[Thomas Dai]

In general terms what % of a putting surface is likely not pinable, ie not just slope but nearness to edges?
Atb

[Scott Champion]

Out of interest, in Ran’s review of Ardfin he described the greens as intermediate in size which might give some insight as to what Ran considers to be medium sized greens.


“Intermediate in size and averaging 4,446 square feet, they are exceptional and praiseworthy. They range nicely in size from the tiny 2,800 square foot eighth green to the almost 6,800 square foot seventh.”
 
There are a few greens at Ardfin that are very small, however this was possible because it doesn’t receive large amounts of play. However, the size of a green and how small or large it actually plays can be very different things depending on the character of the internal contours and the surrounds – and whether they are assisting or deflecting.
 
Like many things in golf course design, standardisation can sometimes lead to compromised or bland outcomes. This applies to green size but also to defining what percentage slopes are allowed within a green. Variety is key.

[Adrian_Stiff]

In general terms what % of a putting surface is likely not pinable, ie not just slope but nearness to edges?
Atb

Depends on the Shape Thomas. In theory you could have a green 6 metres wide (and they exist) that just has a small strip down the middle. 20 x 20 circular green has 314sq m of green. but 14 x 14 pinning 211 sq m of pinning thats the best ratio your going get.
That 3 metre band loses a lot, though many people will pin  to 2 metres.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks Adrian. That's kind of where I was coming from. There's effectively a circa 10 ft area around the edges of greens where the flag is never cut. And such an area will have been costly to build and time consuming and costly to maintain. Given that fringes are relatively speaking pretty well manicured during the main playing season these days maybe holes should be cut nearer the green edges, not a few inches or even a couple of feet but closer than 10? Just curious.
atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Thanks Adrian. That's kind of where I was coming from. There's effectively a circa 10 ft area around the edges of greens where the flag is never cut. And such an area will have been costly to build and time consuming and costly to maintain. Given that fringes are relatively speaking pretty well manicured during the main playing season these days maybe holes should be cut nearer the green edges, not a few inches or even a couple of feet but closer than 10? Just curious.
atb

I think most people will pin to about 7feet 6 so 2.2m, in the winter perhaps inside. I never seen a tour pin at 2, but I have seen 3 and ideally 4 is the min....think thats yards though. When you build greens, its a little bit like nice houses versus a flat. The better greens allow for contour, run off, fringes. Nice houses are often nice because of a large bathroom or wide hallway or a great view that wastes space.

[Tom_Doak]

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?

I would say for modern courses that small < 5000 sf and large > 7000 sf.  Either that, or you'd just have to say there are almost no small greens on modern courses, and mostly large ones.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, agree small is <5K, larger is greater than 7K.  You know, maybe 4750 and 6750 SF or so, but not enough differences in opinion here to quibble.  And as Adrian notes, shape matters, a 4500 SF circle seems more roomy than a squiggly 5000 SF green.


It is surprising how low a percentage of even a circular green is pinnable, after taking out 10 feet around the perimeter.  a 6000 SF green has a 44 foot radius/88 foot diameter.  Take that down to 68 foot diameter (10 foot all the way around) and cup space is cut to 3620, or about 60%.  14-21 10 foot circles equals about 1100-1650 SF, so there is still lots of room for some internal contours on a 6000 sf green.  I figure the absolute minimum for adequate cup areas is just over 4000 sf.

Shapely greens give up far more area than the most efficiently shaped circle.

Of course, the biggest thing designers face is the inevitable inward creep of green edges.  Do we assume our super will keep the outside edge, or will they be like most and let them creep in?  How much do we allow for the fact that 6,000 SF greens become 4500 SF greens over time?

[Neil Regan]

I remember a thread on this subject from years ago. I looked it up.


This is the old thread from 2003 !
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7374.msg143368.html#msg143368


In that thread, the link to the article is broken.
This works in 2020
https://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/?file=/1920s/1923/2312314.pdf


 This is a chart from that 1923 article.
I’m guessing some of these (very round) numbers are just guesses.
At least several of these course have had restoration work in recent years.
(Merion, Hollywood, Pine Valley, Brookline, ...)
I wonder how close today’s numbers match 1923 ?

[Neil Regan]

Some averages from 1923:


Apawamis 4,852


Hollywood 6,482


Merion 6,577


Pine Valley 7,456


Brookline 8,287

[Neil Regan]

As an aside, unrelated to this topic but perhaps relevant to the perennial Biarritz talk, the 1923 author says this:


Sometimes a sort of double putting sward is used and so constructed that the player who is on the wrong part of the sward is no better off than one who is not on the sward at all.

[Jason Topp]

  What would be the allowable slope for hole under Jeff's formula at a green speed of around 8 on the stimp?


I would be interested to see how more boldly sloped, slower greens would play.


Old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes give some clue but I am frequently surprised at how soft the greens are in those episodes.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm genuinely curious.  How does Pebble make it work with so many greens in the very very small category and a year round full tee sheet?

Is Poa more sturdy than you're other grasses?  Or are the greens crap most of the time you play it?  Or does having year round good growing conditions come into play?

[V. Kmetz]

I'm genuinely curious.  How does Pebble make it work with so many greens in the very very small category and a year round full tee sheet?
Is Poa more sturdy than you're other grasses?  Or are the greens crap most of the time you play it?  Or does having year round good growing conditions come into play?

Let me ask the other sides of the question too (that consistently large greens are too costly/labor intensive to maintain sustainably)...


1. Isn't Yale the CLEAR leader for American green size across 18 greens? (I've never seen bigger on one course)
2. How do they do it?

[Kalen Braley]

VK,

I wasn't talking cost I was talking logistics, good old fashioned wear and tear per sq foot of green.  Certainly on a larger green with plenty of pinnable space, (assuming Yale has it), its just a function of having the staff/resources to maintain the green.  But when you have only so much space to work with and a full tee sheet, whats the maintenance formula? 

P.S. No doubt Pebble has a massive reservoir of green fees to accomplish this, but i'm curious in the how.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm genuinely curious.  How does Pebble make it work with so many greens in the very very small category and a year round full tee sheet?

Is Poa more sturdy than you're other grasses?  Or are the greens crap most of the time you play it?  Or does having year round good growing conditions come into play?

I have not played there for years, but, the greens used to be pretty beat up due to all the play on such a small area.

[Tom_Doak]

  What would be the allowable slope for hole under Jeff's formula at a green speed of around 8 on the stimp?


I would be interested to see how more boldly sloped, slower greens would play.


Old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes give some clue but I am frequently surprised at how soft the greens are in those episodes.

The old courses used to use hole locations with up to 4.5% slope in them.  That still worked when greens were at 8 on the Stimpmeter.  At 8.5 Stimpmeter [flat surface], a ball on a flat slope will roll approx. 14.5 feet [so that's the effective Stimp reading].


Unfortunately, the fellow who did all the math on this problem expressed slope in terms of degrees instead of %, and the conversion is not simple to do!

[Jeff_Brauer]

  What would be the allowable slope for hole under Jeff's formula at a green speed of around 8 on the stimp?


I would be interested to see how more boldly sloped, slower greens would play.


Old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes give some clue but I am frequently surprised at how soft the greens are in those episodes.

Jerry Lemons, ASGCA did a big study a few years back, and you can access that chart on line.  For 8 stimp, his maximum (but marginal cup slope was actually about 2.65 deg., or 5.86% slope.  A degree is about 45% of a slope. A  % slope is about 2.2X a degree. 


I was once called to a project by contractor who thought out green grades were all out of whack, but had his digital level set to degrees and not % slope.


The good news about Jerry's chart, is that greens can actually be a bit steeper than the USGA oft cited 2-3%.


As to how much areas would be lost under Jason's question, I would guess none, as TD suggests.  The green interiors might just be steeper overall in the old days.


TD doesn't define "old courses" but generally, I have seen 1950's greens at 6% through cupping areas, down to 4% in the 60's, 3% in the 70's, 2.5% in the 80's, 2% in the 90's, and since 2000, most architects seem to have stayed at 2%, but some have made the majority of their interior green surfaces below that, from 1.5-1.8%  All in general of course.


Tom mentions the difficulty of converting degrees to percent. I recall talking to Pete Dye about the steepest slopes he designed for cup spaces, and he used "a quarter inch per foot."  It took some math to figure it was about 2.25% when he was designing for tournament venues, which I presume he almost always did.

[Tom_Doak]

Let me ask the other sides of the question too (that consistently large greens are too costly/labor intensive to maintain sustainably)...

1. Isn't Yale the CLEAR leader for American green size across 18 greens? (I've never seen bigger on one course)
2. How do they do it?

Yale spends a fortune on maintaining their golf course.  Some of it is due to having unionized university employees, but some of it is because of those big greens.


I don't think they are the biggest in America, though.  I would guess Meadow Brook on L.I. has greens about the same size.  And I'm pretty sure Old Macdonald's greens are bigger.  We measured those at 6.2 acres when it opened. 

[Tim Martin]

Let me ask the other sides of the question too (that consistently large greens are too costly/labor intensive to maintain sustainably)...

1. Isn't Yale the CLEAR leader for American green size across 18 greens? (I've never seen bigger on one course)
2. How do they do it?

Yale spends a fortune on maintaining their golf course.  Some of it is due to having unionized university employees, but some of it is because of those big greens.


I don't think they are the biggest in America, though.  I would guess Meadow Brook on L.I. has greens about the same size.  And I'm pretty sure Old Macdonald's greens are bigger.  We measured those at 6.2 acres when it opened. 

Tom-I think the union issues were more prevalent at the beginning of Scott’s tenure as a lot of the guys bought in over time what he was trying to accomplish. I don’t know how many guys stay on in the Winter versus being reassigned to another Yale entity but but I don’t think it’s too many.
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()