Green speeds and green reconstruction

[T_MacWood]

The trend of increasing green speeds it seems to me is rooted in idea of presenting greater challenge (and possibly more interest). Some of our most creative and talented past architects built bold undulating greens in the hopes of presenting greater interest and challenge. Unfortunately today green's speed have renderred these severe (by modern standards) greens unputtable--more or less a farce based upon reasonable standards. This has resulted in the reconstruction of many wonderful greens, greens that have survived decades untouched, perhaps the purest forms of golf architect from a preservation point of view have been lost forever because of the need to make already challenging and interesting greens challenging and interesting. Does this practice make sense?

[Steve Curry]

Tom,

Golfers don't like to have to think.  They also can't stand chance.  From these two thoughts stems the need for true and fast greens and subsequently more "fair" greens.  To answer your question, yes it does make sense if you consider that most golfers want to play better at any expense and would ultimately prefer funnel shaped greens.

Steve

[T_MacWood]

I agree with you completely, it is a false premise that fast (and true) greens = more challenge and interest. Which makes the situation even more tragic.

The need for modern green speeds (super fast) is actually rooted in the desire to make the game less sporting--a desire that has been pushed by the most ignorant from architectural point of view (or the least interested in architecture)....professionals, very good amatuers and unthinking clubmen.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

As usual, I don't agree with you, at least not completely. I do not agree that increased green speed does not make the existing or originally designed slopes and contours on many of the old greens less interesting and challenging. It in fact makes them more interesting and challenging but most definitely up to a point!!

What's important for all clubs to find is that exact green speed which offers the most interest and challenge for all without taking any of the greens on the course over the top in playability AND----and this is most important “and”--without the thought to recontouring or softening any of those green surfaces in the name of increasing green speed further..

You said;

“I agree with you completely, it is a false premise that fast (and true) greens = more challenge and interest. Which makes the situation even more tragic.”

Again, I don’t agree with that! What makes greens less interesting and challenging is not increasing green speed but recontouring and flattening existing greens or building new and modern greens which do not have interesting slope and contour in them.

You said;

“The need for modern green speeds (super fast) is actually rooted in the desire to make the game less sporting--a desire that has been pushed by the most ignorant from architectural point of view (or least interested in architecture)....professionals, very good amatuers and unthinking clubman.”

It’s not that simple. Again, it’s not the desire to make the game less sporting that has resulted in the need for modern green speed (super fast) which has unfortunately led to many green surfaces being redesigned and softened. Modern green speeds (super fast) are merely a result of improved technology and mowing equipment along with improved agronomy that has allowed speeds today that were not possible when many of those old greens were built.

The only ignorance here is the failure to realize that there comes a point of speed on any course’s greens (this is uniquely individual from course to course and green to green by the way) where interest and challenge is at a (reasonable) maximum BEFORE any need arises to think of recontouring or softening the green(s). This is the point here and the thing to focus on for all clubs who increase their green speed!

Frankly, this is the entire point of what I’ve come to call the “Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer” which analyzes that point of maximum reasonable speed (possibly using the stimpmeter) where a part of some green which goes over the top first on the course and becomes unusable or unreasonable. THAT is the POINT to stop increasing green speed on THAT GOLF COURSE! The whole idea here---the entire point is to analyze the “reasonable maximum” speed for the course this way and at that point (of speed) to CAP green speed at THAT POINT FOR THE REST OF TIME to PREVENT recontouring or softening any green at any time in the future!

[JohnV]

Frankly, this is the entire point of what I’ve come to call the “Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer” which analyzes that point of maximum reasonable speed (possibly using the stimpmeter) where a part of some green which goes over the top first on the course and becomes unusable or unreasonable. THAT is the POINT to stop increasing green speed on THAT GOLF COURSE!

Given the nature of the second green at Oakmont I think that would mean that the entire course should be around 6 on the Stimpmeter.  I think that a general overview of the course should be made with a point found where a large majority of the greens are just below going over the top.  If a few (no more than 4) greens are too fast at that speed, they should be maintained differently so that they would remain playable.  Some people might argue that this means you have inconsistent greens.  I'm not worried about that any more than I'd be worried about inconsistent bunkers as long as the greens are well maintained.  Also, since those greens are inherently much more slippery, most people wouldn't notice that they were kept slightly slower.

In general I don't like the idea of reconstructing greens to allow them to be made faster.

[A_Clay_Man]

It's a travesty to re-constuct which only buys into the "make it easier" justificaation. This justification is contrary to how gca should be designed and is at the core of the problem that modern golf needs to overcome to advance as a sport.

 Golfers deal with the situation. People who play golf, want things easier.

I say let'em be unputtable.

Unputtable is opinion and based on one's own stroke. Fewest strokes possible, is a reality.  

If courses want to combat infinite putting scenarios, why not a local rule that states once you lay 9, or once you've putted 6 times, pick it up? It won't matter for your stipulated round because the score the golfer made on that hole gets adjusted anyway. For all those who don't post their scores, who honestly cares what they scored as long as they know when to give up.

A rule could be made that once you approach double digits on a hole, you take an X.

[TEPaul]

"Given the nature of the second green at Oakmont I think that would mean that the entire course should be around 6 on the Stimpmeter."

JohnV;

That's not true. #2 green works even in the neighborhood of 11-12-13 on the stimpmeter. Sure it's intense but it is pinnable and playable at that speed. I know that from playing in State Amateurs there and officiating in the state amateurs there going back many years.  

[A_Clay_Man]

After having all that experience, what would you say is the fundamental requirement, for getting the ball in the hole, when speeds are at their absolute fastest?

Striking it perfectly?

Maybe the problem is that putters that are space aged designed, and cost $500, still get blamed for medicore strokes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think you can take your argument a step further.

Lack of interesting and pronounced contours negatively affect the approach and recovery shots as well, depriving the golfer of a much more challenging experience on the green end of the hole.

Playing Winged Foot West recently a golfer declared that the greens should be flattened out to provide more cupping areas.

Neil Regan and I disagreed with that concept, stating instead that keeping the stimp at 10 would serve play far better.

The slopes and contours at Winged Foot are amongst the best in the world, and flattening those greens would be heresy.

[T_MacWood]

* history - There are a finite number of Maxwell greens…MacKenzie and Tillinghast greens….Max Behr and Herbert   Strong greens. We should be preserving these greens not mutilating them. When a MacKenzie green at Pasatiempo is rebuilt to soften its undulations, it becomes a Doak green (built in a MacKenzie-like vein)…to call it MacKenzie green is a lie.

* challenge and the tiger – Super fast and true greens are less challenging and sporting for the most skilled golfers. The stroke required to sink a 5 footer in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s or 60’s is aproximately equivalent to the stroke required to sink a 15 footer today.  The skilled golfer is more capable of positioning himself to prevent difficult putts. And even when he is placed in a position of difficulty (from a significant break point of view)  he is better able to judge that putt because the surface is so true and consistant. Faster and truer greens are easier, requiring a less violent stroke (allowing for more precision resulting in the advent of very mechanical putting methods). Faster greens do significantly increase the break of given putts, but it all relative, and at the end of the day, when all factors are considered, modern greens with increased speed make putting easier for the skilled golfer. It would be relatively simple to find statistics that would either support or refute this idea. Equipment, technology and physical fitness—have little or no bearing when comparing the relative putting skills from era to era.

* the rabbit – While fast greens are less challenging and sporting for the skilled golfer, fast greens have increased the difficulty for the less skilled golfer…making the game less interesting for the rabbit. Anything that increases the gap between the good golfer and the average to poor golfer is unhealthy for the game IMO. While the good golfer is able to make more putts from moderate distances (because of trueness of surface and more controlled/less violent strokes) the average guy is finding himself three putting more often (because of his lack of control and skill, leaving himself much longer second…and third…putts) and having his less than refined chipping/short game penalized more severely.

* agronomic health and cost – The desire for faster greens on older courses often requires a new surface—which is not an insignificant cost. It is my (unprofessional) observation that fast greens result in more stress upon greens agronomically, stress that can result in loss of greens and the necessity of reconstruction/resurfacing. There are cases where greens have had decades of putting continuity over the same surface that have been resurfaced for speed, and then have to be resurfaced again (sometimes multiple times) due to stress. This has to be expensive, and this doesn’t even take into account the cost of reconstructing the greens to soften slopes.

* pin positions – super fast greens limit variety. As green speeds increase the most interesting pin positions are progressively lost.

[JohnV]

"Given the nature of the second green at Oakmont I think that would mean that the entire course should be around 6 on the Stimpmeter."

JohnV;

That's not true. #2 green works even in the neighborhood of 11-12-13 on the stimpmeter. Sure it's intense but it is pinnable and playable at that speed. I know that from playing in State Amateurs there and officiating in the state amateurs there going back many years.  

Tom, I should have put a smiley there.  I still think that you would lose many good hole locations on that green before many of the rest were anywhere near their limits so that you might want to keep it slower than the rest.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Altering the greens at Winged Foot would be sacrilege. Sadly Tilly's greens at SFGC have been softened...so unfortunately you'd have to think those at WF aren't neccesarily safe.

What are some of the more famous courses that have softened the slopes of their greens? SFGC? Pasatiempo? Old Town?

[RSLivingston_III]

I am starting to run into documentation that green speeds might not have been as slow as we like to think. This one is kind of interesting. The way OB relates it I read it as not neccesarily being an uncommon occurance. Opinions?

“The hole was a pitch of 125 yards to an ample green below the level of the tee and sloping rather steeply to face the shot.  It had rained the day before, and the green had been rolled that morning, and the sun had come out and dried it to a fine crust. Both of us reached and held the green from the tee and the major was quite close, with my ball well below the cup.  I putted up near the hole, and the ball rolled back about a dozen feet.  I putted again.  And again.  And again.  The ball continued to go up and look at the hole and roll back.  It appeared there was only one way for me to get inside the major’s position, and that was to sink the putt.  On the seventh attempt I did this, for a cagey 8.”  (Brookhaven, 1914)
The Autobiography of An Average Golfer, O.B. Keeler, published in 1925

[T_MacWood]

Brookhaven was the work of HH Barker, the pro at GCGC during its formative years (aprox 1909 to 1913). He was one hell of an architect who built some very 'interesting' greens (Mayfield, Rumson, Columbia, etc)...my guess those Atlanta greens maxed out at 9 or 10 after a good rolling...probably pushing the envelope.

[TEPaul]

This thread is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me. This thread is the is the reason why Golfclubatlas.com is never really going to be taken seriously. These ultra-purists like Tom MacWood who started this thread know just enough to be dangerous. People like that aren't interested in problem solving--they're only interested in reporting negatives. It's a shame--this site had  so much potential once.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I am conservative by nature. I prefer conservation to restoration and redesign. The thirst for speed has not been friendly to those interested in preserving the creativity of Maxwell, MacKenzie, Tillinghast,...
I'm not sure what a ultra-purist is, but if that's the worst I'm called, I'll gladly take it.

[TEPaul]

"TE
I am conservative by nature. I prefer conservation to restoration and redesign. The thirst for speed has not been friendly to those interested in preserving the creativity of Maxwell, MacKenzie, Tillinghast,..."

Tom:

Your're an excellent reseacher but what you should do is stop spewing pap like that and start understanding and looking for some real solutions. That's the only way that anything constructive is going to happen with these old courses.

[RSLivingston_III]

The reason I brought up the quote is it sounds like they intended 9-10 and with the weather ended up over 11 or 12. Hard to say without seeing the contouring of that green but it reminds me of what happened at the US Open. I understand the rolling was primarily done for smoothness but it had to contribute to the speed. There is a reference to the greens being double rolled for the 1913 US Open. I have to assume for increased speed. What were they capable of for a mowing height? Would you equate it to your local muni?

[T_MacWood]

Ralph
You would know better than me about the limits of mowing heights (and the resulting green speeds) in the 20's and 30's. My only frame of reference is the old Bob Jones films, Shell's WW from the 60's and old Masters film...and the ball doesn't appear to have much run out...it stops rather abrubtly compared to today.

[RSLivingston_III]

I still have to get a hold of those mower guys and find out some things. I hope to get back after this research in August.
It is apparent they did do more to the course for major tournaments and we should probably base our discussions on max capabilities. There is that Business man's course vs. Professional course issue, too. Obviously we should only look at Championship courses on understanding the state of the art. I have a great quote from George Duncan that you will be seeing soon.
I guess I want to do with the mowers what I do with the clubs, I want first hand experiance, not second guessing. Maybe at some time down the road the conditions from (pick a year) could be recreated.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I too think it is heresy to even dream of altering green to accomodate speed. Simply cut them at a taller length if you have to but don't alter them!

Steve is right though. Most golfers are clueless and don't want to think. I hate those kind of golfers

[Steve Curry]

Ralph,

Just a quick, snap thought but maybe greens were faster prior to the advent of serious irrigation.  I don't care how long the grass is if its crispy, its fast.

Steve

[TEPaul]

Some years ago Pete Dey did his own study of the speed of the old Oakmont greens by measuring the roll-out of the greens with old videos. Pros had said that even in the 1960s the greens of Oakmont were far faster than any others in the world. Pete claims to have virtually simulated a stimpmeter reading by measuring the roll-out on these videos and he determined the speed was slower (stimpmeter reading-wise) than most think---perhaps around 8-9 on the stimp. He felt the greens felt fast only if downgrain and he also claimed that mowing equipment back then rendered it impossible to mow greens any faster than that. At least one man who mowed the Oakmont greens in the 1940s claims they were the fastest in the world because Emil Loeffler (his uncle) figured out how to file down the bed-knifes.
A really good superintendent told me recently his bed-knifes are filed so thin now they only last for 6-9 holes before they have to be thrown away!

Stories like that OB Keeler one of the ball coming back to him a few times on the green probably doesn't mean all that much regarding comparative green speed today vs back then. Nobody on here seems to have thought of the obvious regarding that story---that being they probably put the pin on that green in the most sloping part of the green from which the ball may roll back at you even if the green was rolling at 5!!

Actually I saw that kind of thing not long ago at William Flynn's little reversible nine hole course that winds through the Rockefeller estate at Pocantico Hills. Those greens don't roll more than 3-4 on the stimp but a few of them are so small and so sloping the ball really will roll back at you even at that incredibly slow speed.

But again, this thread and this subject should not be about the speed of greens it should only be about not softening green slopes and contours on old greens in the name of increased speed. By the way, we've just determined that the "reasonable maximum" green speed for our course, a 1916 Ross with all original slopes and contours is right around 10.5-11 on the stimpemeter. That's the speed I hope the club is about to cap greenspeeds at forever as well as agree (perhaps in the bylaws) that the greens will never be touched in the future.

And I can certainly tell you Tom MacWood, that the greens and the course is about 5 times more interesting and challenging to play with the greens at those speeds instead of about two feet slower. That speed (10.5-11) for our greens is what I call the course's "reasonable maximum" and at that speed it's like our greens have completely come alive they are so interesting and challenging to play!!

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm all for technological advancement--beit with grass strains or mowing equipment--however it is a fact the uncontrolled desire for more speed has been the reason why many original greens have been lost. The desire for speed has also resulted in many modern courses with fairly lifeless (comparatively lifeless) greens. I'm afraid both situation will be more common unless something is done.

You might succeed in convincing a given club that their max speed is 10.5, but the universal thirst for speed will still exist in the golf world and because of that there may be a temptation under the next regime to push the evelope again (keeping up with the Joneses or "boy did you see those greens on the US Open telecast?"). I suspect the numerous changes at Gulph Mills over the years were partialy the result of a keeping up mentality.

IMO the architects as a body should be pushing for the toning down of the race for speed (unfortunaely the USGA doesn't appear to be a good fit based upon their inclination with set ups and their proximity to numerous renovations of significant designs). There are number of good reasons: preservation of historically significant courses, cost, making the game more enjoyable for the high handicapper and contemporary designs with more interesting greens.

I'm not sure what the speed should be or what the range should be, but it needs to be brought back....for the reasons I stated. They can still be fast (relatively), just not rediculously super fast (except for Oakmont!).

Were any of the greens at Gulph Mills softened before being resurfaced?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

We all know this. The question is what's going to be done about it?

In my opinion, the solution is to find the course's maximum reasonable greenspeed with the slopes and contours the course has, period!! What does this mean? It means the thought to recontour and soften should simply not be an option---period. Whomever and whatever it takes to get that message across is the way to go, whether it be the USGA, their green section, the world's architects, significant clubs carrying that message etc.

The first order of the message is simple---DO NOT RECONTOUR! The next order of business is find your course's OWN reasonable maximum greenspeed and create a resolution within the club for green and and golf committees that that greenspeed will never be exceeded in the future! It doesn't need to be. Nobody is going to reinvent physics!!

We are very close to defining our "reasonable maximum" at GMGC and when we do I would like to take the process we used and the capping of our greenspeed along with the resolution of our club to never----under any circumstances in the future consider touching the slopes and contours of our greens on the road so others will do what we have. The process we used to finally do this is pretty interesting--it's a good process that other clubs can very easily follow.

If you have a better way to go about solving this problem how about we hear about it now?

No, GMGC have never touched their green surfaces and the architects who came through the club was not some attempt to keep up with the Jones's mentality. Those architects came through to redo some things and some holes that weren't very good or weren't working well for our membership. The other redesign reason was a relatively common one with very old courses---we had no practice range and we wanted one on limited property--so some holes were changed to provide for that.