Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mike Hendren on December 28, 2023, 05:07:56 PM
-
There often is little dispersion of green sizes on most courses. Where are there exceptions? Off the top of my head I thought of the 15th and 18th greens at Fenway. Exclude double greens.
Why isn’t this more prevalent?
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
-
Unfortunately, this is something that seems to get overlooked/neglected during the design process. I think too many get caught up in trying to produce a set of greens that are somewhere near the "average" of 6,000 SF and just end up building everything between 5,500 and 6,500 SF.
We thought about this a lot at Park Mammoth. We built the smallest green (4,450 SF) on the longest non-Par 5 (452 Yard Par 4 4th Hole) and the largest (non-double) green (11,612 SF) on the shortest hole (109 Yard Par 3 11th).
Our project at Jekyll Island in Georgia will have greens anywhere from 4,200 SF to 12,650 SF (both Par 3s).
*Edited for context...
-
Loved everything at Park Mammoth. Congrats.
-
Streamsong Red #3 was like 3-4,000 sq. ft. while Red #6 was 14,000 sq. ft.
Similar difference between Blue #6 and Blue #14.
-
Why isn’t this more prevalent?
It's mostly a matter of practicality.
It's difficult to build small greens anymore. If you are building a course that expects a lot of play [which most clients hope for], the superintendent is going to insist on at least 5000 sf per green, possibly 6000. So the lower bound is more limited than it used to be.
And if you are thinking practically, and 6000 sf will suffice, it seems pretty unnecessary to build one that's 12000 sf.
Sure, you can find ways to justify it, the best of which is "that's just what I felt like building". :) But the number of times I've worked on a hole where I thought it really NEEDED a 12,000 sf green are small enough to count on one hand.
Variety is important. Overdoing variety for the sake of publicity is not the same thing.
-
If greens are the most important element of courses and variety is critical, then green size variety is its own justification. That said, on firm turf, short grass runoffs essentially serve as green extensions.
Off the top of my head Beau Desert has decent size differential between 18 and a few of the smaller greens such as 9.
SGH has a wide difference between 10 and 11.
Ciao
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
-
What are the ranges in green sizes at Old Mac, Streamsong Black and Mammoth Dunes?
-
Scottsdale National The Other Course might win this one. The 5th green is over 21,000 sq ft, and then quickly followed up by the 7th green which is around 4,000 sq ft.
Bad Little Nine hole #9 probably wins for smallest green around at 900 sq ft. It seems like an impossible target when you are on the tee box.
The amount of variety at Scottsdale National is amazing, I am surprised it is discussed more. It also is extremely private, so that might be why.
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
I am not sure about the influence comment. When I last played TOC I was very aware to not play too safely and be left in three putt territory. The green sizes heavily influenced me.
Ciao
-
Without succumbing to any gimmickry, Friars Head has quite the differential. The 17th hole is 3,300 sf, and the 10th 18,000sf. What is even more interesting is they are both par threes.
-
Loved everything at Park Mammoth. Congrats.
+1
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
I am not sure about the influence comment. When I last played TOC I was very aware to not play too safely and be left in three putt territory. The green sizes heavily influenced me.
Ciao
In other words, you played closer to the target, to a green within a green.
-
Without succumbing to any gimmickry, Friars Heads has quite the differential. The 17th hole is 3,300 sf, and the 10th 18,000sf. What is even more interesting is they are both par threes.
I am getting in to tiny nuances here. But sometimes I feel that such variance in green size dates a course as modern. It is a tiny element of contrivance that moves a course away from “could have been built in any age”.
I have never been to Friar’s Head.
I’d be very interested to know which Top-100 courses built before 1930 had huge variances in green sizes. I’d guess not many. I could be very wrong though. After all, I just mentioned Riviera above. Although I get the feeling most examples would have just one or two small green outliers.
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
I am not sure about the influence comment. When I last played TOC I was very aware to not play too safely and be left in three putt territory. The green sizes heavily influenced me.
Ciao
In other words, you played closer to the target, to a green within a green.
In many cases I tried to do so 😎.
I like a wide variety of bunker size as well. Same for fairways.
Ciao
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
I am not sure about the influence comment. When I last played TOC I was very aware to not play too safely and be left in three putt territory. The green sizes heavily influenced me.
Ciao
In other words, you played closer to the target, to a green within a green.
In many cases I tried to do so 😎.
I like a wide variety of bunker size as well. Same for fairways.
Ciao
I agree about bunker sizes. That almost always helps an aesthetic. There’s one particular celebrated, modern architect who frustratingly builds all of his bunkers almost all the same size.
On fairway width, I’m particular that the fairway needs to work with the surrounding landscape. Variances in fairway width for the sake of it can often look contrived.
It’s the same with every part of design really: The scale has to work as part of the whole.
-
Bad Little Nine hole #9 probably wins for smallest green around at 900 sq ft. It seems like an impossible target when you are on the tee box.
Pair the tiny 9th with the 4th at over 10,000 sqft and you might have the largest ratio between large and small.
-
4,000 sf is roughly 20/21 paces x 20/21 paces - a pretty small target for most golfers. I'll defer to Tom, All, Ian, etc. since this is what they're paid for, but perhaps if there are enough pinnable areas and more then ne ingress/egress for foot traffic to the putting surface AND there's enough natural light to maintain proper growing conditions, this would work.
My concern/issue would be more with the teeing ground for a hole with this sized green, especially if its a 1 shotter. A pet peeve of most of the anyone's customer base will the the conditions of the tees, greens/approaches then fairways, bunkers & then rough. Tees with little turf due to size limitations and overuse, soil compaction, inadequate sunlight, limiting teeing locations due to crowning from improper top dressing are all pet peeves of the customer base. I'd be hoping a 1 shotter with a 4,000 sf green has 5,000 sf of teeing ground, 3,750 sf of it for the daily tee placement.
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
I am not sure about the influence comment. When I last played TOC I was very aware to not play too safely and be left in three putt territory. The green sizes heavily influenced me.
Ciao
In other words, you played closer to the target, to a green within a green.
In many cases I tried to do so 😎.
I like a wide variety of bunker size as well. Same for fairways.
Ciao
I agree about bunker sizes. That almost always helps an aesthetic. There’s one particular celebrated, modern architect who frustratingly builds all of his bunkers almost all the same size.
On fairway width, I’m particular that the fairway needs to work with the surrounding landscape. Variances in fairway width for the sake of it can often look contrived.
It’s the same with every part of design really: The scale has to work as part of the whole.
Being contrived isn’t a major concern for me. Some of my favourite courses have contrived elements. I think naturalism is the new minimalism. Variety matters more than any school of design.
Ciao
-
Any way you square it, it’s probably going to be hard to beat the difference between the 8th (5,315 sqft) and 17th (30,340 sqft) at Landmand.
I can’t think of any circumstance where a 30,000 sqf green is anything but a gimmick. The only other one I know that is close is the 120 yard long green at The European Club. Definitely a gimmick, albeit one I quite like.
Even the largest green in the world (5,13 at TOC) is around 44,000 sqf but servicing two holes.
Once you deal with potential maintenance issues, small greens are far more effective in influencing holes. Think the 10th at Riviera. Or at Portmarnock, our only really short par-4 in the 27 is the 4th on the yellow nine which is a magnificent hole because the green is half the size of any other.
Variety in size is important but that variety doesn’t need to be so big that golf holes feel like they are from entirely different courses. As a complete generalisation, you don’t really need (or even want) more than 4 or 5,000 sqf difference between smallest and largest green in an 18.
I am not sure about the influence comment. When I last played TOC I was very aware to not play too safely and be left in three putt territory. The green sizes heavily influenced me.
Ciao
In other words, you played closer to the target, to a green within a green.
In many cases I tried to do so 😎.
I like a wide variety of bunker size as well. Same for fairways.
Ciao
I agree about bunker sizes. That almost always helps an aesthetic. There’s one particular celebrated, modern architect who frustratingly builds all of his bunkers almost all the same size.
On fairway width, I’m particular that the fairway needs to work with the surrounding landscape. Variances in fairway width for the sake of it can often look contrived.
It’s the same with every part of design really: The scale has to work as part of the whole.
Being contrived isn’t a major concern for me. Some of my favourite courses have contrived elements. I think naturalism is the new minimalism. Variety matters more than any school of design.
Ciao
I don’t know what that means. At least in relation to what I was talking about.
-
Circa 2014-15, we built a 2,500 sq. ft. green in a tiny space at the end of the par 5 11th hole at the Derrick Club, in Edmonton, Alberta. The 15th green at the Derrick sits in a huge space and measures 10,000 sq. ft.
I had the original 15th green at Harbour Town in mind when I was shaping that 11th green at the Derrick. Shortly after I finished roughing it in, the superintendent found me and said/asked, "That's not the 11th green, is it?" After I pontificated about the brilliance of Harbour Town and my experiences there as a kid (!), he actually let me leave it. But, he also promised we'd be enlarging at some point in the not too distant future. He was right. Probably 3-4 years into the course's existence, we doubled the size of the 11th green. The only subsequent work we've done at the Derrick, actually.
As Tom Doak mentions above, a 2,500 sq. ft. green takes a beating at a busy course.
-
Greens within greens and unusable areas?
atb
-
While I don’t know square footages, I do know that the greatest disparity in greens I can recall was at Landmand, the par 3, 8th and the drivable par 4 17th.
-
Well, the answer has got to be .................................. Pine Valley.
The greens on the 8th hole are about as small as any I have seen on a full golf course. Probably why there are two of them, although I have never played to the right green - not that I am there that often.
In terms of big # 4, #13, #16 and the 18th green are all large. Pretty easy to 3+ putt those large greens if your approach is on the wrong side.
The great difference in green sizes is an example of how diverse the design features are at PV.
-
Well, the answer has got to be .................................. Pine Valley.
The greens on the 8th hole are about as small as any I have seen on a full golf course. Probably why there are two of them, although I have never played to the right green - not that I am there that often.
In terms of big # 4, #13, #16 and the 18th green are all large. Pretty easy to 3+ putt those large greens if your approach is on the wrong side.
The great difference in green sizes is an example of how diverse the design features are at PV.
This was what jumped to my mind. That 8th green is so small. I looked on google maps and that's about 2,000 sq ft while the 2nd for example is around 10,000 sq ft. 16 is a little under 12,000 sq ft - I think that must be the biggest one. It's hard to tell where 13 fairway/green interchange happens, so not sure about that one.
-
Why isn’t this more prevalent?
It's mostly a matter of practicality.
It's difficult to build small greens anymore. If you are building a course that expects a lot of play [which most clients hope for], the superintendent is going to insist on at least 5000 sf per green, possibly 6000. So the lower bound is more limited than it used to be.
And if you are thinking practically, and 6000 sf will suffice, it seems pretty unnecessary to build one that's 12000 sf.
Sure, you can find ways to justify it, the best of which is "that's just what I felt like building". :) But the number of times I've worked on a hole where I thought it really NEEDED a 12,000 sf green are small enough to count on one hand.
Variety is important. Overdoing variety for the sake of publicity is not the same thing.
I do like the variety of different size greens, but it can be between 4500 SF and an upper limit of maybe 10K.
The design (as opposed to marketing) reason I have often heard is that a large green on a shorter shot "might" make one lazy on the approach, which is certainly a different way of trying to fool golfers. Perhaps that large green could be partially hidden, or even have large bunkers to fool distance perception. The other justification I have heard is that if you have one green where the penalty for an indifferent approach shot is a monster putt rather than hazard, there is nothing wrong with that, although many golfers reject the idea of a shot you really can't practice for, and who wants to check with their medical insurance on a shot? (A 200 foot putt takes quite a hip turn!)
Having been in the biz since 1977, I will say it wasn't very practical then to build a green under 5K, so it is (to me) a "now days" type issue. Similarly, supers usually balk at much under 6K and anything much over 6500 SF, which is difficult but suitable to find enough pins. Is building 4% contours and other wild internal contours within, all of which require bigger greens than the acceptable minimum also a way to justify bigger greens? For most golf courses struggling to make money, that answer would be no, but I see a lot of architects following those trends, which I believe will be found as impractical in the next recession, as wild features that are harder than standard to maintain have been. I used to think (still do) that except at high end courses, anything that is difficult to maintain will be altered within a few years from opening.
-
I used to think (still do) that except at high end courses, anything that is difficult to maintain will be altered within a few years from opening.
That's really disheartening to read Jeff. It brings to mind questions of what the purpose of golf and courses even is. Is the purpose of a golf course to be easily maintainable or to be fun and engaging to the player?
-
I used to think (still do) that except at high end courses, anything that is difficult to maintain will be altered within a few years from opening.
That's really disheartening to read Jeff. It brings to mind questions of what the purpose of golf and courses even is. Is the purpose of a golf course to be easily maintainable or to be fun and engaging to the player?
There are a lot of people developing golf courses who think the purpose of building a golf course is to make money. [Few of them have ever had the chance to read the financials for 100 golf courses to see where the odds really lie.]
Fortunately, there is also a cohort of developers for whom developing a golf course is a dream project, and they just want it to be a fun place to play and to bring their friends. Those guys generally don't mind maintaining a bit of extra green surface.
But, there is a point at which it just becomes an extravagance and doesn't really add to the interest of the golf. Where you cross that line is up to the eye of the beholder, I guess. I just want to be sure I've crossed the threshold of "fun to play" first.
-
I just want to be sure I've crossed the threshold of "fun to play" first.
Exactly. I'm all for making golf course maintenance as affordable as possible, but not at the expense of a course that is actually fun to play. That would be putting the cart before the horse I think.
-
I noticed and appreciated this at the Tree Farm. 7 seemed to be around 3000 sq ft and there are a few I would guess are over 10,000 sq ft.
-
Garden City GC comes to mind. I'm guessing the 14th green is the smallest on the course (looks to be around 4,000 SF), but the par-three 18th green looks to be around 13,000 SF.