"Nobody builds courses with medium sized greens anymore"

[Matt_Cohn]

So wrote Ran Morrissett in his description of Naruo in the 147 Custodians section. What does this even mean? And is it true?

[Tom_Doak]

Well, the definition of "medium" is open to interpretation, but I think his point is generally correct.  A 6000-square-foot green used to be considered on the large side, but then Tom Fazio put in his specs that it was the minimum allowable square footage, and now many greenkeepers swear they need that much space or the grass is going to Hell and it's all our fault.


(Which does not explain how all the old courses with 4500-sq-ft push-up green manage to keep them in such fine shape, but, I digress.)


Even those super-severe greens at Crystal Downs are small . . . there are only a couple of them that get up to 6000 sq ft.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It is not true. In fact, it’s far from true.


If I were to survey new golf greens built since 2010, I’d hazard a guess that the majority are “medium” size (let’s say 450 - 650 m2).


Then again, I’m guessing. And maybe we have different definitions of medium.

[Tom_Doak]

It is not true. In fact, it’s far from true.


If I were to survey new golf greens built since 2010, I’d hazard a guess that the majority are “medium” size (let’s say 450 - 650 m2).


Then again, I’m guessing. And maybe we have different definitions of medium.

Can you give some examples?  It would help to know "where" you are talking about, for one thing.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Well I hadn’t see your post when I wrote but I’m talking about the majority of new greens I’ve seen right through GB&I, including a large proportion of the ones I’ve built. Granted, average size is definitely bigger than 50 years ago.


Out of interest, what kind of spread / average size / median size do you think the greens at St.Pat’s are?


In the US, I wouldn’t know although I certainly get the impression that they tend towards the larger end and that 500m2 is now considered small.

[Peter Flory]

I was just measuring a few of the greens at Pebble on Google Earth last week and was stunned at how small they actually are.  I knew that they were small, but was still surprised, especially for how long some of the approaches were to them- like #8.  I show it at about 2,100 sf and you're generally approaching that from 180 at best with a bunker in tight.  I show the 11th at about 1,800 sf.  (update- maybe the GE tool isn't accurate though, because I see an article that says that the 11th is 2,200 sf and is the smallest one). 

I've walked Pebble, but never played it.  I can imagine that part of the difficulty is that you're effectively always short sided. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree most people overestimate green size, perhaps because they have been told greens are over 6,000 SF.


Under certain circumstances, I agree with TD that greens can be as small as 4100-4500 SF and still have adequate cup space (assuming limited internal green contours). 


The general guiding principle is that it takes 14-21 days for a cup location to heal for its next use.  The aggressiveness of maintenance and amount of play have a lot to do with the variation.  Private clubs usually have more maintenance and less play.  14 days is plenty for cup recovery.  Public courses usually have less maintenance and more play, and tend to need all 21 cup settings, i.e., 10 foot circles less than 3% (or so, that is another discussion) in grade.  Do that math, including leaving 10-12 foot around the perimeter where you can't set a cup, and something between 5500 and 6000 is probably necessary for best turf growth.


We often discuss the "standardization of golf" here.  On most courses, not only do supers want a minimum of 6,000 SF, but to limit overall chemical use and maintenance, they often object to anything over 6,500 SF as well.  I strive for greens from 4500 to 8500 SF for variety on new course designs.  Given my chances of ever designing another one of those, I may as well give up on that rule of thumb, LOL.

[Peter Pallotta]

Along with 'what does this even mean', another question is 'why is this even important'? [I mean that as a real question]


When a fellow like Ran writes a sentence like "nobody builds X anymore", I know there's a complaint there, and a value judgement. He clearly wishes that people *still* built medium sized greens.


But why? What's so special about medium sized greens? Or, why is it bad that 'nobody' is building them anymore?


Are "medium sized greens" the gca equivalent of vanilla ice cream? Not as immediately appealing & exciting as chocolate (big greens), not as cool & old fashioned as limone gelato (small greens), but a flavour nonetheless and important just for the sake of variety and choice?

Or am I missing something, i.e. do those who really 'know' know that medium sized greens are the best? 

[Tom_Doak]

We often discuss the "standardization of golf" here.  On most courses, not only do supers want a minimum of 6,000 SF, but to limit overall chemical use and maintenance, they often object to anything over 6,500 SF as well.  I strive for greens from 4500 to 8500 SF for variety on new course designs.  Given my chances of ever designing another one of those, I may as well give up on that rule of thumb, LOL.

That's Pacific Dunes.  Smallest greens [6 & 11] are 4500 sq ft.  Largest [9 & 13] are 8500 to 9000.

[Tom_Doak]

Is "medium" the gca equivalent of vanilla ice cream? Not as immediately appealing & exciting as chocolate (big greens), not as cool & old fashioned as limone gelato (small greens), but a flavour nonetheless and important just for the sake of variety and choice.

Aptly put.


As to why it's important, yesterday I stumbled upon a very long interview with Pete Dye, c. 1977, in which he was asked about what made an ideal golf course.  I was somewhat surprised to read the following -- I guess I've internalized it so much I didn't even remember where it came from:


   "Before I start, let me make one thing clear:  what really makes a golf course great is, first, the contouring around the greens and, second, the shape of the greens.  You always hear people say that the size of a green should depend on the legnth of the shot normally played to the green; in other words, the longer the approach shot, the bigger the green.  Not true.  The size of a green is dictated by the severity of the hazards around that green and also by how the green itself is contoured."


He goes on at length about the first green at Pinehurst No. 2 being a perfect example of what he means, and how it scares players over to where they have a much more difficult recovery shot than they expected.




Building consistently big greens is a dumbing down of architecture, in the same way that "ten sets of tees" are.  It's pandering to the player by letting them aim away from the trouble but still hit the green in regulation [even if they might then three-putt].

[Tom_Doak]

I was just measuring a few of the greens at Pebble on Google Earth last week and was stunned at how small they actually are.  I knew that they were small, but was still surprised, especially for how long some of the approaches were to them- like #8.  I show it at about 2,100 sf and you're generally approaching that from 180 at best with a bunker in tight.  I show the 11th at about 1,800 sf.  (update- maybe the GE tool isn't accurate though, because I see an article that says that the 11th is 2,200 sf and is the smallest one). 

I've walked Pebble, but never played it.  I can imagine that part of the difficulty is that you're effectively always short sided.

I think they're a little bigger than what you measured, but not much.  When we worked on Sebonack, I was surprised to learn that Jack Nicklaus knew the size of every green at Pebble by heart:  I passed his quiz by naming the 18th as the biggest one, but even that one was quite a bit smaller than I guessed [4500 sq ft].


When discussing a green design as we walked around, Jack would pick a number for square footage based on the length of the approach shot, though, without looking at the other factors Mr. Dye mentioned.  We had agreed to build small greens there, but the numbers Jack nominated for "small" were all between 3500 and 4500 sq ft.  That's small, all right.

[Tom_Doak]

Out of interest, what kind of spread / average size / median size do you think the greens at St.Pat’s are?

In the US, I wouldn’t know although I certainly get the impression that they tend towards the larger end and that 500m2 is now considered small.

It's a good question and I don't know the answer!  We build them by eye not by plan, and when we are building on sand and materials are not a factor, it's easy to be sloppy on the larger side. 


The first two [14 & 15] were each about 6000 square feet . . . the 15th has a terrace in it and is very exposed, while the 14th is on the flatter side.  We will have two or three that are 8000+ but I don't know that we have any that are under 5000 sq ft.  Maybe the 8th and/or the 18th.


I have always felt that it's partly a function of building greens with bigger equipment nowadays.  When I built High Pointe I had a D-3 . . . most of the greens my guys build now are done with a D-6 or maybe a D-5.  [That's like a large pickup truck today compared to a Cooper Mini D-3.]  They are great at what they do, but the track base of the dozer is just bigger, so the flatter areas for hole locations tend to be bigger as a byproduct.

[Jeff_Brauer]

[font=&amp][/font]

[font=&amp] "Before I start, let me make one thing clear:  what really makes a golf course great is, first, the contouring around the greens and, second, the shape of the greens.  You always hear people say that the size of a green should depend on the length of the shot normally played to the green; in other words, the longer the approach shot, the bigger the green.  Not true.  The size of a green is dictated by the severity of the hazards around that green and also by how the green itself is contoured."[/i][/size][/font]

Of course, the contouring plays a role in green size.  Most architects extend ridges on the perimeter of the green partially across the green.  Any rolls in the first 10-12 feet don't require additional green size.  Internal contours do.  Imagine a 6" mound with 20% (5 to 1 slopes) which takes up a 10-12 foot circle, or one pin spot.  And most supers wouldn't put a pin within another 10 feet of that knob, or so, meaning you lose about 5, 10 foot circles, or about 400 SF right off the bat, assuming your overall green size is otherwise providing just enough pin spots to move the cup.


Pete's second statement sounds a bit like proportional design.  At least, if I elevate a green, creating deep hazards, or havein theory, I guess it should be a bit bigger to offset the penalty a bit.  And, a small green is just fine if you have 10 yards of fw chipping areas surrounding it.  A challenge to save par, yes, if reasonably level, but easier than another hazard (i.e., no lost water balls, etc.)

[Sean_A]

Tom

I have been told that Beau Desert's 18th is ~19,000 sq feet.  I know the green is huge, but does that make sense? 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

I have been told that Beau Desert's 18th is ~19,000 sq feet.  I know the green is huge, but does that make sense? 

Ciao

I didn't remember it being anywhere near that big, so I used Google Earth to measure it just now.  [What a great tool.]  I came up with just a little over 10,000 sq feet, so the guy who provided those stats was not well informed.  It does make sense that it's bigger than the rest, because of the forced carry to get there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


One of my favorites is Indianwood (old) in Lake Orion MI.  Must also be 20K sf., and right under the clubhouse where if you missed that big target, you might find someone on the nearby veranda.


Does it make sense?  It's a unique green and hazard, but is the 150 foot putt a good hazard that everyone loves?  (personally, I say yes, especially on 18 where the disaster or long putt going in sends you to the bar with a good story....well not now, but when golf resumes.)


It makes you go, huh, but requires sprinklers in the green.  It probably averages 3.5 putts per golfer.  If it was the first hole, mowing time alone would hold up play.  The maintenance budget needs to accommodate what is essentially a 21 hole golf course in terms of green size.


I love the idea, did design an unrealized version in China, but in my world, where management companies run golf courses, or really any course that is now scrounging for every penny, the idea would most likely get shot down for practical reasons, and I'm not sure you would find enough golfers who like it to successfully argue for it's inclusion.


Let's just say it has limited use in modern architecture and call it a day?

[Brock Lynch]

Building consistently big greens is a dumbing down of architecture, in the same way that "ten sets of tees" are.  It's pandering to the player by letting them aim away from the trouble but still hit the green in regulation [even if they might then three-putt].

Can you help me understand why more sets of tees "dumbs" down architecture?

The word "trouble" is interesting. Are you saying that at every green, a player should take on the "trouble" and risk being in a tough spot? I thought choices made for good architecture.

Pandering to the player assumes that we all don't like to take on tough targets. I would argue that far too many players take on shots that they can rarely pull off, large green or not.

[Mike Bodo]

Hasn't the needle for green sizes moved over the past several decades? When I caddied at Oakland Hills in the mid 80's the greens there were considered large by comparable standards of that period. However, by today's standards one could argue they are medium-size greens. Have standards changed because trends in green designs have changed over the years?

[Sean_A]

Tom

I have been told that Beau Desert's 18th is ~19,000 sq feet.  I know the green is huge, but does that make sense? 

Ciao

I didn't remember it being anywhere near that big, so I used Google Earth to measure it just now.  [What a great tool.]  I came up with just a little over 10,000 sq feet, so the guy who provided those stats was not well informed.  It does make sense that it's bigger than the rest, because of the forced carry to get there.

Tom

Thanks.  I thought 19,000 sounded too big. I have to admit though, 10,000 sounds too small 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Hasn't the needle for green sizes moved over the past several decades? When I caddied at Oakland Hills in the mid 80's the greens there were considered large by comparable standards of that period. However, by today's standards one could argue they are medium-size greens. Have standards changed because trends in green designs have changed over the years?

Standards have changed because superintendents have insisted they change, which is partly because standards for greens maintenance have changed, which is partly because of superintendents as well !   

[Brian Ross]

I'm building a new course in Kentucky and our greens should end up averaging somewhere in the 5,800-6,000 square foot range with the smallest being approximately 4,800 square feet and the largest approximately 7,400.

[Tom_Doak]

Building consistently big greens is a dumbing down of architecture, in the same way that "ten sets of tees" are.  It's pandering to the player by letting them aim away from the trouble but still hit the green in regulation [even if they might then three-putt].

Can you help me understand why more sets of tees "dumbs" down architecture?

The word "trouble" is interesting. Are you saying that at every green, a player should take on the "trouble" and risk being in a tough spot? I thought choices made for good architecture.

Pandering to the player assumes that we all don't like to take on tough targets. I would argue that far too many players take on shots that they can rarely pull off, large green or not.

We've had about ten threads on the topic of multiple tees in the past couple of years.  Basically, in old school golf design, it was okay for the "rabbit" or "bogey" player to not be able to reach the longest par-4's in regulation, and he could still play for a half with a good pitch and one-putt.  Now, there are tons of people who insist that a 42-handicap woman have a tee from which she can hit every green in regulation, even though she's a 42-handicap.


As for your second paragraph, you are failing at reading comprehension.  Mr. Dye's example was the first green at Pinehurst No. 2 -- if you play safely away from the left-hand bunker [as many players will instinctively do], your ball is likely to bounce away from the green into the chipping area, and you'll have a difficult chip over a rise to a green that runs away from you.  As he pointed out, you'd actually be better off missing in the bunker left.  He also mentioned the dimensions of the green in that example = 120 feet long and 50 feet wide.  What I was saying is, if you make the green 80 feet wide there, that's just pandering to the golfer:  it makes the psychological factors of the hole moot, because you can aim away from the green and still hit the green in regulation [even though you might not make 4].

[Ian Andrew]

Laval-sur-le-lac (Blue) averages 5,300 sq.ft.
I'm trying to get my head around whether that's medium or not.
They vary from 4,000 (3rd and 16th) to 6,500 (4th and 11th).


The amount of short grass around the greens was the key to going smaller.

[Brock Lynch]

Building consistently big greens is a dumbing down of architecture, in the same way that "ten sets of tees" are.  It's pandering to the player by letting them aim away from the trouble but still hit the green in regulation [even if they might then three-putt].

Can you help me understand why more sets of tees "dumbs" down architecture?

The word "trouble" is interesting. Are you saying that at every green, a player should take on the "trouble" and risk being in a tough spot? I thought choices made for good architecture.

Pandering to the player assumes that we all don't like to take on tough targets. I would argue that far too many players take on shots that they can rarely pull off, large green or not.

We've had about ten threads on the topic of multiple tees in the past couple of years.  Basically, in old school golf design, it was okay for the "rabbit" or "bogey" player to not be able to reach the longest par-4's in regulation, and he could still play for a half with a good pitch and one-putt.  Now, there are tons of people who insist that a 42-handicap woman have a tee from which she can hit every green in regulation, even though she's a 42-handicap.


As for your second paragraph, you are failing at reading comprehension.  Mr. Dye's example was the first green at Pinehurst No. 2 -- if you play safely away from the left-hand bunker [as many players will instinctively do], your ball is likely to bounce away from the green into the chipping area, and you'll have a difficult chip over a rise to a green that runs away from you.  As he pointed out, you'd actually be better off missing in the bunker left.  He also mentioned the dimensions of the green in that example = 120 feet long and 50 feet wide.  What I was saying is, if you make the green 80 feet wide there, that's just pandering to the golfer:  it makes the psychological factors of the hole moot, because you can aim away from the green and still hit the green in regulation [even though you might not make 4].

Tom,


I understand hole #1 at Pinehurst #2. Forgive me, but reading your statement about building consistently big greens seemed heavy handed. I know how you feel about having too many tees. So, comparing the two seemed a little strong. Obviously, you have much more experience at this than I do. I can think of many holes where choices are available to the player and some of them are holes with large greens. Sometimes the choice is between the lesser of two possible bad outcomes and other times a choice to be less heroic. Also, I am sure there are many holes with small greens that would be less interesting if the green were made wider.


I hope we can meet face to face some day and we can discuss reading comprehension and your manners

[Adrian_Stiff]

My definition of a small green is 4500 sq ft or less
My definition of a too small green is 3500 sq ft or less
An average green would be between 4501 and 6500 sq feet
Anything above 6500 is a large green


How many archies agree with this as a general principle?