[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[JESII]

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?

[John Connolly]

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.

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[Sean_A]

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

[JESII]

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?

[Rich Goodale]

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.

Yale must have been heaven in 1977 for the practitioners of the stymie.....

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

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  

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[MClutterbuck]

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.

[Mike_Young]

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...

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Jon Wiggett]

...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

[Jim Sherma]

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.

[jeffwarne]

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

[Brent Hutto]

So Jeff are you advocating for more trees, more rough or both? 

[JMEvensky]

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.

[BCowan]

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.  

[jeffwarne]

So Jeff are you advocating for more trees, more rough or both?  

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.

[SL_Solow]

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.

[Jud_T]

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.....

[Benjamin Litman]

FWIW, the greens at Mission Hills for this week's ANA Inspiration will run 11.6-12.0 on the stimpmeter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()