[Mark Brown]

What's your preference?

1. Bold contours with green speeds around 8 or 9

2. Subtle contours and long gradual slopes with green speed at 10 or more

3. Old style greens sloped from back to front with green speeds at 10 or more?

Such as classics like Oakmont, Winged Foot-West, Oakland Hills and others which seem to be able get away with just about any extreme. Personally, I don't enjoy playing courses like these. I once took almost 50 putts at Oakmont, and on No.1 at Winged Foot-West I hit a nice approach about 18 feet below the hole, rolled it to within 6 inches and it came right back to me. Is this golf?

[Jeff_Brauer]

..... I once took almost 50 putts at Oakmont......

I think I once took over 50 putts at Oakmont......but who was really counting at that point.  And that was with a few mercy "gimmes" by my companions, who hated to ses a grown man cry......

At least you averaged under three putts!

To answer your question, I like the look of bolder contours for sure, but lets face facts.....with today's green speeds they shouldn't happen - to hard for munis, and too fast at high end clubs.  Most high end publics I know of seem to keep greens at 9, and sometimes up to 10, which allows some contour, but not much.

[T_MacWood]

#1. Bold contours with green speeds around 8 or 9

How much money has been wasted on rebuilding interesting greens to match modern 10+ speeds?

[DMoriarty]

Mark Brown,

I prefer bold contours and greens a bit slower to match.  Without bold contours much of what is strategic about golf is wiped away.   Why would today's golfers bother to play the angles when they have a relatively flat putt from anywhere on the green?  

Also, I beg to differ that old style greens can be characterized as "sloped from back to front."  

Jeff Brauer said:

I like the look of bolder contours for sure, but lets face facts.....with today's green speeds they shouldn't happen - to hard for munis, and too fast at high end clubs.  Most high end publics I know of seem to keep greens at 9, and sometimes up to 10, which allows some contour, but not much.

I am completely baffled by statements like this . . . "today's green speeds??" Is this anything like the Soup of the Day?  Just who is it that mandates today's green speeds?   Do you guys get put on double secret probation for greens designed for less than today's green speeds?  Why not offer something other than Clam Chowder every Friday?  

[TEPaul]

What's my preference?

Personally, I love the challenge of fast and firm greens with some pretty good slope and contour.

But my general preference is that every golf course begin to learn how to determine what their OWN reasonable maximum green speed is and then CAP IT. To determine that point of "reasonable maximum" it's OK, in my opinion, to relate it to a stimpmeter number or a cut height (probably in combination with some set green maintenance program like aeriating, vericuttting and even rolling).

But my philosophy is that once that "reasonable maximum" for any course is determined the club really should CAP that speed and resolve to never exceed it.

Why? Simply so they never consider the alternative of softenlng or redesigning out or down the slope and contour of their greens. This to me is generally a good deal of the character and uniqueness of most courses, particularly the older ones.

First resolve never to touch that character of slope and contour and then find that "reasonable maximum" and cap that speed (resolve never to exceed it).

What would that reasonable maximum speed be on any course on a stimpmeter? It's impossible to say---as a stimpmeter number has never been transportable from course to course and it never will be----it all boils down to any courses particular greens and simply physics of how a golf ball reacts on them.

I certainly will say that in the last 12-18 months I've learned about 1000% more on this subject than I ever knew before. This was from analyzing GMGC, Sunnybrook, Philly C.C., PVGC, NGLA, Shinnecock, Fox Chapel, Pittsburgh Field Club, Merion East, Oakmont and a number of others.

Again, the philosophy is---resolve to never touch the slopes and contours and then find that "reasonable maximum" for your own course and cap that speed for the rest of time.

One thing we should all come to know is we're not going to reinvent physics and softening greens is definitely not doing that!!

[A_Clay_Man]

In the immortal words of Bob the bookie; "Play Better"!

There's nothing worse, than never playing more than a cup or two of break, during a round of golf.

Pebble beach is a great example. As close to universally accepted as great, as those greens are, they lack any resemblence of FUN when they are running slow.

All of these modern designed-in easings of the game, can only be described as "short-term profits, long-term losses", in my book.

 Maybe you'll get those golfers who should be practicing, around quicker, but at what cost to the rest of the real  golfers?

Separate the wheat from the chaff and challenge everyone. Otherwise, take up buying stock in bowling alleys.

[TEPaul]

I don't know---now that we've taken our greens consistently up about a foot in speed this year (this is a real exponential effect in playability fellows) I think our greens are about ten times more interesting and challenging than they ever were around 9. And the entire membership seems to agree---basically they're all saying they've never had so much fun although they all do recognize the challenge has also increased exponentially.

Are me and the entire membership of my club missing something here? I doubt it!

[Mark Brown]

TE Paul:

You hit the nail right on the head. I just wish that courses like Oakmont and Winged Foot-West would have set some parameters.

In comparison, Crystal Downs provides great fun and variety at speeds that match the contours. Not all old classics have the speedy, sloped back to front problem.

And I agree who says we can't set the speeds at 8 or 9 when we build dramatic movement in the greens. All it takes is architects and people like us to turn the tide to fun ahead of ego. We can change the thinking of golfers, just like we did when we protested the penal monstrosities of the 70s and 80s.

I think as a group we can influence the world of golf and the developers and architects that are stuck on speed.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

8 or 9 on some of the old very sloped and contoured greens are a problem. Basically they just aren't that much fun or interesting to play. Some of the slopiest and most contoured greens anywhere are on some of the old courses around here and any of them can run speeds at least just a tad above 10 and sometimes up to 11 without getting crazy. Members really do seem to enjoy that area between 10 and 11 and that, in my opinion, is where most of these older courses should cap their green speed. My course, GMGC, has some pretty good slope and contour and if we took the greens back to the 8-9 area our members would really hate it. Just a little above 10 they seem to really have a ball and the greens really do come alive in all kinds of interesting little ways. But once it hits 11 and above they begin to get into playability problems.

[Mark Brown]

TE Paul

I think each course has to find the optimum speed for their greens based on the degree and placement of the slopes, ridges and humps.

I just don't think it's good for the game (or fun) if architiects are unable to put enough movement in the greens to require imaginative shot-making and interesting contours, just because golfers on ego trips want them to run at 12 or 13 so they'll have the "fastest greens in town" (like Oakmont).

There has to be a happy medium. I would cite courses like The Old Course, Crystal Downs, Yeaman's Hall, National, Cuscowilla, Mountain Lake and Pinehurst No. 2 (where the USGA went way over the top) at which a significant part of their greatness is attributable to boldly contoured greens, and imaginative greensites that become unplayable if the putting surfaces roll too fast.

Contours have a major impact on the whole game including strategy from the tee(based on pin positions), aproach shots and greenside play. Members need to be educated about what the impact of ultra-fast putting surfaces is on every facet of the game.

Also, we must quit designing and maintaining courses as if many of the members are Tour players who play there regularly. We continue to build design features that rarely effect good players, but penalize average golfers -- one example is open fronts to greens which promotes the lost art of the bump and run game.

We have been gradually losing creative shot-making and replacing it with aerial target golf. Many of the younger architects, however, have gone back to the classical design philosophies of the Golden Era, which is resulting in a renaissance of golf architecture.

So let's get behind them and turn the tide. More affordable courses are also a result of this this style of design.

I challenge all of us to spread the gospel of strategic design which is being espoused by the likes of Doak, Coore & Crenshaw, Hanse, Bobby Weed and our own Jeff Brauer.

What do you think?  

[Dan_Belden]

We are really experimenting with this at Brookside in Canton.  With the 16th green having a primary slope back to front of over 7%, green speed is really an issue.  We have been pretty consistently at just below 11 on the stimp this year, and I echo Tom Paul's sentiment that the members really seem to enjoy this speed. Last year the greens averaged close to 10 on the stimp, and members frequently complained this was to slow. Part of the problem is that with some of the sever slopes on our greens, and uphill putt vs.. a downhill putt can have a stimp difference of several feet.  Therefore if a green stimps at 10, you can have an uphill putt that stimps at 6 or7.  
   The primary reason we have increased the speed this year is the the health of our greens after an extensive tree renovation. On a final note the thing that I find of the most interest is that when our greens stimp at around 11, the course plays at least four or five strokes higher for the average player.  But the members still seem to love it.  

[Pat Brockwell]

Halleluiah Brothers!  This year we've seen 3 of the four majors on stategic courses that harken back to that old time religion.  Bold contours. slightly slower green speeds (healthier greens), stategic shot placement equals more interest, more fun and goes a long way towards a solution to the equipment "advances". Now if we can get the USGA on board about greens speeds we could actually do something for the good of the game!  I'm sure the USGA noticed that Whistling Straights provided a fine test and the greens survived.  Keep the faith and don't be afraid to mingle with the sinners.  Redemption is possible.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You stated that - "But my philosophy is that once that "reasonable maximum" for any course is determined the club really should CAP that speed and resolve to never exceed it."

At the same time you just said your club increased the speed of your greens a foot this year and everyone loves it.  What would have happened if they "capped" the speed last year as you had suggested?  

There are some old greens out there that would be "capped" at 6 to be reasonable.  What would do you do with those - cap the whole course at 6?

One other thing, the number of rounds the course handles plays a huge role in the speed of greens from the standpoint -if your course doesn't get a lot of play, you don't need as many pin positions.  
Mark

[A_Clay_Man]

I still would like to hear proper justification for not FORCING the golfer to be more aware, of the agronomy, by altering greens speeds intra-course, or even intra-green? How different is that from encouraging the resurgence of grain?

So far, all I hear is whining about touch and feel, and how can you ask the average golfer to do that.

Simple;

 Force'em

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

Regarding your post #14, this is a complex subject with numerous factors, in my opinion. Your questions deserve some well thought out answers which I'll try to do in a little while.

[TEPaul]

“Tom,
You stated that - "But my philosophy is that once that "reasonable maximum" for any course is determined the club really should CAP that speed and resolve to never exceed it."
At the same time you just said your club increased the speed of your greens a foot this year and everyone loves it. What would have happened if they "capped" the speed last year as you had suggested?”

Mark:

If we’d capped the speeds last year at around 9 on the stimpmeter that we were running then there’s no question at all that our membership would not have experienced the totally increased interest, challenge and fun they’ve had this year with our greens about one foot faster! I didn’t recommend last year we cap our green speed at 9. I simply recommended that my club, or any club should cap their green speed at that number that is the “reasonable maximum” speed (or cut height) for that particular course (and membership). The point here is simply that a stimpmeter reading or number IS NOT TRANSPORTABLE FORM COURSE TO COURSE. Just because some modern course somewhere can run a “reasonable maximum” green speed of 13 does not mean that Torresdale Frankford can run that number. Torresdale has to find out what their own “reasonable maximum” number is, like any other golf course! And once any course finds out what their own “reasonable maximum” is they should endeavor to cap that speed for the rest of time. The reason for this is solely so no club begins to think they should soften or redesign down their slopes and contours! THIS is the primary point of this ENTIRE EXERCISE!

“There are some old greens out there that would be "capped" at 6 to be reasonable. What would do you do with those - cap the whole course at 6?”

I do not believe that Mark---not for a single second, and I think all the investigation I‘ve been trying to do in the last year and a half on courses all over the place proves this is not the case! I’ve seen some of the most sloped and contoured greens anywhere that are “reasonable” at up to 10 or just a tad higher. There seem to be a number on this website who don’t or won’t accept that fact but personally I just don’t think they know what they’re saying. All they’re really doing is making some knee-jerk assumption because in the old days green speeds above perhaps 6 weren’t even possible!

“One other thing, the number of rounds the course handles plays a huge role in the speed of greens from the standpoint -if your course doesn't get a lot of play, you don't need as many pin positions.”

This last remark of yours is proof positive of all the little obstacles that present themselves in finding what the “reasonable maximum” is for any golf course. But there’re all kinds of interesting and effective solutions to be found and recognized!

First of all, to even begin to do this type of thing effectively (find any course’s “reasonable maximum” green speed) the club must basically recognize that old military adage that “you can only go as fast as your slowest man!” By that I mean pretty much any course or club requires consistency of speed throughout all their greens and recognizing that you simply apply what I’ve called “the Steve Curry green speed barometer” which means you find that part of any green on the course that you want to keep as pinnable or effectively playable that tends to GO OVER THE TOP FIRST and that sets the “reasonable maximum” speed  for the rest of the course or becomes the “reasonable maximum“ speed‘s barometer.

When you run into problems here is when one or two greens are what I’d call anomalies in slope and contour to the rest of the greens on the course. If a course has a green or two that are anomalies you’re choices are tough between capping the “maximum reasonable” speed to keep them effectively playable without touching their slope and contour (and the rest of the course's greens follow that in speed) or perhaps work with them to imperceptibly soften those problem areas you want to keep as effectively playable as PVGC did on the right front of #5.

Now, I recognize that the thought of even touching the right front of PVGC’s #5 green is when some of the ultra purists on here begin to scream bloody murder that someone is corrupting and destroying the purity of PVGC. I can attest to the fact that was not true and furthermore I’d challenge any of those purists to ever figure out exactly what they did do to the right front of PVGC’s #5 if anything. I guarantee you if you put any of those purists on #5 both before and after they’d not be able to see or tell the difference except in playability!

But there’re numerous other factors to this entire exercise. You mentioned traffic or the volume of play. That’s definitely a real factor and can’t be avoided. This gets into stress or damage from volume but we should all recognize that soft-spikes has been a tremendous solution here. Green restoration and expansion that seems to be part of every old course restoration is also a tremendous solution to the problems of pinnability and traffic and stress!

I think every course should follow this process of determining what the “reasonable maximum” speed is for their particular course and then endeavor to cap green speed at that reasonable maximum for the rest of time, simply so softening or redesigning of greens and their slopes and contours does not become an easy option or an available option to increase geen speed in the future!

And this much I do now know--that any greens that putt at 6 or 7 or even 8 are simply nowhere near as interesting, challenging and fun for all as greens that putt around 10 or even up to 11! If we can run up to 11 on the greens of GMGC most any course anywhere can run at least 10, there's just no question of it!

There obviously will be some on here who’ll scream bloody murder over this and object to it for one knee-jerk reason or another but in my opinion they just don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t been through this interesting investigative exercise!

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I also believe after all this investigation that the window between 10-11 is sort of the magic window for green speed. At that apparently slight differential most all greens anywhere simply "come alive" exponentially! I believe the reason for that is simply about the phenomenon of reduced friction or reduced resistance to a golf ball rolling across a surface or a grass surface. It's basically all about simple physics!

There's one other humongous factor here that kicks in on or around that magic window to playablity between probably 10-11 or even up some, and that's the problems of agronomic stress! That problem is pretty much all about what kind or strain of grass any course has. Poa is simply more agronomically vulnerable at those cut heights that produce 10-11 and up than some of the bent strains, particularly the newer bent strains. These new bents---the so-called new "super grasses" (A-1 and A-4 in the north and the Gs in the south) are simply way more tolerant of lower cut heights and real dryness. With those lower cut heights that produce 10 and 11 and up those new bents are far more agronomically stress free!

Our super has been around a long time and he's really good, really knowledgeable and for most of his career he's worked with the old multi strain greens, primarily poa annua and in the last two years he's gone through the management and maintenance alterations it takes with A-4 and strains like it. If anyone out there wants to talk about the differences and the benefits, particularly in the Northeast of these new bent strains, he's definitely be one man to talk to!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()