News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Green speeds
« on: June 29, 2005, 01:43:59 PM »
This is a question relating to the upkeep and maintenance of golf courses over the years.  I know that, in general, green speeds today are considerably faster than they were in the era of Palmer, Player and Nicklaus.  Were they commensurately slower in the era of Hagen and Jones?  Were they that much slower again in the days of Vardon, Braid and Taylor?  Is there any research which quantifies the answer, or can we merely guess?

TEPaul

Re:Green speeds
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2005, 04:27:18 PM »
Mark:

While it can never be close to an exact determinant for your question the best way to answer it is to speak with someone who either really understands the way mowing equipment was at any particular time or who has some memory of the way it was as far back as possible.

Pete Dye, for instance, believes that the greens of Oakmont were never as fast as many top players remember them even in the 1960s because Pete claims a particular type of mowing equipment had not yet been invented. Pete has a bit of a point but what he apparently does not understand or know is exactly how Emil Loeffler jury-rigged his mowers to get somewhat the same speed effect as we have today.

Basically, he was apparently filing his bed-knives like no one had thought to before. This comes from his nephew who used to mow those Oakmont greens as a kid probably back as far back as the 1940s! The guy later became the green chairman of Merion so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about.

Micah Woods

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2005, 04:36:02 PM »
Green speeds were probably slower in the era of Hagen and Jones, and probably slower still in the days of Vardon and Braid.

Larry Gilhuly from the USGA has compared stimpmeter readings from Seattle and Portland clubs taken in the late 1970's with those taken today, and in general the greens today have a reading 3 to 4 feet faster. At the 1978 US Open at Cherry Hills, the average final round stimpmeter reading on greens cut at 7/64 inch (2.8 mm) was 9 feet 7 inches. The classification of green speeds for membership play in 1977 was slow at 4 feet 6 inches, medium at 6 feet 6 inches, and fast at 8 feet 6 inches.

Going back to 1932, before the introduction of the stimpmeter, research plots of creeping bentgrass at Washington D.C. were maintained "in as good condition as modern cultural methods permit," which was a cutting height of 3/16 inch (4.8 mm). Under these conditions, balls were able to stop on a 6% slope. Someone could replicate those conditions today and determine a stimpmeter reading if desired.

Putting green conditions were probably worse at the turn of the century; kentucky bluegrass, which does not tolerate low mowing, was sometimes found in greens, and turf scientists of the 1920's referred to conditions in previous years as "the cow pasture era."

TEPaul

Re:Green speeds
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2005, 05:01:33 PM »
I sure hope no one is fixing to suggest that we today should take greens and speeds back to what they were 50 or 75 or 100 years ago. Be careful to understand what you're wishing for before you wish for it. I have a real sense that if some of those old guys could see the beautiful condition and speeds we have today they'd faint with ecstasy. We just can't imagine today the problems they went through with golf agronomy way back when.

It's like Jim Finegan said;

"If you understand the old and the new well enough it's possible to make these old courses far better than they ever were before. Agronomy today (compared to the way it once was) is a huge part of the truth of that.

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2005, 05:13:09 PM »
Terrific!  

At the back of this question is the fact that I'm engaged on a number of golf club centenary books.  I interview members of long standing - and I get some great insight from it - but they all look back to the maintenance of the 50s and 60s and they describe their courses as, say, very rough and ready, not a patch on today.  I also have access to the clubs' various minute books - general committees and greens committees.  There is rarely mention of course condition.  No one goes back pre-war or to the twenties.  What were the courses like then?

Members must have accepted what was given to them - however awful or however slow - and they were reluctant to pay for maintenace.  Members did not have the advantage (or disadvantage) of television coverage of tournaments. They could not easily compare course maintenance or standards.  There again, they may have accepted enormous differences as being part of the sporting nature of golf.  We did the same with cricket until I retired (early 90s - wish it had been late 60s).

One of the centenary books on which I am engaged is Stockport.  Its professional in 1935 was Edward Jarman.  He played in the losing side in the Ryder Cup at Ridgewood. He also played in a (losing) match against Canadian professionals at Rosedale.  It would be fascinating to know how the conditioning of courses (and green speeds, in particular) varied from a provincial English members' course of no great social pretensions to American and Canadian courses clearly of the well-heeled type of the same era.  

For that matter, would it have depended on the time of the visit?  Would the heat and humidity of the north-eastern part of North America at that time of year have made its courses (and greens especially) very different from the UK that had been left some weeks ago on a steamer?

All input is valuable.

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2005, 05:22:58 PM »
Were sand greens peculiar to the Southern US?
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2005, 05:26:57 PM »
In general, they were, but the British played them in the desert countries and other Empire outposts quite happily for years.  How were their speeds compared with early grass greens?

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2005, 05:31:41 PM »
I can recall when I was a small child the sand greens at High Hampton in Cashiers NC. That would have been in the early 60s. My dad says that weren't too bad, even compared to the bermuda grasses at most other southern clubs, which really weren't that good.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Micah Woods

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2005, 07:20:37 PM »
Mark,

Regarding green conditions in the UK and North America in the 1920's, I think the conditions in North America would have been better. C.V. Piper traveled extensively in England, Scotland, and Wales during the spring and early summer of 1924. He was, of course, quite familiar with turf conditions in North America through his work with the Department of Agriculture and the USGA Green Section.

Piper reported that:

In general, greenkeeping in Britain seems to consist mainly of mowing
and watering. Occasionally a top-dressing or a little fertilizer may be
used, but on many courses the greens are starved and the turf so thin that
the soil can be seen through the grass. This starving is done on the theory
that it makes the grass tough and deep-rooted and also that it discourages
the weeds, especially Poa annua. In May, however, this latter grass
formed a solid blanket on most of the putting greens, even where the base
of the turf was bent and fescue. Pearlwort is an exceedingly common
weed on the putting greens, as a rule making up 10 per cent of the turf,
and occasionally as much as 50 per cent. It seems not to be so obnoxious in
Britain as in America, though it can scarcely be deemed a desirable turf.
Nowhere was a putting green seen as good as the better greens in
America seeded to German bent, let alone those developed by the vegetative
method. This is certainly not due to the conditions, as they seem to be
much more favorable than are American conditions. Rather it seems to
result from the fact that playable turf is easily secured and, in consequence,
there has been no urge to secure the best possible. It may, indeed,
be a debatable question whether British golf clubs should spend more
money to secure ideal turf, or rest content with such turf as Nature and
present greenkeeping methods produce.

On many courses the putting green turf contrasts most unfavorably
with the fairway turf. The latter is often extremely good, but the greens
are usually very weedy. This points to something being wrong in the
greenkeeping methods. The commonest weeds are Poa annua and pearlwort;
but white clover, hop clover, chickweed, etc., are far from rare.
Systematic weeding scarcely exists in British greenkeeping except for
such taprooted weeds as starweed and plantain.

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2005, 07:26:16 PM »
Micah - thank you so much.  Very helpful.

TEPaul

Re:Green speeds
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2005, 07:32:48 PM »
Mark:

Again, I'm a firm believer in the fact that golfers can quite easily get used to what they have if they really know no better or no different. This is obviously key to understanding the way things once were in golf's agronomy which in a sense includes green speed but definitely general conditioning of back then compared to now. However, what we have now is something generally they back then probably never even imagined. And truly understanding this and what it means in the sense of looking back or wanting to go back to what once was is a classic case of the cliche;

"You can never go home again!"

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2005, 11:38:21 PM »
I just read somewhere that the average green speed last year on a PGA tour course was 10.7...up 6" from the early 90's...
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2005, 11:46:20 PM »
Even ignoring green speeds for a moment, I have to think its quite likely green quality will continue to improve and in 40 years I'll tell all the young whipper snappers how lucky they are with the greens of 2045 and their brand new X99 super turf, and think how much smoother and better they are then the A4 bent grass I had in 2005, even though today I think its pretty awesome versus the 50 year old bent/poa mutt grass the greens had before.

I gotta wonder if those greens I'm playing in 2045 will stimp lower than 20.  Don't laugh too hard, the idea that regular guys would be playing on greens at 9.5-10.5, where mine run now on a daily basis despite some fairly major slopes on them, was probably pretty unthinkable in 1965.  With flat enough greens, I'll bet 20 could be made playable, although probably not very desireable.

Come to think of it, I'm more worried that the FAIRWAYS of 2045 will stimp at 10! ;)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Ken Bramlett

Re:Green speeds
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2005, 11:19:20 AM »
I recently saw the same presentation that Micah must have seen, but it was delivered by the USGA's southeastern guys to a number of the Charlotte-area clubs as part of their annual rotation through the Carolinas.

My take away was that the USGA is very concerned that the 11.5 stimped greens are reducing the number of available pin placements on the average green.

Like the ongoing debate about the way improving technology is shortening our older courses, the point was that reducing the number of hole locations would further erode these courses' natural defenses.

Interesting.

TEPaul

Re:Green speeds
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2005, 11:28:25 AM »
Doug:

Green speeds are never going to get to 20---that would be physically impossible. At the faster end of what they can run today the mower bed-knives are so thin some don't even use them for more than one mowing cycle. The reality of bed-knives is going to put a limit on increasing speeds much from here---it's just too bad that limit couldn't have ended around 10. But 20 on the stimp is never going to happen---not unless golf starts to use glass or marble for green surfaces.  ;)

Donnie Beck

  • Karma: +0/-0

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2005, 09:51:19 PM »
http://www.usga.org/turf/green_section_record/2005/may_jun/where.html

The above link will get you some of the information being diseminated by Larry Gilhuly of the USGA.  Larry has been presenting a seminar in the Pacific Northwest entitled something like "lower, faster, firmer, Dead" to illustrate the process of green keeping over the last thirty years.  

In his presentation Gilhuly cites measurements he has taken over that period.  Basically the fastest greens in the Pacific Northwest in the mid 1970's were 7-7.5 on the stimp.  They are now regularly somewhere between 10 and 11.5.

I don't know about Oakmont but Gilhuly's numbers are a document of what has happened here.  His campaign is to slow green speeds before stupid owners and green chairs take all further interest out putting by flattening greens to ultimate boredom.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Green speeds
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2005, 12:35:51 AM »
TEPaul,

While my comment about greens stimping at 20 was (mostly) tongue in cheek, Donnie's right on the mark with his link to that weirdo contraption -- its pretty short sighted to assume that we'll be using anything as primitive as bed knives in the mowers of 2045, or indeed that we'll need to actually "mow" anything at all!  I see several possibilities that could get us to the capability of greens stimping at 20:

1) improved mowers using lasers or whatever to achieve a mowing height impossible today

2) genetically engineered grasses with dwarf blades.  Something that's essentially a really durable and sun/heat resistant moss that grows on greens (with the benefit it never needs mowing, which would make it highly desireable at various heights to be used throughout the course)

3) a totally artificial surface for greens with a consistency somewhere between carpet and polished marble
My hovercraft is full of eels.

tonyt

Re:Green speeds
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2005, 12:52:49 AM »
Were sand greens peculiar to the Southern US?

Hundreds of them as we speak all over regional areas of Australia.