[TEPaul]

In a post to Tom Doak that included mention that the Biarritz at The Creek Club was almost history back in the 1930s due to a Creek repair proposal, it occured to me just how enormous that Creek Biarritz was originally (and is again)!

It also occured to me just how enormous some of the greens in that early era were---some possibly in the neighborhood of  15,000sf or more!

I bring this up for a few interesting reasons;

First, to ask if those on here see the strategic value of greens that're that large? I believe it do. Greens that size definitely do force or require a player to consider distance (to the flag) far more than normal sized greens. And we must also consider that golfers in that early era played almost exlusively by eye and feel and not by reliance on known yardage!

It's also interesting to consider that in that early era the putting green itself within the Rules of Golf was only considered to be 20 yards or paces from the flagstick (only excepting bunkers that may be within that 20 yard area). Presumably, that meant turf within 20 yards of the pin was green even if it was fairway or rough and greenspace outside that 20 yard area was not considered the putting green.

Anyway, how do you feel about some of those super enormous greens of that early era? Were they strategically interesting? Or do you consider them to be just excessive?

By the way, Creek's Biarritz is a bit over 80 yards long! Fox Chapel's Biarritz, following the recent restoration of the greenspace before the swale is about 80 yard long. Dick Wilson built some super enormous greens at Meadowbrook Club in Long Island and RTJ built a green at the London Hunt Club (Ontario) that's still a full 88 yards long on a diagonal (#10). And PVGC's #18 apparently used to include everything over the front bunkering as greenspace! That would've put that green at about 15,000sf, perhaps more!

[SPDB]

TEPaul -
As built, i don't think #11 was entirely "green." If you look at the early rendering of the course (can be found on the back of the scorecard), there can be seen two distince shades of green which, to me, seems to suggest that, unlike today, the green did not extend the entire length of the island.

What about  #6 at NGLA?

[A_Clay_Man]

T, The closest I've come to what you describe wasn't an early ager, it was Rancho Solano (Rancho relaxo) nw of the bay area on the route to Tahoe. It has enormous greens. My take, looking back, is that it is similar to the confusion, to the golfer, caused by wide fairways. Along the lines of Jones' justification for no rough at ANGC. (ok a bit simplistic. consider the source)

Personally I love it! I found it difficult to judge perfectly because of the perspective and lack of dictation. Also, I love a goooood loooong putt. Alot!

[TEPaul]

SPDB;

I've heard that the space before the swale of #11 Creek may not have been green space but it is now! The same may have been true at Fox Chapel but it too is now!

What about #6 NGLA? If you're asking if it's the same space today as it was designed, I think so. That greenspace has always been well defined and the early photos are numerous. The green at NGLA that may have been really enormous might have been #2 but it's possble too that it might have been moved back from where it was originally. Macdonald did redesign a number of NGLA greens from original construction.

[texsport]

Other than the maintenance costs of huge greens, I feel that they are interesting for 2 main reasons:

(1) They force different approach shot strategies. This is more challenging for golfers who play the same course frequently. Three to four club greens are great attention getters.

(2) Huge greens provide a defense against the "bomb and pitch" strategy used to overpower older, shorter courses.
If the greens are also fast, it's all the defense a course needs.

A comment against small greens would be the experience of the Tour 18 couse in Houston. They put in a number of small greens, simulating famous holes like Augusta's 13th hole. They qickly discovered that small greens and a single green access point cannot hold up to a large number of rounds, resulting in some worn out greens.

Texsport

[TEPaul]

"It is the perfect way to mess with the player's mind by getting him thinking that he just 3 whacked the "simplest hole on the course" for bogey.  That thought can ruin an entire round if you let it.  I know this from far more experience than I'd care to acknowlege."

Shivas:

On this I couldn't agree with you more! But now, as you shall probably soon see, the trick is to get today's architects and clients to buy into that concept! It seems they have this serious concern, probably a palpable fear really, that something like that will be roundly unpopular and criticized by too many of today's golfers.

The answer will probably be, if greens like that (greens with a green) are to make a comeback, it will be only in the private club sector. Some in the public sector may want them but they should understand that too many others in the public sector perhaps protest too much!

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

At NGLA with the greens at tournament speed 5 out of 6 of the first six greens pretty much has that effect on the golfer if they happen to be in the wrong spot on the green (#1, #2, #3, #4, #6).

[Mark Studer]

TP - Fox Chapel has recaptured the front of the 17th, but they have also mowed out the front of #1, expanded to original the punchbowl second, the front of 4, the 5th, front of 7, #8, the front and back of 9, front of 10, impressive work expanding 12,13, 14 ,15, 16, and the 18th.  WOW!!, come to think of it , Fox Chapel's members and leadership should be both proud and thrilled with the respect  they have shown their original Architect, Seth Raynor. The 1st, 2nd, 4th , 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th , and 18th are all  HUGE putting greens now and hole placements can be just plain fun and entertaining.                                                                                           The 9th green at Oakmont(c. 1903) might be as big as anything that I have seen except some of the double greens at St. Andrews.  It is also great to see "Gookin", a.k.a.  David, post his thoughts about this special western pa. walkable , playable, enjoyable, golden age  beauty, Fox Chapel. Gookin  could expand on their club's plans to   prepare for this years state am.....TEP and I look forward to officiating that championship this year!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't believe that # 11 at The Creek "plays" large.

It's a football shaped green surrounded by a moat like creek with three tiers.

If the pin is in the front or back tier, the effective target is fairly small, and who would dare hit a shot pin high when the hole is located far back in the green, the narrow end.
Conversely, who's going to try to get a shot in close when the pin is up front, in the other narrow end ?

If the pin were in the swale, it would seem to be the widest, safest shot there is.

For some time I believe the 5th green at Forsgate was the largest single green in the world.

[T_MacWood]

The old 15th green at Oakmont was also huge...nearly as large as #9.

[SPDB]

Pat - What do you mean by the narrow ends of #11 green? The green is the same width throughout.

Also, how many times have you played it when they cut the pin in the swale?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

The green is not square, and the footpad is similar to a lenticular hyperboloid

I've never played the golf course when the pin was in the swail, but that's just random luck, or bad luck.

[SPDB]

Pat - I never said it was square. But its definitely not a football shape, no matter how fancy it is phrased.
Its more like a rectangle, with one angled end.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()