Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Benjamin Litman on March 24, 2015, 11:34:24 AM
-
Thanks to a Mike Clayton retweet, I just came across this gem on my Twitter feed. I find fascinating not only the numbers, but the courses--including my dear Yale--chosen as examples.
(http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah266/Benjamin_Litman/Green%20Speeds_zpswzvuzpkr.jpg)
-
Thanks, Benjamin.
I couldn't help but wonder whether courses that dramatically increased their green speeds (e.g. Yale, Desert Forest, San Fran) are rated/ranked more highly now than in 1977.
Not that I'm suggesting there'd be any direct (and ironic) correlation mind you....
Peter
-
Nicklaus once commented that he had been shocked by the speed of the greens at Oakmont at the US Open in 1962. Someone then asked him what the green speeds that year would have measured on a modern stimp device.
He said from 6 to 6.5.
Bob
-
Great anecdote, Bob. Thanks.
Peter: My guess is that ALL courses have dramatically increased their green speeds in that timeframe, and that any changes in rankings have therefore been due to other factors/ranking criteria. But because you asked (and because GolfDigest has this trusty historical listing of the rankings (http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster (http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/golf-courses/2007-12/100greatestcourses_roster)), I shall answer:
1977-78 GD Ranking 2008-09 GD Rank
Butler 5th 10 3rd 10 (No. 21)
Desert Forest 2nd 50 N/A (dropped from rankings in 2005; was in 8th 10 (No. 80) in 2003-04)
Hazeltine 2nd 50 9th 10 (No. 89)
Olympic 1st 10 3rd 10 (No. 23)
SFGC 2nd 50 4th 10 (No. 31)
Yale N/A (dropped from rankings in 1977; was in 2nd 50 in 1975-76)
-
Nicklaus once commented that he had been shocked by the speed of the greens at Oakmont at the US Open in 1962. Someone then asked him what the green speeds that year would have measured on a modern stimp device.
He said from 6 to 6.5.
Bob
However, when one looks at the old tapes of a ball rolling DOWNHILL, the ball is barely creeping down the hill due to slope AND grain running the same direction.
They would seem particularly fast downhill when contrasted with uphill putts with the opposite effect , ESPECIALLY when the effect of using a pin cut into a slope which are now completely avoided out of necessity with modern green speeds.
I know which type of green stimp speed requires more skill/imagination and it's not the high one.
Amazing to me we've done so much to "protect par" by growing native, narrowing fairways, lengthening, and the thing that helps scoring most is having the greens roll virtually the same speed both uphill and downhill-to say nothing of the most difficult pins slopewise being eliminated.
Observe how many putts were left short at Bay Hill due to slower than normal greens for the Tour.
Also, while those might be everyday green speeds from the 1970's, they could be amped for events.
Now members expect the same high speed all the time.
God forbid a course play different day to day-even a gem such as Crystal Downs is trying to achieve a "consistent" speed based on a poll, which eliminates one of the joys of an outdoor game.
-
Does anyone still use a blade putter? I used to, 30 or 40 years ago. I loved it and was quite good with it. But my sons now encourage me to use some great heavy thing - I can barely putt to the centre of the green. Have our greens slowed down? I doubt it.
-
Does anyone still use a blade putter? I used to, 30 or 40 years ago. I loved it and was quite good with it. But my sons now encourage me to use some great heavy thing - I can barely putt to the centre of the green. Have our greens slowed down? I doubt it.
Mark,
you certainly do not see as many these days which is a shame as I always had a soft spot for the Titleist Bullseye or a John Letter Golden Goose. I suspect it has more to do with fashion than green speeds.
Jon
-
Does anyone still use a blade putter? I used to, 30 or 40 years ago. I loved it and was quite good with it. But my sons now encourage me to use some great heavy thing - I can barely putt to the centre of the green. Have our greens slowed down? I doubt it.
Mark:
I still use mine! And reasonably well, most of the time.
-
I realize that memory is very unreliable. Nonetheless, I am skeptical of these reports of old stimpmeter readings. My course, Rolling Green, hosted the Women's Open in 1976. The USGA reports stimp readings then at under 9. My memory tells me that the poa greens when I joined the club in 1979 were just as fast, or faster, than the bent greens we are playing now. Downhill five footers were scary and would routinely run 10 feet by a hole. Today they don't, although we're told the greens are running at 10-11. And I find it difficult to believe Oakmont's 1962 greens ran at 6 - a speed probably found on many fairways today. I can't prove it; this is only a cynical observation. But, I believe it is now so politically correct to encourage slower greens, that history is being revised to support the politics. I know, it's tiresome to hear about "the good old days" from an older generation fuddy duddy. (I'm 66, but don't feel like a fuddy duddy.) All I can say is, I remember what I remember.
-
I realize that memory is very unreliable. Nonetheless, I am skeptical of these reports of old stimpmeter readings. My course, Rolling Green, hosted the Women's Open in 1976. The USGA reports stimp readings then at under 9. My memory tells me that the poa greens when I joined the club in 1979 were just as fast, or faster, than the bent greens we are playing now. Downhill five footers were scary and would routinely run 10 feet by a hole. Today they don't, although we're told the greens are running at 10-11. And I find it difficult to believe Oakmont's 1962 greens ran at 6 - a speed probably found on many fairways today. I can't prove it; this is only a cynical observation. But, I believe it is now so politically correct to encourage slower greens, that history is being revised to support the politics. I know, it's tiresome to hear about "the good old days" from an older generation fuddy duddy. (I'm 66, but don't feel like a fuddy duddy.) All I can say is, I remember what I remember.
See Jeff's post #4.
He nails it IMHO. The greens at the course I learned to play on "played fast" because downhill putts were scary. But i was back a couple of years ago and they weren't nearly as testing.
I'm convinced that back then the huge difference between uphill and downhill pace was the reason.
Where I mostly play now, the greens barely grow in the winter so they don't get mowed. But we can often play, and by Feb. they're just like the greens I remember from home. Fast as lightning downhill, but slow uphill.
-
From a 1990 USGA article by David Oatis:
It should be noted that in 1976 and 1977, the years during which the stimpmeter was tested, the average speed across the country was 6' 6". Furthermore, anything over 7' 6" was considered excitingly fast by the Green Section agronomists doing the testing.
...and here are the readings at the 1978 US Open at Cherry Hills:
http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1970s/1978/781107.pdf
...and one on the difference in uphill/downhill putts using 1/4" and 3/16" settings:
http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1980s/1980/800107.pdf
-
Good articles Jim, and some classic cars in the car park, mid 1970's. Thanks.
-
Is it certain that the stimpmeter accurately measures green speeds (if nothing else, in a comparative sense)? One thing that occurs to me is that the stimpmeter does not replicate putting conditions. When you putt, you hit the ball with your putter: you apply a force to a stationary object, to set it in motion. The stimpmeter, as I understand it, rolls a ball down a slope: when it first touches the green it's already moving. I know little about physics, but am wondering if that changes the equation.
Also, can we compare stimpmeter readings from 35 years ago with those of today? i.e. are the stimpmeters and balls the same, or enough alike, that a reading of 7' now is the same as 7' in 1978?
-
The Stimpmeter should be the same, as it is well defined. But your other point is good, the ball might go further.
-
Also, the stimp reading is not really a measure of speed but rather a measure of distance of roll. The ball is not rolling faster but rather rolling further if hit at the same speed. If anything to hit the ball the same distance you now need to hit the ball slower.
Jon
-
Going back to when I started playing in the early 90s green speeds don't seem any quicker now then there were then. Does this seem the way to others? Was there that much of a jump from the mid 70s to the 90s?
Anecdotally, members talk about the speed of the greens in Cork GC before automated irrigation and say how fast they would become, imperative to stay below the hole on a few greens or else the next shot could be a chip, you would have to think green speeds were pretty high for this to happen.
-
Also, the stimp reading is not really a measure of speed but rather a measure of distance of roll. The ball is not rolling faster but rather rolling further if hit at the same speed. If anything to hit the ball the same distance you now need to hit the ball slower.
That's an interesting point, Jon. Another of the many paradoxes of playing golf I suppose. The faster the greens, the slower you must roll the ball.
-
Stimp readings are higher because we can. Ask yourself where the industry would be if it had remained the same? Would Toro have made as much$$$$...would irrigation be as complicated?....would fans be at every course?....would top dressing be as expensive?....would grain still be part of the game?...would new grasses have been needed?....would the softspike have been needed? .We are SOLD greenspeed...the business controls the game....
-
Stimp readings are higher because we can. Ask yourself where the industry would be if it had remained the same? Would Toro have made as much$$$$...would irrigation be as complicated?....would fans be at every course?....would top dressing be as expensive?....would grain still be part of the game?...would new grasses have been needed?....would the softspike have been needed? .We are SOLD greenspeed...the business controls the game....
BINGO :-[
-
Stimp readings are higher because we can. Ask yourself where the industry would be if it had remained the same? Would Toro have made as much$$$$...would irrigation be as complicated?....would fans be at every course?....would top dressing be as expensive?....would grain still be part of the game?...would new grasses have been needed?....would the softspike have been needed? .We are SOLD greenspeed...the business controls the game....
I disagree. Faster greens are a response to customer demand, otherwise golfers would be flocking to the courses with the slower greens.
I was playing golf in the '60's, before the introduction of the stimpmeter, and though there was no objective measurement certain courses had a local reputation for faster greens, which were more widely admired and therefore more in demand than their slower neighbors. The stimp may have accelerated the process of the acquisition of speed, but the golfers' desire was there before the instrument.
As a GCS, I would be perfectly happy to maintain my greens at 8-9 ft. but I wouldn't last long with those measurements, and not because any manufacturers or suppliers are pushing speed on me, but my members certainly are.
By the way, there are not, "fans at every course", an absurd exagerration, and a lot of us are still buying a masonry grade topdressing sand just like fifty years ago. New grasses have been developed and released continuously for the past seventy years or more for improvements like disease resistance, and drought and temperature tolerances as much as green speeds or mowing heights. Greens irrigation is a fraction of the overall watering system, and would be in place anyway, regardless of speeds. Nobody like grain in the '60's and it would have disappeared with new technology even if speeds were still at 7'. An finally, as far as I can see, the soft spike hasn't done anything to improve putting quality and I suspect the whole thing is a plot by clubhouse managers to protect their interior surfaces.
-
Steve,
Yep I exaggerated about the fans on "every" but there would probably be no fans if height had not lowered.
You are right about the industry succumbing to customer demand. I am sure that even today the customer demands a longer driver and a faster green but those items are as much a part of the game as the width of a soccer field or the height of a basketball goal or the length of a baseball bat.. The NFL even requires a certain psi of air in their footballs.
Yes, there would still be irrigation at greens etc but there would not be the need for the sophistication often seen. And maybe the industry would have eliminated grain but for so many years it was a critical element of the game and required a talent.
Maybe you are right and a better explanation is customer demand but it is allowed and if we continue to allow such the game will continue to have issues. I think we can agree that slower speed will cost less to maintain.
-
Did the customer truly "demand" faster greens, or did they only ask for them once supers proved they could make greens faster with enough money behind their conquest? It's a competitive world out there...
Joe
-
No Mike,
you got it right first time in my book. It was industry driving the speed of greens as it is a way to create more turnover. Anybody who knows anything about advertising knows it is advertising that drives customer demand.
Jon
-
I use an old Titlelist Bullseye. Light and responsive to the touch, it should be very good on today's smooth, fast, true running and well-manicured greens. I hope to one day actually play such a set of greens, and see if I'm right.
Peter
-
Peter,
I too hope that one day soon you may have the chance to play a real golf course. :)
-
Mike - I was half joking, but I have a feeling (never having played in your neck of the woods) that the climate and soils and grass types used there, especially at higher end clubs, produce greens that play a lot differently than the sort of bumpy, sort of shaggy, sort of patchy greens on offer at many of the modest publics I golf at, especially early in the season. I'm not complaining, mind you, just pointing out my view that the fast greens the pros play on are actually much easier to putt. Like Lee Trevino once said: before he came on tour he didn't consider himself a great putter, until he saw what for him were the pristine and true running greens the pros played on and thought to himself "how the hell does anyone ever MISS a putt on greens like these?".
Peter
-
Maybe we're all just tools of the corporate lust to sell stuff. But go anywhere in golf, anywhere except on this forum and say the following:
Golfers generally prefer courses with fast and smooth greens.
Nowhere will you get disagreement. That is so obviously true that it generally is taken for granted. I know we all like to say and defend counter intuitive things or puncture widely held assumptions. But seriously guys, you're pissing into the wind on this one. Faster greens are popular and greens are faster now than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. Go find another supposed myth to bust because this dog won't hunt.
-
Peter,
I was joking at your joking :)
But I agree with your thought process regarding putting. The older slower grainy greens required a more complete player to win. The ability to sense the speed with grain, against grain or across grain helped to elevate the skills of the shotmakers much more than today where imperfections have been eliminated.
-
Maybe we're all just tools of the corporate lust to sell stuff. But go anywhere in golf, anywhere except on this forum and say the following:
Golfers generally prefer courses with fast and smooth greens.
Nowhere will you get disagreement. That is so obviously true that it generally is taken for granted. I know we all like to say and defend counter intuitive things or puncture widely held assumptions. But seriously guys, you're pissing into the wind on this one. Faster greens are popular and greens are faster now than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. Go find another supposed myth to bust because this dog won't hunt.
Brent,
I agree with you BUT it needs to stop and go no further. The only sport I have seen go backwards with equipment lately is college baseball. Golf will not do that but they can say no more....
-
No Mike,
you got it right first time in my book. It was industry driving the speed of greens as it is a way to create more turnover. Anybody who knows anything about advertising knows it is advertising that drives customer demand.
Jon
Jon,
I disagree with you completely. I have never seen a course in a magazine advertise ''We have fast greens''. When you ask more than half the golfers after they play a course how it was. The first reply is often how fast or slow the greens were. Consumers drive the demand. Advertising is a way to get your product or service to the consumer. The problem is people don't understand for some reason that certain heavily contoured greens turn into Mickey Mouse at 11+ on the stimp.
Question I have as it pertains to the Stimpmeter, was it originally designed as a tool to enable the keeper to get all greens rolling at the same pace? A way to make each green consistent with rest?
-
Every Tour pro I ever talked to say that faster greens require more skill than slow ones.
That advertising is to blame for faster greens is total nonsense. I have yet to see an advertisement that promotes a golf course for its green speeds. I have yet to see an advertisement for any turf management product that states it will yield faster speeds. There are too many variables for advertisers to stick their neck out in either respect.
People like fast greens, get used to the idea. Accept reality, and the truth will make you free. It's like fast cars. When the greens at my club go over 11' on the stimp they are beyond the ability of the majority of members to putt them. It doesn't matter, they still want speed, if only to brag that they have it. We're located on the outskirts of Paris and some members drive out from the city in Ferraris. Now, there is absolutely no advantage to a Ferrari in Paris traffic, but that's beside the point. The point is that they have a fast car, whether it's useful or practical or not.
-
No where have I said people don't like fast greens. At my course we do all we can to create green speed and remove grain and comb greens etc. We have even begun to lightly comb in circles in order to eliminate grain. I agree with what you say there Steve but if we could maintain greens at 8 it would cost less and the average public course could make a profit.
As for tour pros....I heard it both ways...I think the main thing they like is consistency.....JMO
-
Mike,
Do you think that more than 1 in 4 golf courses in the US stimp over 8/9?
-
Mike,
Do you think that more than 1 in 4 golf courses in the US stimp over 8/9?
Jim,
I don't know. I do know the ultradwarfs have made it where the $40 public courses in our area are over that number. And we have had older guys tell us they like the greens when they are slower which can create an issue when they really get fast.
-
Mike,
That is refreshing to hear some of your patrons like the greens slower. How much does reducing grain add to your green fees if you had to guess?
-
Wait, Desert Forest was rolling at 13?!!! ??? ::) :P :-[
-
Ben,
Plenty of old guys like slower but smooth greens....I don't know exactly how much brushing and vertigrooming cost but it does increase labor...
-
I don't believe the quest to make all the greens on a given course identical in speed, grain, etc. has made the game of golf better. It does, however, reward the player with the best mechanics. I hold the same opinion when it comes to bunkers. Maybe there should be an article titled "Bunkers: Then and Now". While we're at it, fairways, roughs, etc. because each element of the course has to compliment the other in terms of playability. Discussed here many a time, the poster child for this concept would be the fact that better players prefer bunkers to rough.
Joe
-
Yeah, we don't want a golf course that rewards the ability to make good swings and putting strokes.
-
When the green speads were in the 6's, Billy Casper and Gary Player was who we emulated. They knew how to pop the ball and that was the only effective way to putt. Later, we all transitioned to a smooth stroke.
-
Yeah, we don't want a golf course that rewards the ability to make good swings and putting strokes.
Sarcasm aside, I do believe that the ability to read grain(as Mike Young mentioned already) or the ability to figure out different sand conditions was a part of the game that mattered. It wasn't all about the stroke.
Joe
-
Joe,
I hear what you and Mike are saying. I don't think its fair to compare green maint to bunker maint. One is a hazard and the other is the object of the game. I'm all for way less bunker maint., but think limiting grain is ideal. I'm for speeds that match the contours, extreme firmness, and little grain as possible. Again, I'm just a northerner with less experience, but feel one should be rewarded on the green.
-
Ben,
most advancements in grasses for the green is pushed at been able to tolerate lower HOC. Much of the machinery advancement in green mowing has been to push lower HOC. Lower height of cut is much more expensive to maintain ergo the industry sells more product.
Steve,
if players really did like fast putting surfaces why do they dislike fast downhill putts? Ask players what putt they would prefer to have for most it is a straight uphill putt or said another way the slowest option. None talk about wanting that fast, downhill 10 footer to save par yet if players wanted faster putting surfaces that should be their preferred putt. This is another example of the reality not matching the perception. Golfers say they want fast putting surfaces but when faced with a choice they take the slowest possible option. Most consumer are like sheep following what ever message is pumped their way.
Pros like fast greens because they are easier to putt on especially when flat.
Jon
-
Avoiding fast, downhill putts is where the skill comes in. Approach shots need to be placed below the hole, which, by the way, is nothing new, learnig golf over forty years ago I was taught it was advisable to keep the ball below the hole.
If slower greens are more challenging to putt on for the pros, then why do major events like the U.S. Open and the U.S.P.G.A. prepare notoriously quick greens when they're trying to protect par?
-
Steve,
you do not really address my point which is what do players prefer playing, fast or slow putting surfaces? Even your post kind of says better to play the slower putt.
Your point of why do they have quicker putting surfaces in the majors? Because it looks more exciting not because it is harder. If it was harder that that they wanted why do they flatten greens to counter the speed thus making them easier?
Jon
-
When the green speads were in the 6's, Billy Casper and Gary Player was who we emulated. They knew how to pop the ball and that was the only effective way to putt. Later, we all transitioned to a smooth stroke.
Cary - I talked to Billy Casper about that a decade or so ago. He said almost everyone was a wrist putter until the early 60's because you had to hit the ball so hard on older, slower greens. He retained his wristy stroke over his career, but he said he felt like a dinosaur towards the end. He said shoulder putting didn't become popular until kids learned the game on faster greens in the 60's. All of which makes sense.
I don't have the exact quote, but Bobby Jones said something to the effect that the fairways on courses in the 1950's rolled at about the same speed that greens did during 1920's when he played competitively.
Few people appreciate how dramatically green speeds have been ramped-up in our lifetime. It should be perceived as much more troubling than it is.
Bob
-
Bob,
Why should a 30-year-old golfer today be more troubled by having grown up on smooth, fast greens than Jack Nicklaus was by growing up on smoother, faster greens than Bobby Jones played on?
Would anyone, even this here Treehouse gang, really want to go back to basically chipping instead of putting (as we know it today) on the greens? I think playing wooden-shafted clubs from tee to green would be less of a change than putting on 3/16" Common Bermuda greens and I have zero interest in playing hickories.
Heck, for that matter Bobby Jones probably had to know how to play a Stymie shot but I don't feel I'm missing out on something because that doesn't exist any longer.
I'm still having difficulty seeing why something that seems a clear an obvious improvement "should be perceived" as a bad thing. I'm glad my car doesn't have vinyl seats, no shoulder straps and burn leaded gasoline like cars did in the 60's. I'm also glad that $25/round public courses today have putting greens of a quality that only a handful of high-end private club members could experience in the 60's.
-
Steve,
you do not really address my point which is what do players prefer playing, fast or slow putting surfaces? Even your post kind of says better to play the slower putt.
Your point of why do they have quicker putting surfaces in the majors? Because it looks more exciting not because it is harder. If it was harder that that they wanted why do they flatten greens to counter the speed thus making them easier?
Jon
I don't think most members like PUTTING fast greens--they just like HAVING them.
As others have said,it's more of a club competitiveness thing. Maybe things would improve if all of an area's Green Chairmen got together and reached green speed detente.
-
Brent
I disagree that faster greens are a clear improvement. I grew up on a Ross and never thought the greens needed to be quicker 35 years ago....it was tough to 2 putt on the sloping greens. What is clear is that slope and contour have been reduced to accomodate faster green speeds and higher maintenance costs. At least two greens at my childhood course were altered because even then the speeds were too much for the slopes and I think they routinely ran at 9ish in the summer. I am befuddled that folks can't understand that more speed means reduced slope and contour....and this of course means less variety in greens and that can't be good. For a lot of classic greens 9 or 10 is about the limit. Of course there are many courses with flatter greens (many of which were built with faster greens in mind so the problem has been invasive for my entire lifetime) which can handle higher speeds, but again I ask, why are flatter greens at 11 or 12 clearly better than more slopey greens at 9 or 10?
I always wanted to know what the added costs are for ramping up greens from 9 to 10, 10 to 11 adn 10 to 12.
Ciao
-
Brent says:
"Why should a 30-year-old golfer today be more troubled by having grown up on smooth, fast greens than Jack Nicklaus was by growing up on smoother, faster greens than Bobby Jones played on?"
Because at some point - and whatever that point is, we are now past it - green speeds adversely impact course architecture. More specifically, greens that roll above a certain speed necessarily limit an architect's design options.
Bob
-
As I mentioned earlier, I play on Bermuda greens. It might be possible to maintain Bermuda so it putts smooth, true and consistent at a Stimp of 9 but I've certainly never seen them any slower than that and not bumpy and grain-ridden.
And yes, I realized that someone is going to chime in any moment and tell me that grainy is good and for all I know bumpy is good too. Whatever.
The greens I currently play have a *lot* of contour. To the extent that they would not be playable cranked up to 12+ feet like a typical PGA Tour setup. But they are, in fact, puttable in the 10's and 11's assuming due caution, good nerves and (dare I say it) suitably strategic play. They are more fun to me at 10 or 11 than at 8 or 9.
It's absolutely possible to cut greens too fast for their contours. With flat greens "too fast" might be a grass-killing, over the top 14 feet. With my club's greens "too fast" is probably in the 12-ish and up range. I'm trying to imagine a set of greens so contoured that anything greater than, say, 8 feet is "too fast" and honestly I can't imagine such extreme contours are any more fun to play than the ones at my club.
So basically we have a set of preferences at odds here. Some of you lot want to see as steeply sloped, highly contoured, boldly shaped greens as possible even if that means the grass is maintained at a pace where 20-foot putts damned near never go in the hole. And any speed that's "too fast" for those contours is a terrible travesty. Is that a fair enough characterization?
For me it's the opposite. I want my (usually Bemuda) greens to be smooth, true and fast enough that a well-struck and correctly aimed putt from medium to long distance has a fair chance of going in the hole. If that means that I only get to play greens with moderately large slopes and contours, so that speeds of 10 or 11 are not "too fast" then I can live with that. Trust me, there can be a whole lot of contour in a green that's rolling 11-1/2 on the Stimpmeter as long as you don't expect every square foot of those greens to be pinnable.
And somewhere out there are golfers (including probably the typical Tour player) who wants to putt on greens even I think are over the top. Stimp readings of 12, 13, whatever. And they are willing to settle for greens that are pretty darned flat to make that possible. It's just a tradeoff and there is no moral or ethical basis for asserting that slowing down greens to allow huge slopes is more fundamentally valid than flattening greens to allow huge speeds.
Some courses have water hazards on every hole, others can be played with a putter from every tee to every green. Some courses have hugely contoured greens that require slow putting speeds, other have extremely quick putting speeds that require modest slopes. And down here in the land of even Ultradwarf Bermuda grasses, the inevitable cost of slowing greens down to the kinds of speeds Sean probably recalls from 25 years ago is going to be grain, bumps and inconsistencies. And again, yes I know some of you profess to just Love Love Love all the grain you can get but I suspect that's a rhetorical ploy at best.
-
Brent says:
"Why should a 30-year-old golfer today be more troubled by having grown up on smooth, fast greens than Jack Nicklaus was by growing up on smoother, faster greens than Bobby Jones played on?"
Because at some point - and whatever that point is, we are now past it - green speeds adversely impact course architecture. More specifically, greens that roll above a certain speed necessarily limit an architect's design options.
Bob
Impact certainly. Adversely impact is a matter of where one draws the line.
If one thinks that the best courses ever built were created back when no architect had to take putting speeds of 10 or 11 into consideration, then it is a valid conclusion that today's architects are constrained w.r.t. green contours in a way that the Golden Age architects were not.
Just keep in mind that some people think any course which can't be set up for modern, fast putting speeds is FOR THAT VERY REASON inferior to courses which allow a modern approach to putting. It's a matter of how much relative importance one places on being able to rock the shoulders slightly and propel a ball smoothly into a hole 25 feet away while correctly judging a 4-foot break.
If one really, truly gains great satisfaction from trying to do that as often as possible then it may not be possible for huge, exciting contours and all the other features of long-ago great courses to seem worth bumping the ball along on slower, less perfect greens.
-
Take two problems with the game today - 1. The longer ball and 2. Greens that stimp at 12 +.
The first has an architectural solution. You could build 8200 yard courses with all the Golden Age, strategic features you might want to include. That is, the arrows in the architect's quiver would not be limited in any way. It would be a course too long for most of us to play from the tips, but such a course would impose no constraints on the architect's design ideas. (Plus, it would be fun to watch a Tour event on such a course. It would play much like courses did for Jones in the 1920's.)
The second problem - green speeds - has no architectural solution. Worse, fast greens limit the kinds of features an architect can build. Higher green speeds remove a number of arrows from his design quiver without replacing them with other design options.
Bob
-
Bob,
I totally agree that there's stuff Golden Age architects did routinely and that some modern architects would like to do that are simply struck off the option list because we know that today's players aren't (generally) going to accept greens which can't be sped up to 12 or whatever.
I guess I just don't see it as a "problem with the game today" so much as a way in which the game as played today is different than half a century ago. As Jim Sullivan pointed out recently in one of these threads, fast greens can certainly provide huge and exciting breaks on putts albeit with smaller slopes than on slow greens.
I'd contend that with sufficiently firm conditions even the approach shot and recovery shot challenge and excitement of contoured greens can be achieved (somewhat) with modest contours suiting the modern preference for putting speeds. It takes different forms (I'm thinking green edge falloffs and/or green-within-a-green type structures) and you can't necessarily do those enormous back-to-front slopes that were so common way back when.
IMO an argument could be made that modern putting speed preferences enforce an additional degree of subtlety to the challenge of a green complex. There were a lot of older courses where for a handicap player the strategy was pretty simple. Always play short of the hole. If you end up hole high or god forbid above the hole then just use your next stroke to somehow get the ball below the hole. And that was often reinforced by the fact that the severe slopes on most greens could probably be seen from orbit! I'd think it's at least plausible that smaller slopes to accompany faster putting speeds can require more judgement on approach shots. Judgment as in decision making as opposed to judgment in terms of distance control to accomodate a fairly obvious requirement.
Or maybe I'm all wet. Maybe it's a net loss of interest when green contours are toned down from an eight foot range to a three foot range per green due to faster putting speeds. All I'm really saying is at least we get something in return.
-
Bob, I get that you're lamenting the loss of contour that accompanies fast greens. What, though, is the benefit of that contour? It can't be that putts break more, because faster greens have more break than slower greens even with less contour. It can't be that strategy is more important from the fairway, as staying below the hole is far more important on faster greens than it is on slower ones. What exactly is lost when a course has greens with contours like Augusta's that can be playable at 12+ while still offering plenty of slope, instead of contours like the old ones at Sitwell Park that have vastly more slope but that just don't work at modern speeds?
-
Would we even know who Ben Hogan was if the modern green existed when he played?
-
Of course slope can affect how a ball bounces on firm greens. If we are driven to almost flat greens by high green speeds then the architect loses the option to challenge the golfer's ability to hit an approach or a chip into a green to a spot and with a trajectory that works with the contour. Still, on soft greens that skill is moot anyway.
-
Of course slope can affect how a ball bounces on firm greens. If we are driven to almost flat greens by high green speeds then the architect loses the option to challenge the golfer's ability to hit an approach or a chip into a green to a spot and with a trajectory that works with the contour. Still, on soft greens that skill is moot anyway.
I don't have much experience on Golden Age type courses but didn't a lot of them have a large portion of their contours in back-to-front slopes? Seems that's my mental stereotype of old courses, anyway. To me, greens built like that make the strategy obvious (don't go past the hole) and provide the means to accomplish the strategy (shots tend to bang into the slope and stop unless the green is really, really firm).
Or maybe that's just a degenerate form of what you guys are talking about.
-
The one problem I have with modern green speeds are when architects purposely design for very high speed greens (11+) They end up being relatively flat and benign (no one is designing greens like Augusta, as much as we wish that were true) - which is fine when the greens are running 11+. They are interesting and challenging and fun.
When they can't be ramped up to 11+ is when they becoming boring. Because of weather or disease or whatever, the greens can't get to optimal speed they become really boring and really easy, affecting the overall strategy of the hole.
Which is why architects should design for a much more realistic, yet still significantly faster than yesteryear, speed.
-
All the back and forth is futile without recognizing the impact of modern irrigation systems and their usage. Contour of yesteryear played different than it does today, for the most part.
-
Steve,
you do not really address my point which is what do players prefer playing, fast or slow putting surfaces? Even your post kind of says better to play the slower putt.
Your point of why do they have quicker putting surfaces in the majors? Because it looks more exciting not because it is harder. If it was harder that that they wanted why do they flatten greens to counter the speed thus making them easier?
Jon
I don't think most members like PUTTING fast greens--they just like HAVING them.
As others have said,it's more of a club competitiveness thing. Maybe things would improve if all of an area's Green Chairmen got together and reached green speed detente.
JM,
you put it better than I did. They like having fast putting surfaces as they believe it is a prestige measure but very few like fast putts
-
Josh, I agree. It's not really an issue with green speed. Classic greens with tons of contour are much more fun in season at modern speeds than when they're rolling at about a 6 during the winter. The issue is with gutless modern architects who cater to players who like to have straight birdie putts every time they hit a green in regulation. They build a lot of boring greens that get especially boring when they're not at peak speed.
you put it better than I did. They like having fast putting surfaces as they believe it is a prestige measure but very few like fast putts
Golfers like bunkers on courses even though they try to avoid them. Most like trees on courses, even though they don't like being blocked by them. They don't like bogeys, but nobody's clamoring for courses where its impossible to make worse than a par. Why wouldn't they like the challenge of fast greens while trying to avoid leaving themselves scary downhill putts?
-
Of course slope can affect how a ball bounces on firm greens. If we are driven to almost flat greens by high green speeds then the architect loses the option to challenge the golfer's ability to hit an approach or a chip into a green to a spot and with a trajectory that works with the contour. Still, on soft greens that skill is moot anyway.
I don't have much experience on Golden Age type courses but didn't a lot of them have a large portion of their contours in back-to-front slopes? Seems that's my mental stereotype of old courses, anyway. To me, greens built like that make the strategy obvious (don't go past the hole) and provide the means to accomplish the strategy (shots tend to bang into the slope and stop unless the green is really, really firm).
Or maybe that's just a degenerate form of what you guys are talking about.
I was thinking of contoured greens with rather more going on than flat inclined greens. Take a ridge running across the front of a green. Pitch on the front part, the upslope, with a steep trajectory and you get the stopping effect you mention. Carry it just a bit further and the downslope will kick your ball towards or through the back.
-
Josh, I agree. It's not really an issue with green speed. Classic greens with tons of contour are much more fun in season at modern speeds than when they're rolling at about a 6 during the winter. The issue is with gutless modern architects who cater to players who like to have straight birdie putts every time they hit a green in regulation. They build a lot of boring greens that get especially boring when they're not at peak speed.
you put it better than I did. They like having fast putting surfaces as they believe it is a prestige measure but very few like fast putts
Golfers like bunkers on courses even though they try to avoid them. Most like trees on courses, even though they don't like being blocked by them. They don't like bogeys, but nobody's clamoring for courses where its impossible to make worse than a par. Why wouldn't they like the challenge of fast greens while trying to avoid leaving themselves scary downhill putts?
Jason,
yes golfers like bunkers on courses but you rarely hear them demanding they be made deeper or placed more central even for prestige reasons. Trees are fine for most but there is very little clamour for them being placed in the line of play to make the course better.
So why wouldn't they like the challenge of fast greens while trying to avoid leaving themselves scary downhill putts? Because if they wanted fast putts they would be trying to leave themselves those slippery downhillers wouldn't they?
Jon
-
You run a course. If you really believe your own logic, slow your greens down to 4 or 5 this year and see what happens.
-
Jon,
Don't be disingenuous.
A fast green (let's say Stimping around 11-12) on which you've successfully left yourself an uphill 20-footer is a joy to putt on. Your chances of making that uphill 20-footer are substantially greater than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9.
On the flip side, leaving yourself a downhill 20-footer on a fast green means at best lagging the putt very defensively to keep from hitting it off the front of the green. That same downhill 20-foot putt on a slow green is no big deal.
Fast greens makes putting easier when you're in good position and harder when you're in bad position. That sounds to me like exactly the sort of rewarding careful, well-planned play that this forum purports to value in a great golf course.
P.S. This discussion reinforced the opinion I've had for quite a few months now that this forum isn't really about "strategy" or "sustainable" so much as it's about "retro".
-
Would we even know who Ben Hogan was if the modern green existed when he played?
Yep...because ball striking becomes more important when greens get amped up.
Unless you were referring to flat when you said "modern"?
-
Brent,
Greens were modified by reduction in slope on classic courses in the 80's when green speeds were in the 10s and 11s. Balls were rolling off the greens. I know some uninformed people think that's cool. Remember there are usually 2-4 really severe greens on a course in which the those are the ones in which you have to make sure don't get out of hand (rest of greens roll at the pace of your most severe greens). Uphill putts is similar to lag putting, and it is a skill. You advocated in an earlier post that you preferred your greens rolling at 10, which is much different than 11 and 12. When you lose pin positions you drastically take the fun out of the game and it turns into putt putt. When greens are 11 and 12 you can't use half of some greens. It has nothing to do with nerves. Augusta's slopes have been flattened. Arnie has complained that they are too soft now and that they should go back to Bermuda. Never argue with the King. I agree with you in reducing as much grain as possible.
-
So you've got that going for you...
-
All the back and forth is futile without recognizing the impact of modern irrigation systems and their usage. Contour of yesteryear played different than it does today, for the most part.
Joe,
Are you referring to soft greens potentially due to over irrigation? Or are you referring to healthy greens and the impact of full grass coverage on slopes as opposed to burned out bare spots on the areas where no water sits?
Or more likely...something altogether different? How does the contour of yesteryear play differently due to today's irrigation?
-
The greens I currently play have a *lot* of contour. To the extent that they would not be playable cranked up to 12+ feet like a typical PGA Tour setup. But they are, in fact, puttable in the 10's and 11's assuming due caution, good nerves and (dare I say it) suitably strategic play. They are more fun to me at 10 or 11 than at 8 or 9.
Is this so? In my [very limited] first hand experience with the Tour, they want their greens quite a lot slower than 12+. In fact I found they wanted them just about at 10 or 10.5 and that is on greens without severe slopes. In the example I know the greens were SLOWED down from regular member play speeds to tournament speed.
Is this always the case? It was my understanding thay only a limited number venues such as Muirfield Village get to go much faster than 10.5
-
Brent,
so what part am I being dishonest about? Just because you might not agree with a person who holds a different opinion does not make them a liar any more than your opinion being different from mine makes you wrong or even a fool ::)
I do not agree that a fast green stimping around 11-12 increases your chances of making that uphill 20-footer than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9. This is your opinion, not fact and in my opinion is wrong. I would be interested on your golfing pedigree on which you base this.
You then say 'Fast greens makes putting easier when you're in good position and harder when you're in bad position. That sounds to me like exactly the sort of rewarding careful, well-planned play that this forum purports to value in a great golf course.'
But you could also argue that fast greens lead to flatter more boring putting surfaces and so lack real variety and challenge.
p.s. Maybe in some cases your three points are connected though I agree not always.
-
Would we even know who Ben Hogan was if the modern green existed when he played?
Yep...because ball striking becomes more important when greens get amped up.
Unless you were referring to flat when you said "modern"?
Jim,
I disagree. The modern green speed and conditions would have allowed a better putter to more than offset the ball striking skills of a Hogan coupled with his putting.
-
All the back and forth is futile without recognizing the impact of modern irrigation systems and their usage. Contour of yesteryear played different than it does today, for the most part.
Joe,
Are you referring to soft greens potentially due to over irrigation? Or are you referring to healthy greens and the impact of full grass coverage on slopes as opposed to burned out bare spots on the areas where no water sits?
Or more likely...something altogether different? How does the contour of yesteryear play differently due to today's irrigation?
Jim,
Now, don't go trying to make me clarify my thoughts...that takes all the fun out of a day.
But, to your question...my first thought is to use Barton Hills 16th hole as an example. It is a long par 3 over a very deep chasm. The green is fairly deep, especially at the back right side. The play back in the day, I presume, would have been the longest club in your bag, aimed left of the green to utilize a contour that would've fed the ball onto the green, potentially to a back right pin. But now, with everything being different except the contour, you couldn't hit that shot and have it work. To bring the discussion of green speed into this explanation, I think that shot wouldn't work today, even if the contour wasn't irrigated...because the ball would run off the back of the green due to speed.
I am thinking I just think differently....
-
A fast green (let's say Stimping around 11-12) on which you've successfully left yourself an uphill 20-footer is a joy to putt on. Your chances of making that uphill 20-footer are substantially greater than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9.
Why?
Fast greens makes putting easier when you're in good position and harder when you're in bad position.
Why?
To me putting is putting. Good putters adjust to the conditions...there is no general rule of advantage which is dependent on green speeds...its all theory and talk.
I think my big problem with 11 or 12 stimp is how can they be kept firm for any length of time...which to me is more important than shorter grass. There is no substitute for firmness and firmness cannot be maintained for any length of time on an 11-12 green without investing more cash and green keeper time...even then its a tough ask for super. IMO, speed is thwarting firmness...its a tradeoff which doesn't make much sense to me.
Ciao
-
Sean,
We're back to your cool climate grasses vs. the land of Bermuda where I play. With proper maintenance our MiniVerde greens can be keep very, very firm at Stimp 10-1/2 to 11 all summer long. If you believe that's not possible on bents or fescues or whatever mixtures they play on in the UK I'll take your word for it.
Same with the long uphill putts being more makeable on faster greens. For Bermuda grass there's no question that greens running less than 10 result in fewer putts being holed than greens running 10+ feet. May not be true on the grasses other people play but it's as obvious as can be in my locale.
And finally, pardon my short temper but I'm sick to death of this "good putters will adjust to bad greens" meme. Or "good players will adjust to unraked bunkers" or any of the related excuses for crappy or retrograde conditioning. Good putters will adjust to bad greens, sure. But they don't want to and neither do I. That's what this all comes down to. Nobody nowadays wants to putt on greens like Arnie putted on in 1960 and fortunately we don't have to. Whether one person could adjust to them better than another is beside the point entirely. I could adjust to never playing another round of golf in my life if I had to...but I don't have to.
-
Pardon me, Brent, if I disagree with you in not calling a firm green running at 9 a bad green. Your hyperbole in this matter is not making your case.
I have no clue why you believe putts are more holeable on greens (all else being equal) running at 12 compared to 10...very strange notion. This was the reasoning behind my good putters will adjust comment. Instead, you run off into right field about 1960 and Palmer ??? Get back to home plate and take a proper swing at the pitch.
I would like to know what it costs to crank a green up from 9 to 11 all summer long in S Carolina. Of course, its like anything...if folks want to pay its a non starter...but folks may think differently if they knew the cost. I also wonder if greens couldn't be even firmer if kept longer. I don't really know the balance well. Also, I can see the disconnect somewhat between us in that you mention all "summer". In SC I would be far more concerned about how greens play all year round and what can be done to keep them as firm as reasonable all year round. Summer is but one season in four....I wouldn't want to see a few seasons sacrificed for faster summer greens.
Ciao
-
A fast green (let's say Stimping around 11-12) on which you've successfully left yourself an uphill 20-footer is a joy to putt on. Your chances of making that uphill 20-footer are substantially greater than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9.
Why?
Ciao
Sean,
We're in the same ballpark with respect to firmness.
On the question of the easy putts being easier on faster greens, would you prefer a 15 footer with fairway height grass or green height if it were for $1,000?
-
Sean,
We're in the same ballpark with respect to firmness.
On the question of the easy putts being easier on faster greens, would you prefer a 15 footer with fairway height grass or green height if it were for $1,000?
Jim,
I'd still like to clarify this firmness speed connection. Comments were made on a previous thread that fast greens need not be firm greens - and as Joe H. pointed out, one need to look no further than the PGA tour for that phenomenon.
I'm guessing the firmness pathway explanation would be:
Firm needs extensive rooting because of less water availability > so more carbs needed to supply nutritional needs of better/stronger roots > longer blades needed for higher nutrition needs > slower green speeds
On the speed side of things,
Speed needs short grass > less carbs can be made > less extensive root system > more added water needed for hydration health > softer and less healthy turf
But in many places, high quality firm green turf is also fast (Pinehurst 2, ANGC) so something different is happening in those instances. Perhaps it is nutritional support via fertilizer overcoming carb deficiencies, better cultivars requiring less blade surface for adequate photosynthesis and root health, etc. I don't know. It seems firmness and green speeds can positively correlate. They don't call it firm and fast for nothing. My guess is they can overlap for awhile - but at some point, something's got to give. There is a place where those lines intersect, or in my way of thinking, where those Venn sets overlap. The magic of a good super's work is overlapping them for as long as possible.
-
Sean,
I think you are spot on with your point of view. Firmness should e a priority over speed though appropriate speed should still be a consideration.
Jon
-
On the question of the easy putts being easier on faster greens, would you prefer a 15 footer with fairway height grass or green height if it were for $1,000?
Like Brent, why the hyperbole? I don't think anyone is advocating for fairway height greens.
Ciao
-
No hyperbole, just looking to illustrate the point.
If a fairway runs at 5 feet and we agree that for that $1,000 we'd rather putt uphill in the green stumping 11feet, why wouldn't that spectrum from 11 to 5 be a straight line?
-
Thanks to a Mike Clayton retweet, I just came across this gem on my Twitter feed. I find fascinating not only the numbers, but the courses--including my dear Yale--chosen as examples.
(http://i1382.photobucket.com/albums/ah266/Benjamin_Litman/Green%20Speeds_zpswzvuzpkr.jpg)
Yale must have been heaven in 1977 for the practitioners of the stymie.....
-
No hyperbole, just looking to illustrate the point.
If a fairway runs at 5 feet and we agree that for that $1,000 we'd rather putt uphill in the green stumping 11feet, why wouldn't that spectrum from 11 to 5 be a straight line?
Jim,
is an either or choice? I would prefer stimping between 8 and 10 but would prefer 8.5 to 9.5 as long as the surface is rolling true. Having said that it is not unusual for fairways at some links courses in the UK to be the same speed or quicker than the greens.
Jon
-
No hyperbole, just looking to illustrate the point.
If a fairway runs at 5 feet and we agree that for that $1,000 we'd rather putt uphill in the green stumping 11feet, why wouldn't that spectrum from 11 to 5 be a straight line?
Jim,
is an either or choice? I would prefer stimping between 8 and 10 but would prefer 8.5 to 9.5 as long as the surface is rolling true. Having said that it is not unusual for fairways at some links courses in the UK to be the same speed or quicker than the greens.
Jon
I guarantee you some of the links courses I've played had fairways that would have *putted* truer than the greens at the course I learned to play on back in the mid-90's.
It had Common Bermuda greens (and fairways, and rough) that probably Stimped about 6-7 during the summer and maybe 10 when they were dormant during the winter. But even dormant and fast in January a completely flat 10-foot putt, no slope at all, could easily break 18" if it were side grained. And don't even get me started on the grain in those suckers at 7pm on a July afternoon. But they were firm as could be so they had that going for them.
-
I may not be understanding him correctly, but what Brent seems to be saying is that, on the greens he's played over these many years, the speed does not appear to be independent of the quality.
While not a necessary correlation/relationship, he has found it to be a common one -- such that if the greens are running at 9 they also tend to be grainy and bumpy and grabby and untrue, while if they are running at 11 it seems often the case that they also putt smooth and true, thereby actually highlighting/accentuating any contours that might be present instead of minimizing them.
If this is what Brent is describing, I have to say that it is my experience too. And if our experiences are somehow true (i.e. objectively verifiable), what we are faced with on the greens we play is the hardly ideal situation of having the bumps and grains and grabs of the 1950s combined with the speed of today. Perhaps, put that way, you can understand why Brent is defending his pov.
But as I say, I may have misunderstood all of this, and if so nevermind...
Peter
-
Peter,
You understand me perfectly. The two of probably do not share the normative experience on which most of this discussion has been predicated.
I have in fact played on very true-running but slow greens in the UK. Deal is one for instance where it seems normal (at least in September) to have smooth and true greens that probably Stimp around 8-1/2 or 9 in my estimation.
But in other cases I've found somewhat of the correlation you mention. On last year's trip I played at three UK courses, two of them links:
At Delamere Forest (inland, not a links) the greens were medium speed, fairly smooth and I could discern no grain at all.
At Aberdovey (links) the greens were quick by UK standard at maybe 10-ish and were totally smooth and true, just a delight to putt on.
Nearby at Harlech (links although the turf there seems to me slightly meadowy in character) the greens were the slowest of the three courses, had a discernable grain and were very "grabby".
So it's been in the back of my mind that back home in Bermuda-land slow and smooth/true is probably impractical. But in the UK greens can be on the slow side while still running true but it will take careful conditioning to produce that. I'm returning to Harlech this year and playing the same week as some club tournaments for which they'll probably have the green running as quick as they can. If so it will be interesting to see if that "grabby" character and the ever-so-slight directional grain I experienced last year disappears when the speed is bumped up from 7-8 to tournament speed.
-
Peter, agreed with that. While I can not say that it is easier to put uphill on a fast green than a slow green, with some grasses and some climates a fast green puts truer than a slow green and therefore it might be easier for some/most players.
-
I think what MClutterbuck is saying is actually more of the issue than speed. Greens with imperfections will not putt as well as greens in perfect shape. And the more perfect the green the more putting plays into the equation for scoring. And the more it cost to take care of a green...
-
My position ultimately is this. Of all the things money can be spent on having to do with a golf course, smooth and true-rolling greens are by far the biggest payoff in my estimation. And yes, on the courses I tend to play greens that are smooth and true-rolling are (almost) exclusively faster than average.
So after they close the clubhouse, get rid of the guy greeting me in the parking lot, quit raking bunkers, cut off the water, lay off the pro-shop staff (and close the pro shop itself) and star mowing fairways three times a month instead of three times a week...
...only then are they welcome to let the greens get shaggy to save money. How's that for a position statement.
-
...only then are they welcome to let the greens get shaggy to save money. How's that for a position statement.
It would be more impressive if you had more moral fibre Brent
-
Brent - I agree completely. The only thing I've ever seen that caused a group of golfers to abandon a course that hosted their regular game was the deterioration of the greens. You can always play winter rules, but you can't get around putting on the greens. If a course has decent greens I can put up with it lacking a lot of everything else and still have some fun. If the greens are lousy it almost doesn't matter what else is there as far as the day goes.
My position ultimately is this. Of all the things money can be spent on having to do with a golf course, smooth and true-rolling greens are by far the biggest payoff in my estimation. And yes, on the courses I tend to play greens that are smooth and true-rolling are (almost) exclusively faster than average.
So after they close the clubhouse, get rid of the guy greeting me in the parking lot, quit raking bunkers, cut off the water, lay off the pro-shop staff (and close the pro shop itself) and star mowing fairways three times a month instead of three times a week...
...only then are they welcome to let the greens get shaggy to save money. How's that for a position statement.
-
Brent - I agree completely. The only thing I've ever seen that caused a group of golfers to abandon a course that hosted their regular game was the deterioration of the greens. You can always play winter rules, but you can't get around putting on the greens. If a course has decent greens I can put up with it lacking a lot of everything else and still have some fun. If the greens are lousy it almost doesn't matter what else is there as far as the day goes.
My position ultimately is this. Of all the things money can be spent on having to do with a golf course, smooth and true-rolling greens are by far the biggest payoff in my estimation. And yes, on the courses I tend to play greens that are smooth and true-rolling are (almost) exclusively faster than average.
So after they close the clubhouse, get rid of the guy greeting me in the parking lot, quit raking bunkers, cut off the water, lay off the pro-shop staff (and close the pro shop itself) and star mowing fairways three times a month instead of three times a week...
...only then are they welcome to let the greens get shaggy to save money. How's that for a position statement.
No one is advocating bad greens.
We're pointing out that a well designed green with the tilt, slope or internal contouring to make a green very interesting at a 9-10 speed is probably more likely to be maintained at a more reasonable cost, and has a good chance of being kept firmer in stressful weather conditions with endangering its health. than a green maintained at 11.5-13, especially with a cool weather grass in summer.
If you took a green rolling at 12 and didn't cut it for 7 days to make it run at 7 of course it wouldn't be smooth.
But a green can putt very true and very smooth if maintained at 7-and certainly can roll perfectly at 9.5.
Just because a five footer is "easier to make or preferred" at a stimp of 11, doesn't mean its the best thing to do.
It's easier to hit a treeless, roughless 125 yard fairway too
-
So Jeff are you advocating for more trees, more rough or both? :P :-X ::) ;) 8)
-
Brent - I agree completely. The only thing I've ever seen that caused a group of golfers to abandon a course that hosted their regular game was the deterioration of the greens. You can always play winter rules, but you can't get around putting on the greens. If a course has decent greens I can put up with it lacking a lot of everything else and still have some fun. If the greens are lousy it almost doesn't matter what else is there as far as the day goes.
And yet many Boards fail to realize this. They figure it's better to spend the money on more frequent bunker raking,resurfacing cart paths,eyewash,or anything/everything else.
As you stated,without "good" greens,absolutely nothing else matters.
-
No one is advocating bad greens.
We're pointing out that a well designed green with the tilt, slope or internal contouring to make a green very interesting at a 9-10 speed is probably more likely to be maintained at a more reasonable cost, and has a good chance of being kept firmer in stressful weather conditions with endangering its health. than a green maintained at 11.5-13, especially with a cool weather grass in summer.
If you took a green rolling at 12 and didn't cut it for 7 days to make it run at 7 of course it wouldn't be smooth.
But a green can putt very true and very smooth if maintained at 7-and certainly can roll perfectly at 9.5.
Just because a five footer is "easier to make or preferred" at a stimp of 11, doesn't mean its the best thing to do.
It's easier to hit a treeless, roughless 125 yard fairway too
Jeff, thank you for bringing this convo back to a sanity. I have putted on 2 or 3 courses with mini-verde hybrid greens and they putted beautifully at 9-9.5. Gravity is a great.
But, to your question...my first thought is to use Barton Hills 16th hole as an example. It is a long par 3 over a very deep chasm. The green is fairly deep, especially at the back right side. The play back in the day, I presume, would have been the longest club in your bag, aimed left of the green to utilize a contour that would've fed the ball onto the green, potentially to a back right pin. But now, with everything being different except the contour, you couldn't hit that shot and have it work. To bring the discussion of green speed into this explanation, I think that shot wouldn't work today, even if the contour wasn't irrigated...because the ball would run off the back of the green due to speed.
I am thinking I just think differently....
Joe, please hold off on using logic and reasoning. That is a brilliant point that is over looked on here. Some on here would think that a well struck shot rolling off due to out of hand green speeds is Cool.
-
So Jeff are you advocating for more trees, more rough or both? :P :-X ::) ;) 8)
If I owned a course that had 125 yard fairways, I would be advocating for more of one or the other or both-yes.(if nothing else for cost)
ironically, I used to have these same discussions about technology, as early as the early 90's when the J driver came out and the Big Bertha, especially after a buddy of mine played the inagural Hogan Tour and informed me everybody was playing Big berthas and killing it.
But i was assured that the distance gains were maxed out, and the USGA reported for 10 years straight that the 3 yard average driving
gains were insignificant.
I can certainly see how a one year jump might not be due to possible wet measuring conditions, a small sample size.etc. but even though I'm no math major 10 straight years of increases (ironically those small sample size errors NEVER went backwards) =s 30 yards- pretty significant.
Just because you're 100% right about all the excess crap in golf that needlessly drives up costs, doesn't mean we should allow a industry sales driven trend (super fast greens) to alter the game, playing surfaces, and placement of cups-to say nothing of driving costs up-in a negative manner.
I do think you're right about bermuda being far less of an issue as it's a warm weather grass, but I do see way too many cool weather grass courses with lightning fast greens which are kept too moist and therefore too soft in order to survive the summer heat.
To say nothing of losing good pins and many times good, interesting greens.
I had a great talk with the super at Palmetto yesterday.
I asked him if the same guys who told him the greens were too slow were the same ones who told him he had "illegal pins out there" when the greens were at speed they liked.
He had a knowing look and replied yes.
He also said there were quite a few greens where they really only had one or two pins when the greens went dormant in winter (making them fast and pleasing the more speed crowd)
Palmetto's greens can have incredibly fast putts when going downhill, where a six inch error can lead to a 20 foot difference in result.
and a pin high putt on some greens may require 15 feet of break.
That's when they're running about 9.5
I'm just not sure why running them at 11-12 (and reworking 7-12 greens and losing all good pins, never using sloped placements) would make the golf better, other than being able to feel good when his d-bag friends from the vapid Sage Valley flower garden came calling.
-
Some of the issues here relate to the type of cool weather grasses in use. The newer cultivars, e.g. the A series, 007 etc. do not require the additional water to stay alive that poa and some of the older bents need when stimp readings rise. Additionally, they are more disease resistant so they require fewer fungicides and other treatments. However, as greens speeds increase, there will likely be a greater need for labor as additional rolling will be required. It is our experience that if one is satisfied with greens hovering around 10, the rolling is reduced. Thus the expense issue is overstated if the new cultivars are in play. So is the firmness issue as there is no need to saturate the greens.
But other issues remain. The most important one, to my way of thinking, relates to established golden age courses. Beyond a certain speed, the loss of hole locations on interesting greens becomes apparent. At our course, when speeds exceed 10, we lose multiple positions on , at the very least our 10th and 18th holes. Even at 10 on the stimpmeter, some are dicey. I presume that the same issue constrains architects in building new courses although they may have other means of creating interest.
I also note that at a certain point, greens become too fast for everyday play. This leads to slow play unless players routinely refuse to putt out. So while we can easily achieve speeds upward of 12 in decent weather, we dial it back to improve the experience. Smooth greens running in the 10's are more than fast enough.
Finally, golfers have sought to improve the condition of greens since Old Tom began top dressing. The USGA Green Section along with various Universities have aided industry in this quest. I suspect we can't put the genie back in the bottle, even if we want to do so. Accordingly, even those of us who remember putting in the 1970's should forget about going back to the old ways because it isn't going to happen. Just attend a typical green committee meeting or stand on the first tee and talk to golfers Nobody is pushing their Supers to slow things down. At this point, research should focus on heat and disease resistance as well as development of cultivars that need less water. We don't need any more speed and we do a very good job on smoothness.
-
Smooth greens running in the 10's are more than fast enough.
This. When they crank them up for hard course day and tuck the pins at Kingsley it's ridiculous how much harder it is and slower the play gets. Guys who play greens consistently running 11+ should just go ahead and buy some S&M gear.
P.S. I'd pay big money for SL to drunk post something to the effect of "effing A dude, those greens ran faster than whale sh*t through an ice flow" just once..... 8)
-
FWIW, the greens at Mission Hills for this week's ANA Inspiration will run 11.6-12.0 on the stimpmeter.