[Brian_Gracely]

I was watching a GolfChannel interview tonight between Dave Pelz and Tom Meeks.  Meeks was talking about picking the 4-5 flag placements for each hole.  He talked about how some of the placements could be borderline at the current speed of the greens (11.6-12 on the stimp) and how they might need to alter the setup on some greens in order to be able to keep the planned placement.  He mentioned 7, 9, 10, 11, and 18 as being ones they would watch very closely and potentially setup differently than the others (1 vs. 2 mowings, roll vs. non-rolled).

To me, this seems like a backwards way of approaching this problem.  I would think they'd be better off considering other placements instead of different green conditions.  I recall this happening on 9 & 18 at Southern Hills, but is this a common USGA occurance?  And if so, how do the pros prepare for multiple setups if there is only one practice green or if the USGA doesn't make it public which greens were setup differently?  Are the pros good enough to recognize the difference just by walking onto the greens?  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brian,
Do you actually believe that all 18 greens on any course play the same? Greens that are protected from the wind, have a southerly orientation vs a northerly, low still spots, high exposed greens, at the end of the day (not in the morning with stimp in hand) they will play differently on just about every course on earth.

The USGA would be smart to just keep there set-up plans to themselves. They were the scapegoat for the missed putts at SH. I don't think the greens had anything to do those guys three jacking.

[Peter Galea]

What Don said.

[Carlyle Rood]

Do you actually believe that all 18 greens on any course play the same? Greens that are protected from the wind, have a southerly orientation vs a northerly, low still spots, high exposed greens, at the end of the day (not in the morning with stimp in hand) they will play differently on just about every course on earth.

If the greens are prepared consistently, then a player may make adjustments for wind, solar orientation, time of day, etc.  If they are not prepared consistently, then they may not.

[Peter Galea]

Golf is a game of judgement and perception. Judge, perceive and deal with the results.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Carlyle,
Which of SH greens were damaged by winter kill? You think they've been on the same program as the others for the last few months? Think the grass will be of the same age, have the same density and texture? Different greens play differently. For major tournament play greens that are exposed are often not prepared the same as those protected because the exposed green would become much faster then the protected green. They require different amounts of irrigation meaning at different periods during the day they will not be of the same firmness. Are they all going to be very close? Yes. If the USGA never let the cat out of the bag would anyone know the difference, IMO, no.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don & Pete,

I have to agree with Brian on this issue.

Shouldn't the practice putting green be essentially reflective of the conditions of the putting surfaces on the golf course ?

Isn't that the purpose of a practice putting green ?

Isn't the practice putting green the REAL first green on any golf course.

To deliberately set different stimp speeds on different greens tells me that there is something a fen in Denmark.

After putting on the practice putting green, and greens
#1, 2, 3, and 4, how would any golfer know that the speed on green # 5 is 20 % slower then the first five, or that the
6th green will revert back to the first five, or replicate the
6th green, or be 10 % slower then the first five greens ?

It's a formula for disaster.

And worse yet, it sets a precedent for golf clubs across the nation to deliberately mow their greens to different speeds instead of trying to obtain global consistency, within the framework of agronomic prudence..

And, I understand the agronomic variables, but we're not talking about them, we're talking about hole locations that the standard speeds, as set for the week, can't tolerate, and thus, the powers that be are suggesting different speeds on those greens where the hole locations would be considered DICEY at best.

It's a formula for disaster, not just for the tournament, but for the dangerous precendent it sets throughout the Nation.

Clubs will cite the USGA doing it for the Open, so it must be okay for us.  Despite repeating myself,
It's a formula for disaster.

[Peter Galea]

Patrick,
Reread Don's first paragraph. That pretty much says it all.
Greens have been, and will continue to be treated differently in the "National", as they are at golf courses around the world. Of course, consistancy from putter to 1-18 is the goal.

[A_Clay_Man]

Of course, consistancy from putter to 1-18 is the goal.

Why is that?

Why is that some want everything the way they think it should be?
All Don was doing was pointing out the reality that "real" consistency is near impossible.

Yeah, let's put the pin on that flatter section. It could be too hard, otherwise, for the best players in the world.

Almost as laughable as RGkeller's contention that RSG sucked!

[TEPaul]

This is probably why a couple of years ago Shinnecock brought in a guy like Mark Michaud from Pebble's 2000 Open. If anyone can get greenspeeds from hole to hole as consistent as you can get them under prevailing conditions it's probably Mark. Given all the various little hole to hole differences and little unique problems mentioned above Mark will figure out a way to get those greens as consistent speed-wise from green to green as you can get. (We got a helluva education from him in the machine shop in the maintenance building a couple of weeks ago! The subject of mowing techniques, heights and the rest of preparation and particularly bed-knives is truly fascinating!).

I don't know what the greens were stimping on Monday but for those pros most putts and shots were doable--but just. Some of the recoveries from some areas probably aren't or won't be, though, come Thursday but those pros and tour caddies are really good at rolling all that stuff into their strategic calculations.

I'll give you an example. Adam Scott missed the redan right in the chipping area to a front pin. He hit a really delicate little chip but the ball rolled past the pin and into the bunker left. He hit another one even more delicately and almost made it stopping it about one inch from the pin. But at those stimp speeds of 11.6-12 on a green like that the differences and the margin for error in execution between his first chip and his second is unbelievably razor thin! But you know what they say--"These guys are good"--and from what I saw, they're right!

But it's also educational to see how tour pros practice on greens. They chip and putt all over every green just to get an idea what can happen from any spot to any pin!

There was also a very interesting "playablity" on Monday on approach shots. The incoming approaches when they hit the green were sometimes bouncing really high (which to me is an indication of a really firm green!) but on the next hop some of their shots were checking and holding or in some cases even spinning back. That to me is the best of tour caliber execution but they definitely will not be able to do that if they aren't in the fairways. The fairways, by the way, are really tight and gorgeous, sort of mottled in color and pretty fast--with maybe 30-40 yards roll on some tee shots.

I hope the course doesn't get soaked between now and Sunday or all this really super intense playability can get dialed down to nothing and then the course can get vulnerable!

What Mark has going, provided rain holds off, is pretty close to the "ideal maintenance meld" for those guys in my opinion, although I would like to see it all ratcheted up just a little more by just a bit more dryness!    

[Brian_Gracely]

Brian,
Do you actually believe that all 18 greens on any course play the same? Greens that are protected from the wind, have a southerly orientation vs a northerly, low still spots, high exposed greens, at the end of the day (not in the morning with stimp in hand) they will play differently on just about every course on earth.
 

Don,

So you believe that hole locations should be chosen and then an ideal speed should be determined for each green based on that hole location?  And it wouldn't matter if this was 1-2' different per hole (or groups of holes).  Do you also believe that if the hole location changes from day to day that the green setup should be altered accordingly?

I'm trying to understand if you're looking at this from a setup (ie. mowing / rolling) perspective, or how the environment effects a particular hole during the day.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brian,
What I believe is the USGA and Mark Michaud know how to set up a course to test the world's best players.
I also believe that most of the criticisisms leveled at the USGA come from people who have never set up a course for a tournament and who hold on to some theories about fairness and consistency rather them acknoledge that a golf course is a living, breathing, growing thing. Why can't we get all our kids to act exactly the same, after all, they come from the same parents.

Brian, what are the greens stimping and which ones are 2' slower?

What the USGA will try to achieve is a course that plays as consistent as possible. If they have to treat a few geens a little different to do that, what's the problem? To their credit, they're not afraid to talk about their set-up knowing full well that by Suinday afternoon only one guy will really be happy with their work.

[Brian_Gracely]

Don,

So you're saying that it would be normal setup to mow the greens at different heights if some have more slope or contour than others?  I don't setup courses for a living (obviously you have that experience), so I'm asking a simple question.  And when this happens, do the player not come back to you asking why you had to trick up the greens?

And if this is frequently done on the greens, is it also frequently done on the rest of the course (ie. fairway)?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Brian,
No it would not be normal to mow the greens at different heights. What would be normal for some club tournament may be to double mow and roll most greens, but maybe only single mow and roll a couple that may have more severe contours or for some other reason possible relating to the condition of the green.

What I believe the USGA is attempting to do is two fold;
first, they are trying to get the course to play as consistent as possible not only on the greens but with a balance of approach shots and a balance of pin locations, second, I think they're not afraid to get into the heads of the players. There is absolutly no way one green will be 1-2' slower then another, but...

[Brian_Gracely]

Brian,
No it would not be normal to mow the greens at different heights. What would be normal for some club tournament may be to double mow and roll most greens, but maybe only single mow and roll a couple that may have more severe contours or for some other reason possible relating to the condition of the green.

That was exactly what I was looking for.  So how much difference (if it's quantifiable) would the number of mowings or rolling be in terms of pace on the greens?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

You agree that it wouldn't be normal to deliberately mow the greens to different heights, but you also indicated that they could be treated differently by rolling and double cutting them to achieve the same effect, faster greens on some holes and slower greens on others, and that's where I think the danger lies.

It's a deliberate attempt to establish different speeds for different greens.

I understand that some greens are elevated, some lower, some retain moisture some don't, some are in the shade and some are in the sun, some are subject to winds, others aren't, but these are all physical properties that a prudent golfer can detect.

Rolling and double cutting are more difficult, if not impossible to detect, and as such, putting becomes a guessing game for the golfer, unless this information is passed on to the golfer prior to tee off by those conducting the event, or setting the pace of the greens for the day at local clubs.

In either event, it's a terrible idea, one that will now spread to clubs throughout the nation, with the justification that if it's okay for the USGA and the US Open, it's good enough for us.

In many ways I'm a big supporter and defender of the USGA, but, I think this practice is detrimental to golf as it's played throughout the U.S.  They three putted this issue.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat,
I think the danger is the assumption that because the USGA said the "set-up" may be different means the mowing heights will be different. "Set-up" could mean a number of things and I believe it's all an effort to make all the greens play as similar as possible. You, and others think a different "set-up" means the USGA is trying to get the greens to play differently, I believe it's quite the opposite.
The only way to have the exact same set-up on every green is to have the green mowed with the exact same mower by the same person, same with rolling and everything else done to the green.
The difference between mowers is so small that it would take an expert with a prism gauge to tell the difference. But, no two cut exactly alike, IMO. The fact is, some of the greens on a course will always be a little different, which is to some the appeal of golf...no two lies are ever exactly the same.
What the USGA is doing is done at clubs all across the nation. Most don't hear about it because, just like here, all the experts will be sure and let the supt know that it's not fair, when usually all he is trying to do is make it more fair.
Honestly, if the USGA had never talked about the set-up at Southern Hills do you really think it would have ever become an issue. Same here, whatever is being done to the greens will, IMO, have no impact whatsoever on the outcome, other then to give some who don't win an opportunity to bitch and others an opportunity to show how they know so much more about championship golf course set-up then an organization with over 100 years of experience.
I may be wrong, but I think it's a little early in the game to be critical.

[Tony_Chapman]

I don't want to hijack Brian's thread, but I have another "setup" question.

Quote from Phil Mickelson
"The only thing that luck is involved in is in the bunkers. There's so many rocks in the bunkers that balls shoot everywhere. They come out with no spin and you really want to avoid them. I've ruined two wedges in five rounds. I've had to change them outright because they've put so many dents in my wedges that the only luck element of this course that's being brought into play is the rocks in the bunkers."

Does this sound good or bad to you guys. My preference is good, because bunkers are meant to be a hazard. Maybe this year, we won't get the "get in the bunker" cry from Open's past.

[BCrosby]

I thought the USGA had already learned this lesson twice. Once at Olympic. Once at Southern Hills.

Isn't there an old Yiddish expression that says if you keep making the same mistakes over and over, they hit you on the head?

Bob

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

Pat,
I think the danger is the assumption that because the USGA said the "set-up" may be different means the mowing heights will be different. "Set-up" could mean a number of things and I believe it's all an effort to make all the greens play as similar as possible.

Then you agree with my comment on trying to achieve global consistency, understanding the agronomic and physical nuances that may cause some minor adjustments ?[/b

You, and others think a different "set-up" means the USGA is trying to get the greens to play differently, I believe it's quite the opposite.

That's what I infered from you comment on the rolling and double cutting[/color]
 
The only way to have the exact same set-up on every green is to have the green mowed with the exact same mower by the same person, same with rolling and everything else done to the green.

Noone is attempting to champion the concept of "exactness".
There will be variables, but there should be an attempt to achieve global consistency, from the practice putting green to all 18 holes[/color]

The difference between mowers is so small that it would take an expert with a prism gauge to tell the difference. But, no two cut exactly alike, IMO. The fact is, some of the greens on a course will always be a little different, which is to some the appeal of golf...no two lies are ever exactly the same.
What the USGA is doing is done at clubs all across the nation. Most don't hear about it because, just like here, all the experts will be sure and let the supt know that it's not fair, when usually all he is trying to do is make it more fair.

I think you've gone to extremes in your example.
Noone is looking for perfection, just global consistency, without altering the speed of a single green for the sake of a specific hole location[/color]

Honestly, if the USGA had never talked about the set-up at Southern Hills do you really think it would have ever become an issue.

Yes, like at Olympic, the player, media and spectator would have noticed the problem, and asked questions about it.[/color]

Same here, whatever is being done to the greens will, IMO, have no impact whatsoever on the outcome, other then to give some who don't win an opportunity to bitch and others an opportunity to show how they know so much more about championship golf course set-up then an organization with over 100 years of experience.

The weather and time will tell[/color]

I may be wrong, but I think it's a little early in the game to be critical.

It doesn't do a lot of good to complain about the barn door being left open after the horse has left the stable.  
Or, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.[/color]

[Pete Buczkowski]

Just to be specific...Meeks mentioned 5 holes that they would maintain differently.  He stated the standard is double cut & single roll (or was it the other way around    ) and the 5 problem greens would omit either a cut, roll or both a cut and a roll, depending on the conditions.  He didn't mention anything specific about the resulting difference in the stimp.

Pete

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat,
I'll end by saying the USGA is just trying to do what they feel is best for the US Open and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. They've admitted their mistakes in the past like what happened at Olympic. I firmly believe that what happened at Southern Hills had nothing to do with the set-up, but like always they'll be blamed. I just hope this issue doesn't become a major deal as everything seems to be lining up for the course to play great.
Wish I was there to watch.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

In general, I'd agree with you, but don't forget, that sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm hoping that the rain holds off, that the winds picks up and that we all enjoy a great Open on a great golf course.

[A_Clay_Man]

"not embarassing these guys" seems like poor justification for testing all aspects of awareness.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()