioppi.blogspot.com/2011/06/defining-small-greens-and-deep-bunkers.html

Tony

[Pete_Pittock]

anthony,
you need to redo the blog entry. a small bunker is 4,000 sq. ft?

[paul cowley]

Tony

For me it's a green side bunker deep enough that a tall player can't see the green surface......or high enough to obscure a tall players target if its a fairway bunker.

A very small green would be one under 3,000 sq ft.

[Alex Lagowitz]

anthony,
you need to redo the blog entry. a small bunker is 4,000 sq. ft?

I noticed that as well.. i believe he meant to say green

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Pete:

Good catch. The changes have been made and the editors flogged, drawn and quartered and then sent to Siberia.

Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

I agree with your cut-off of 4000 square feet for a small green, by modern standards.  In the old days, that wasn't that much smaller than average, but nowadays, architects hardly ever build anything under 4000.  The smallest greens I've ever seen on a regulation course were around 2500 square feet.

I agree with Paul that a deep bunker is anything where your eye level is below the green surface [more than 5 feet].  For most players this adds a layer of intimidation; I am pretty sure Mr. Dye used to do it deliberately.

[Adrian_Stiff]

For me an average green is 5000-6000 squared feet so by definition a small green is sub 5000 and a large one is in excess of 6000. I would say a deep bunker is six feet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

"DEEP" to me would be a bunker where my view of the intended target is blocked.

"SMALL"., probably under 3,000 sq/ft and closer to 2,500 sq/ft

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom:

In the blog post I show the fourth at Fenwick Golf Course and its green of about 2,300-square feet. The approach is firm so the ball can be run on but I think it is too small for the conditions. I've played the hole into a four-club wind. If the green was down wind, I think it would be a perfect size.

So, if a deep bunker is one where you can't see the flag or the green, when what the heck do we call some of the bunkers Raynor (Yale) and Banks (Forsgate) built where when you are in them you can't see anything but a grass wall, sand and sky?

Anthony

[Ally Mcintosh]

At Ballybunion Cashen, many of the green sites are around 3,000 sq feet... When you add in wind, firm conditions and surrounding contour, it doesn't take much to work out that this is the main reason the course is maligned by some...

Obviously "small" depends on all the variables of the site but fairly flattish greens in softer conditions with sympathetic surrounding contour, I'd go with 3,000 sq feet as still too small... Firmer conditions and undulating surfaces I'd say 4,500 sq feet is pushing it....

[paul cowley]

I always enjoy the idea of a small target...under 3,000'...but with wear pressures and the need for multiple pins...very few modern designers will build anything below 4,000'

I attempted to rectify this at Barefoot Resort (Love Course), where we built two slightly under 3,000' greens side by side on the par 3 11th hole. 100 to 145 yds in length. Probably 80% of the green surface is pinnable and the greens are separated by a bunker and sandy waste area.
Local rule required a drop if you were on the unpinned green.

The greens were originally shaped at around 2,200 to 2.400 sq ft, but the superintendent convinced management that they wouldn't work and we ended up adding 3' around the circumference of each. I always require at least 3,500 sq ft of pinnable space per green...regardless of the overall size...and the two combined had that.

I still regret that I caved and pushed them out...in fact I'm getting a little pissed as I write this.

[Forrest Richardson]

2,500 is small. Too small. My 1985 mistake.

William Howard, a shaper we worked with for years, once told me that Greg Nash kept showing up at Superstition Springs and NOT approving a greenside bunker because it was not deep enough. William would dig more, but Nash kept NOT approving. Finally, William hit water from the nearby lake and that is when Nash final said OK. I think it is still 15 feet below the green at the upper edge. I have always held this as a litmus test to what is "deep" — along with others I have seen.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom:

In the blog post I show the fourth at Fenwick Golf Course and its green of about 2,300-square feet. The approach is firm so the ball can be run on but I think it is too small for the conditions. I've played the hole into a four-club wind. If the green was down wind, I think it would be a perfect size.

So, if a deep bunker is one where you can't see the flag or the green, when what the heck do we call some of the bunkers Raynor (Yale) and Banks (Forsgate) built where when you are in them you can't see anything but a grass wall, sand and sky?

Very DEEP 

Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

Tony

For me it's a green side bunker deep enough that a tall player can't see the green surface......or high enough to obscure a tall players target if its a fairway bunker.

A very small green would be one under 3,000 sq ft.

Totally agree.

We had a green, at the end of a 520 yard par 5 on the pre-hurricane Pensacola CC, that was about 1800 SF, with a bunker left and steep fall offs back and right.  The only consistently safe way to play the hole was to lay your approach up to the front of the green.   Pretty funny old green, I miss it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest,

It really depends on the length of the hole.

A 320 yard hole with a 2,500 sq/ft green isn't too small

[Adrian_Stiff]

Forrest,

It really depends on the length of the hole.

A 320 yard hole with a 2,500 sq/ft green isn't too small

2,500 sq ft of putting green is too small anywhere that has normal play, in terms of a 2,500sqft and 5,000sqft green the larger one is nearer 4 times bigger when you eliminate the 8 ft collar where you cant pin. If you do your maths, and think of a 28 yard deep green with a 10 yard width then subtract a pair of 2.5 metre collars you aint got too much pinning area, take the bits off the front and onlly 50% of the green is pinnable. Almost all putting greens start out with 1500sq ft that you cant pin, so on a 2500 sq footer you only got a 1000 sq ft. You have to think outside of just what is good for golf sometimes. If you want tiny greens then the two green system makes sense.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adrian,

I believe the 15th green at Pine Tree is in the range of 2,500 sq/ft.

It's a wonderful little hole that leaves decent ball strikers with a wedge to L-Wedge into a slightly elevated green.
Most of my approaches are from 120-100-80 yards out.
I don't think that's too small of a target for that range of shot.

On three other double tier greens at Preakness Hills, all of the lower tiers were under 2,500 feet.
Again, the approach shots were originally short.  120 to 10 yards.

That size green might not work at a heavily trafficed course.

Does anyone know the Sq/ft of the four smallest greens at Pebble Beach ?

[paul cowley]

Patrick....probably in the 3,200 to 3,500 sq ft range.

[Doug Siebert]

There's a little cow pasture course (that's nonetheless "regulation" in that its par 70 and just over 6000 yards since a second nine was added about 15 years ago) that's about five miles away from me.  There's a 227 yard sorta-dogleg par 4 that has a green that's 37' wide at its widest point - I stepped it off once.  Assuming its (roughly) circular, that's just under 1100 sq ft.

In fact, I doubt there's a single green on this course over 2000 sq ft.  The greens are bumpy, grainy and would struggle to stimp 6 - though they can be surprisingly quick in certain areas at the bottom of slopes where balls tend to collect, due to the foot traffic.

No one would design something like this for a course where the greens are designed to be kept in any sort of condition a modern super could be proud of, but I'm sure there are plenty of older courses like this around the US and elsewhere.  I'm not certain but I would assume the course originally had sand greens as built, and they were grassed over later.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony,
Course you're familiar with -  Norfolk CC, Norfolk Ct - all are small and the 9th green is under 2,000 sq.ft.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()