Green speeds and green reconstruction

[T_MacWood]

TE
I would start by identifying the most interesting greens in the world. I can name a few canidates: the Old Course, Winged Foot, Pinehurst #2, Pasatiempo, Crystal Downs, Canton Brookside, Prarie Dunes and Royal Melbourne. I would suggest research be conducted to identify the orignal speed of these greens, what the architects orginally intended. I would then conduct research to determine at what speed these greens are enjoyable to all levels of play--with special attention to the high handicappers. Based upon the findings I would come up with a optimal universal speed (or narrow range) -- a suggested green speed for golf.

I know that speed would be a lot lower than what is technologically possible. And obviously you can not force people to follow the speed limit, but if the elite show the way, and as new boldly designed courses are introduced more frequently, the trend will begin to take hold worldwide.

You protect historic designs, you promote bold new designs, you make the game enjoyable for all levels.

 Let the less interesting, less imaginative or poorly designed greens be dug up based upon speed rather than the other way around.

[A_Clay_Man]

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but, short game interest is seriously diminished on these flatter faces.

 And Speaking of Pete Dye, he admits to very little grade changes from front to back. In his feature interview, He also elludes to, a changing mindest, at the Pga Tour and the USGA. Could anyone elaborate on what he may have been referring to, twice?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I seriously doubt you'd ever sell anyone on a universal green speed for golf, as you say, particularly one that was intended by the original arcihtect---something which is definitely unknowable!

Convincing clubs with fantastic or famous old greens that their greens' slopes and contours are most of the character of the course and shouldn't be touched is far easier, in my opinion. Also finding that greenspeed that's the reasonable maximum for any course isn't that hard either. Basically they agree never to change the slope and contour, then take the speed up (or even past the reasonable maximum) until they play too fast then back them down to the reasonable maximum.

To be honest with you, if I was a member of those clubs you just mentioned and you suggested the green speeds be returned to what you thought the original architects intended them to be, I'd never support that. I don't think the greens would be anywhere near as challenging and interesting that way as they could be.

Of the courses you mentioned, certainly Pinehurst #2's greens are not the original greens of Donald Ross. About 15 years ago all #2's greens were rebuilt into USGA spec greens by the Nicklaus company and a man named Edward Hollis Connor. Connor invented something called the laser theodolite to shoot all the grades but unfortunately the contractors miscalculated on the total level of the USGA spec layers--the greens ended up basically too high to tie in properly to the surrounds so they simply graded the sides down to the surrounds basically creating the dome-effect that #2's greens have now become famous for (and most people think they're Ross's domed greens!!). So Pinehurst #2's greens have actually become more sloped than Ross intended them! In that case would you recommend Pinehurst #2's greens be recontoured and softened or flattened back to the way Ross may have intended them?  
 

[T_MacWood]

TE
It was a two part study: first identify the orignal speed of these greens/ the architects orginal or reasonable intention (I believe it is 'knowable'). Second conduct research to determine at what speed these greens are enjoyable to all levels of play--with special attention to the high handicappers.

Based upon both findings you would come up with an optimal speed (or narrow range) -- a suggested green speed for golf. Some of the golf courses may already be opereating at the speed (St.Andrews?) or very close to it, who knows.

The universal speed would be for everyday golf. Obviously the golf course may want to turn it up a notch during championships, but hopefully, even that increase, relative to the everyday speed, would not cross the line like it did at Royal Melbourne few years ago or at Shinnecock this year (or other US Opens). Those events often have an extreme impact, an unreasonable effect, considering these championsips are conducted for only 4 days every four or five or ten years.

I just came up with this idea off the top of my head....I'm sure it needs work. You might be right, maybe the golf courses (and the architects) would ignore the findings, then again maybe they would embrace it. Like anything else it would depend upon who was selling it and the thoughtfulness of the report. If you get the right people involved, anything is possible; especially considering the many positive ramifications.

Yes I've read or heard the #2 story (there are a number of legends regarding those greens), but I've never been able to confirm if it is true or just a tale. If true, I wouldn't be breaking out the smilies...but then again I'm an 'ultra-purist'.

PS: I don't know when you were last at Pinehurst, but that is one golf course that is in severe need of a speed limit. No.2 is not playing (for regular play) anywhere close to what Ross intended (IMunprofessionalO).

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I really can't imagine how you think original greenspeeds of courses built in the teens and 20s would be knowable today. In my opinion that would be complete guesswork and for what purpose really? Those who have conjectured about such things say that due to lack of sophisticated mowing equipment back then getting a green to run faster than about 5-6 on a stimpmeter was probably undoable (other than downgrain---those old greens had tons of grain in them!).

The difference in playablility is probably like 700-800% between greens running at 5-6 and the same greens running at around 10, in my opinion--so I can't imagine the purpose of using those two parameters.

On greens that have really great slope and contour in them like PVGC between 10-11 the difference in playablility changes about 500%, in my opinion, and that was certainly my experience in the last four days. In the neighborhood of 11 the greens just lack the inherent friction they have at even 10 and so in that one foot differential things change dramatically and also become about 500% more interesting and challenging. That one foot increase is very doable for any level of handicapper---they simply have to think and concentrate and use their imagination about 500% more---and there's nothing wrong with that. The specific reason, in my opinion, there's about a 500% differnce in playability between 10-11 on greens like those is due to what I call "ball creep" a phenomenon of lack of friction on the greens.

Recontouring the slopes and contours on greens like PVGC's at 11 is not a consideration and the club obviously understands that.

That's all they need to know today--not what the greens were running in the teens when George Crump was still alive. The possibilities of what you can do at 11 in both approaching, chipping and putting at 11 is just so much greater than what those greens would yield in playable possibilities at 5-6.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

If you're truly into preserving all greenspace of all old greens a universal greenspeed is probably just not applicable or useful. Here's why, in my opinion. Most courses that have done some green recontouring have done so because of what I call "anomalies" of green slope and contour. That means that a hole or a few holes happened to have some radical pitch, or slope or contour in them that when speeds in the early days were probably no greater than 5 on the stimp were actually at the edge of reasonable playability. Today with green speed generally twice fast those old areas of greens are really out of whack.

Matter of fact, as we know, a number of Crump's original greens at PVGC were so radical in contour and slope in some areas (#6, #8, #9, #11, #17) that those greens were redone by either Alison or Maxwell in the early 1920s or early 1930s.

Anomalies like that on many old courses were prevalent and the only way to keep them functional would be to take green speed back down to around 5 on the stimp and I think we can all agree that no one can possibly get any serious golf club to agree to that today!

Analyzing the greenspace area on the course that goes over the top first and setting the course's green speed to keep that functional IS the "Steve Curry Green Speed Barometer" theory. It doesn't actually require the stimpmenter, per se, (only for informational purposes)--it merely requires analyzing that spot for functional effectiveness.

[Tommy Williamsen]

There are some courses that have had greens redisgned and green speeds have gone down.  Five Farms in Baltimore is one example.  They used to have poanna and switched to bent years ago.  I can remember being above the hole one #2 and haveing no chance to stop the ball.  In the summer much of the poa died and may havae been the fastest greens in the country.  Not so today.  I don't know what grass was used originally, however.  Are there other courses like that.

[Doug Siebert]

TEP,

I agree with what you are saying about finding the max green speed for your club and legislating it.  Sounds like a good approach to guarantee fast greens without them getting out of hand or people wanting to soften the contours to get the speeds up.

But what would you do if there were a handful of greens on the course that were more contoured than the rest?  On my home course, the 14th, 15th and 16th are severely sloped (right to left on 14, back right to front left on 15, back to front on 16)  Moreso than any other greens, when they've run at their fastest those are the ones that you can't let yourself get above the hole in any pin position under any circumstances because you just can't stop it anywhere near the hole.  Now obviously at that speed there are places on the other greens where this is also true, but there are also plenty of places where it isn't.

So there are two ways you could go, by my way of looking at it.  One is to just figure out the max for those three greens, and stay below it everywhere, the other is to find the max for those three, and the max for the rest, and mow those three slightly higher.  Before some object that those greens will be "slower" (in a totally hypothetical flat area of the green) I'd point out that most courses have some greens that are slower than others due to being sheltered by trees, or faster than others because they are exposed to the wind more readily.  So how would doing this be different than the preceding 13th hole which has two greens that are lying in the lowest area of the course, surrounded by water and sheltered on nearly all sides by hillsides, which have always run slower than every other green on the course?

[TEPaul]

Doug:

What you're describing on your course is what I just called greens that are "anomalies". Those are the greens that will  be the areas that will set the "reasonable maximum" speed on the rest of the course using that process I called the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer". To keep those greens and areas functional and effective or with enough pinnable area the rest of the greens need to be set to the same speed that works at the "reasonable maximum" on those greens.

Mowing greens to different heights is not an option to me. Green surfaces throughout any golf course need to be of consistent height and speed.

All courses obviously have greens and green area, like your #14,15,16 that go over the top first. As examples of this at Merion it's probably #15, at PVGC probably #3, Oakmont #1, #2, #5 and #10 and Shinnecock #7, Seminole #2, #3, #13, #14. Some areas on some courses happen to have been such anomalies they've been softened over the years such as front right on #5 PVGC, Torresdale's #3, Manufacturers #9 and #17 recently and a number of other courses.

If you ask me Somerset Hills probably only has about 30% or less of their greenspace that's pinnable at the speeds they run, same with some of the greens at NGLA but there's no question they can manage play and playability at those speeds.

But the point is that now all those courses seem to be able to run speeds at up to 11 without the thought to recontour again. In my opinion, a speed of 10-10.5 on the stimpmeter is fast enough for anyone in daily play and if you want to take it to 11 for special ocassions that's probably doable on most any course I know and around here there are some of the most sloped and contoured old greens in the world.

Obviously around 11 pinnable and functional space starts to decline very rapidly and that creates wear problems. No one has mentioned it before but obviously wear problems have been tremendously helped in the last ten or so years by the general use of soft spikes.

[Willie_Dow]

Hey guys, it all comes down to pin placement!

All greens have some place to put a cup that is manageable.

[TEPaul]

Willie:

It's more than just some place to put the pin. To avoid stress and wear problems on greens most all greens need app. 5-7 distinctly different pinnable areas for rotation! On the smaller sized greens this becomes really important!

[T_MacWood]

The idea that you develop a golf course's optimal speed based upon the majority of the greens with the understanding that a certain number—one, two, three or more—will be over the top makes no sense to me. This predicament is precisely why so many greens have been altered over the years. I will not be surprised when the 7th green at Shinnecock is altered as some point prior to the next US Open.

I also wonder if an exciting green for the accomplished golfer at 10.5 or 11 might be terrorizing and unmanageable for the average to poor golfer. If it is too difficult for the rabbit the speed is wrong, no matter how much fun it might be for the scratch golfer. We should maximize enjoyment for the greatest number of golfers.

Therefore the overall speed should not exceed the reasonable speed of the most severe green. We should be looking to increase the number of interesting hole locations, not eliminating them. We should be promoting more reasonable speeds universally if we are interested in seeing more interesting bold greens on our modern golf courses. Pushing the envelope is not healthy.

IMO the most enjoyable conditions consist of firm turf, allowing for the ground game option, in combination with contoured greens at a reasonable speed. I do not believe greens that are kept at the speed brink promote the ground game (US Open and Masters as examples), defeating the purpose for firm conditions.

 I played Lost Dunes last month and the combination of greens and bold contouring was nearly perfect—I’d guess the greens speed was 9 or 9.5, maybe 10. I’ve played the course when it was 10.5 or 11 and although I enjoyed the challenge, I also heard a number of golfers (and continue to hear) say the golf course and its greens were idiotic.

[TEPaul]

"The idea that you develop a golf course's optimal speed based upon the majority of the greens with the understanding that a certain number—one, two, three or more—will be over the top makes no sense to me."

Tom;

Who on here has said that? Certainly not me. You need to read better.  


"I also wonder if an exciting green for the accomplished golfer at 10.5 or 11 might be terrorizing and unmanageable for the average to poor golfer. If it is too difficult for the rabbit the speed is wrong, no matter how much fun it might be for the scratch golfer. We should maximize enjoyment for the greatest number of golfers."

Tom, there's an immensely simple way to find that out at any club, as we at GMGC are doing right now. You simply take the speed up to a level (where that spot on the course you want to keep as functional just starts to go over the top but hasn't), you then let the membership (ALL OF THEM) see how they like that speed and that playability on all the greens of the course. If they don't like that speed all you do is bring the speed back down to the "reasonable maximum" point they do enjoy it but consider it challenging. This is not a difficult concept or procedure to use and it's honest and comes from the clubs membership. The only thing the club maintains as non-negotiable is to not recontour the existing greens---ever!

"Therefore the overall speed should not exceed the reasonable speed of the most severe green."

That is precisely what I've been saying and have been saying on here for about the last four years. I've been calling that idea, concept and process the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer"---that sets the "reasonable maximum" speed on any golf course---which obviously can and will be different depending on any particular golf course and the character (slope and contour) of its particular greens.  

Tom, it's been said to you on here many times before, particularly by Pat Mucci, that you can't only consider golf architecture and particularly maintenance practices in and of themselves---you also need to learn how to consider these things in relation to how any golf club's membership feels about them too.

Too many people, particularly on this website, seem to look at all this in a bit of a vacuum of how they think things should be with no thought or care about how memberships feel. It's OK to talk about these things theortetically on here but if you really want to do sometihng about it in the real world you have to learn how to get these things across to memberships in logical and non-adverserial ways.

The latter has been one of the most pleasant of surprises to me in the last 4-5 years---eg how memberships will buy into and support ideas if presented to them logically and in a way that's considerate of the things they feel. The phenomenon is how easily you can get even the most initially intransigent opinions to see things another way---if you present the whole thing to them as a form of putting the jigsaw puzzle together properly!

Greenspeeds are a very interesting subject and the one thing we do not need to do is go back anywhere near the greenspeeds that existed when some of these golf courses were built in the teens or early 1920s. No one, no matter how persuasive they may be will EVER get today's golfers to do something like that----and frankly it's just not necessary!

[david h. carroll]

Tommy Williamson--re: BCC Five Farms--we restored the greens around 1990 to take them back to their original sizes and to remove the poa.  The greens would become lumpy and terrible in mid to late summer, and due to maintenance over the years, they had become quite small which also made much of the bunkering obsolete.  They are by all accounts, just as fast or faster with the "new" grass, and hold up quite well in the sweltering months of July and August...I played yesterday and they were cookin'!  

As to the recontouring question, we recontoured the 3rd, 9th and 12 just a year ago, but only the very front and back of each....they are all still very severe and the recontouring has allowed for 4 days of pins on these 3 greens whereas a green like the 9th especially, only had left side pins and the green would get worn out from wear and tear.

[T_MacWood]

TommyW
I believe Oakmont's greens have historically been poa. Scioto had poa greens for decades--very slick--they made the decision to resurface them about a decade ago and they weren't able to recapture the speed of the old greens. In the process the eventually killed the greens and started over. I'm not sure if they are now happy with the newest greens.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm not sure I understand the point of your last post.

"Oakmont or Scioto WEREN'T UNABLE to recapture the speed of their old greens." What does that mean?

[T_MacWood]

It was in response to TommyW's earlier post. Oakmont is still poa as far as I know.

[Tommy Williamsen]

David, Please say it wasn.'t 1990!  It seems like it happened only a few years ago.  Thanks for the clarification.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom Mac,  About ten years ago I took my  son (12 at the time) to Oakmont.  He went on the practice green which as you know is the back side of nine.  "Dad," he said the green is so hard my spikes don't go down into the green."  I.ll never forget it.

[david h. carroll]

Tommy W--It was a couple of years after the 1988 USWomens Open...believe it or not!!  Time certainly flies!!

[T_MacWood]

TommyW
I had similar experience at Oakmont. My brother-in-law and I decided to hit a few putts before our round, we walked four or five paces onto the practice green, he simply dropped a couple of balls down and they both rolled off the green. Uh oh.

TE
In your green speed test at GM, what was the reasoning behind starting fast and progessively slowing it down....as opposed to starting at 8 or so and progressively speeding up?

[TEPaul]

I don't remember what the grass is on Oakmont's greens--but Mark Studer who comes on here sometimes and who's their just past green chairman could certainly tell us. Their greens are probably poa as PVGC's have been for years and will continue to be. Poa greens are a little dicey to manage sometimes but both clubs certainly have large and sophisticated crews and they know how to handle it and have the man-power. Poa annua greens, well maintained, are one of the finest surfaces to putt on in existence.

[TEPaul]

If anyone asked me I'd tell them that greenspeeds above 11 on the stimp are probably unnecessary on any greens anywhere in the world and on some of the highly sloped and contoured greens of the world that's probably too fast for acceptable playability for any level. 11 on the stimp just may be the magic number that should never be exceeded anywhere! I also believe that many golfers think an actual 10 is about 12 or 13 and an actual 11 is even higher. I think they're simply misinformed.

I was out lookng at the speed on one of our greens the other day and one of our really good and knowledgeable asst supers said he thinks we ought to take a metal saw and cut about 6 inches off our stimpmeter itself without telling anyone. I thought that was an hilarious idea and pretty damn novel and clever!!!  

Personally, I'd love to see the USGA and its Green Section step up and just announce that anything over 11 on any greens anywhere is simply unnecessary. That includes their US Opens, as far as I'm concerned. If they want to ratchet up playable intensity and challenge at US Opens they should concentrate more on green surface firmness, not green speeds that exceed 11.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

We have all concurred that we must bring back the classic greens, rather than rebuilding them.  Eg The Golf Course at Yale, which had big greens.  Why not get pin placements available within the original design, rather than reconstructing something which could accomodate faster speeds if they had more pin placement locations?  

What courses are in the right position to make these recommendations?  What other places will serve as an example for other classic courses?

[Phelps Morris]

http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_tools_trade/Directive

Excerpt from an article by Dr. Thomas A. Nikolai, Michigan State University concerning a study performed by the sup at Crystal Downs on green speeds...

Seems like a reasonable approach to determine a 'speed limit' at one's course...


"...Several years ago, Mike Morris, CGCS, at Crystal Downs Country Club in Frankfort, Mich., called and asked me, “Is it possible to have the same green speed every day throughout the playing season?” This rather insane question led to a two-year study that was a cooperative effort between Crystal Downs C.C. and Michigan State University.

Certainly, there were a lot of details to work out and a lot of interesting data collected, but there was one underlying problem begging to be solved before the study could be initiated: If the desire is to provide the same green speed everyday, what green speed do you choose? This question took us to Directive No. 2: that course officials, with input from the superintendent, would have to decide an ideal green speed.

The prescribed solution for determining the Crystal Downs ideal green speed was a golfer green speed survey presented to a representative group of golfers. The “Morris Method” of determining the “ideal green speed” for the golf course worked like this: Everyday Mike collected green speed measurements at approximately 7 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on two greens (though, for all intents and purposes, you could do this on one green that is a good representation of your 18 greens). The representative golfers answered a survey at the end of each round they played. The survey simply asked: “Today's green speeds were:


Too slow,
Slow/OK,
OK,
Fast/OK, or
Too fast.”

The golfer simply circled what he or she considered to be the best option. Of course — and most importantly — the golfers had no idea what the Stimpmeter reading was at the time they were playing.

The end result: The members at Crystal Downs C. C. determined that the ideal green speeds for their golf course greens are 9.5 to 10.5 feet. They learned that green speeds above 10.5 feet were too fast for their contoured greens. Golfers stopped asking for speeds of 12 feet just because they heard that speed on the TV tournament last weekend or at the neighboring course. Everyone is more educated; everyone now knows the goal; everyone has a better understanding of what a 10-foot speed is on their greens; and everyone is happier. The golf course superintendent took control of green speed and earned the respect of the golfers."

RPM