[Mike_Cirba]

It seems that more and more of the "restoration architects" are conceding that greens need to be flattened for modern green speeds.

I've played a few classic courses recently, including one yesterday, where a major selling point of getting a "restoration" approved was due to levelling greens to accommodate modern agronomic practices.

It almost seems to me to be the deal with the devil that most architects seem willing to make.  It goes like this...let me revamp your bunkers (I'll even put fescue around them), and cut down some trees, and I'll make your putting surfaces level enough to bring your stimpmeter readings to a 10-11 and your membership will consider it a fair trade.

After reading Noel's post about #11 at Plainfield, it hit me that such greens are going the way of the dinosaur.  The sad part to me is this unnerving feeling that most of the work is being done by architects who are not those we normally castigate, but those we generally revere.

[Kyle Harris]

Unfortunately the battle is being lost... Schuylkill's 4th may have it's back part flattened.  

[TEPaul]

You should check out gcisinc.com. Among other things it's a new greenspeed data collection service out of Crystal Downs and Michigan State Univ that's attempting to analyze, monitor and control green speed through playability feedback without revealing the stimpmeter number during the process. Obviously one of its goals is to protect existing green slopes and contours. One of the primary features of its process is to categorize the type of greens a course has so an appropriate greenspeed differential can be applied to it and its playability.

Crystal Downs is a course with extraordindary greens that apparently got too fast in play but the process developed a speed differential that can work for it. One thing Crystal Downs is definitely not going to do is recontour and soften its greens (Mackenzie/Maxwell).

One of the problems convincing some clubs to use this gcisinc.com process is the membership feedback process is inherently democratic and it seems some clubs don't want to deal with that kind of democracy! They're attitude seems to be we don't want our membership's opinion on the speed playablity of our greens. If that undemocratic attitude includes any thought to recontour greens I'm very definitely against it.

In my opinion gcisinc.com can help clubs find the greenspeed that works best for them without any thought to recontouring through gcisinc's "playability feedback" process in which the membership is not aware of the stimpmeter reading used during the process. The data collection process can also be extremely benefical agronomically.

The attitude should be for any club that they will FIRST agree to preserve their green slopes and contours and they will use this gcisinc.com process to help them find the greenspeed that works best for the PLAYBILITY of their own golf course's greens. From course to course that will be different. That's a reality golf clubs are going to have to come to understand and accept better. I think gcisinc.com can show them how to do that.

[TEPaul]

For the last 2-3 years I've been able to basically do my own green speed analysis in some very interesting ways. The reason I've been able to do it is I've officiated GAP and PA State championships so much.

There's no question that many of these courses that hold GAP and PA State championships have some very interesting greens (sloped and contoured). There's no question either that those courses are basically running their maximium green speeds during those tournaments.

That gives me a unique opportunity to analyze green speed and how it plays on slope and contour at maximum reasonable speeds.

I get out there real early generally an hour or even two before the first tee times off #1 and #10. I check the set-up and the pin positions anyway against our tournament pin sheets but generally I talk to the crew and the super about what they're running and then I have a lot of time to putt all over the greens well before play gets there.

Generally what I do on a green is use quarters or tees that I drop on what looks like pinnable positions on a green and spend sometimes about ten to fifteen minutes on a green putting from all over the place to those quarters to see what happens. It's just incredible what you can learn about a green's slope and contour playability that way and rather quickly.

It does not take me long to find that spot on a particular course that goes over the top first at the high speed these courses run for tournaments. The fact that I can basically find all the pin locations really helps in this (I can see the old cup cuts).

Doing this for the last 2-3 years on a number of courses in Pa and also going through the greenspeed analysis process we've done at my course has definitely taught me a lot about green speed analysis as well as some of the rather shocking misperceptions of many club members when it comes to the playability of high green speeds.

[corey miller]

Mike

You say that the "restoration architects" are conceding greens need to be flattened.  Have they tried to deal with the membership and explain the tradeoff?  Or are they conceding in their mind in order to get a job?  Do the members want fescue bunkers or is the architect selling this as a way to get the job?  What about the trees, even the most well regarded architects have trouble getting trees cut?

A plan I am familiar with had four greens being flattened "to return important cupping areas to play".  Funny, but all four of these greens had grown smaller over the years so a little mowing(green expansion) returned the lost areas and more.

How would you feel about a berm around a redan to prevent a ball from rolling on the green?

Shouldn't the first step be figuring out what was there?  Maybe it was changed for a well thought out reason not generated by a green committee chairman who serves one year and is trying to make a mark?

The battle is lost as long as architects put dollars and winning a job above ethics.  And if one of these guys thinks greens should be adjusted on classic courses to accomodate higher green speeds, well have them explain this comprhensively to his peers instead of a misinformed green committee that wants to do it.

An unscrupulous archtitect, parrotting the convential wisdom to misinformed green committees has a better chance in getting a job than a person that respects the original architect and will go to great lengths to "explain" things to clubs or to perhaps not accept a job.  That is sad

[Tom_Doak]

Corey:

Have we tried to explain to the club(s) the nature of the problem?  We sure as hell have!  But would you tell a club to put A-4 on greens with a solid 5% tilt to them?

I have never taken the slope out of a green at a club until I have been consulting there for several years, and the experience has made it obvious that they are going to rebuild the green, and that they are not likely to keep the speed reasonable.  At that point, I suppose I could quit the club and let some architect with more scruples come in and argue against doing the work ... come on, man.

I do not make a habit of this work.  In a total of 16 years of consulting at about 25 clubs, I've changed the slopes of steep greens a total of six times:

the 8th green at Oak Hill CC (Mass), which had been rebuilt from the Ross original so that balls wouldn't stay on the front left portion;

the 8th green at White Bear Yacht Club, which had been rebuilt in the 1960's and had "settled" to a 6-7% slope;

the 14th green at Holston Hills, where they couldn't even mow the approach because it was too steep from building up a false front on the green, and which turned out to have been changed before although no one remembered it (we could see it in the profile when we cored out the green);

the 2nd green at San Francisco Golf Club, which was a solid 5% tilt (we cut down the back to 3/4 of the original slope; it's still scary if you get above the hole, but maybe not quite as scary as it was);

the 8th green at SFGC, to which we made a very subtle change at the front, and which had already been rebuilt by the committee years before;

and the 11th green at Pasatiempo, which had 6-7% tilt throughout except at the front edge where it had been built up by the club, which we have just finished working on.

So, three of the six we worked on were to fix bad reconstruction jobs beforehand, and two more were greens which had 6-7% tilt and had already been modified by the clubs somewhat to try to stop balls from rolling off them.

(** EDIT -- I forgot to include a couple of greens which were changed at Mid Ocean Club as well.  Going from Common bermuda to Champion was a big difference and the most severe green there had 9 feet of fall from back to front.)


Tom Paul is a big champion of this green speed tracking thing and I would love to believe that it would show clubs the light and get them to slow down their speeds ... but it could just as easily convince them to rebuild one or two greens so they could speed up the others.

I'm not dealing with the Devil, Mike ... I'm dealing with a bunch of club members.  Most of them have a great deal of respect for what I tell them, but when I tell them to slow down their greens, they think we are just anti-progress.  I would never agree to changing the slope of a green to get approval for other work, and neither should anyone else.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

Are these observations from playing courses, or have you been intimately involved in a renovation projects where the architects have sold out? The battles waged with club committees and membership to do the right thing can be exhausting, and that is only known by those whom have fought the good fight.

Joe

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I think Corey makes an excellent point regarding expanding out to regain lost green area, very simple and effective solution.

Another solution is  where we had plenty of room beyond the periphery of the green to expand the green into areas where it never was, but still made for some outstanding pin areas, usually tucked behind bunkers or some feature.  Therefore the controverisial slope can remain, the superintendent can gain more pin areas that are of high quality, and the impact of constructon is minimal.  

This has been particularly familiar with greens where the slope is in the front, the members typically want to add fill to the front to lessen the slope, if you have to construct I would rather start the cut at the front and shave the slope down as you move through the green, but the best alternative is to leave the severe slope in the front because it is a strategic element, and as I said add pin area to the periphery of the green, on either side or both, and in the back.  On one green we will add pin area in front of the offending slope, again keeping the slope in play as a strategic element and sandwiching it between the old part of the green that has good pin areas, and now a new pin area in front.  In simple terms you are just exchanging the fairway or rough grass for putting green grass, of course there is more to do than that , but that is the basic change you see on the surface.

[A_Clay_Man]

On a tangent... Brad Klein recently wrote an article in Supt. News regarding tour speeds.
It seemed like a good teach, that chasing speeds over 11.5 isn't needed, isn't advised and will hopefully curtail the race and save many a green from the knife.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak,

As I'm sure you're aware, most architects are not quite so reticent and reluctant as you are to level a green and quite a few do it almost as a matter of course during "restoration" work.  It's always the same "more pinnable locations" argument, and with other changes it seems to me that it gets lost in the sauce.  

It's also not the architects fault primarily.  I'm sure you also know many cases where the members begin screaming that this or that green is suddenly unfair.  That's what I meant about a "deal with the devil".  It's work, it's there, and in a tough market, I often find myself surprised when I read or hear "so and so is doing a restoration of our course, and he's re-doing the 7th, 12th, and 14th greens to make them more fair."  

I can see where the education battle would be hopeless.  Kelly's idea of green space reclamation would work in some places, but not on smallish greens with a consistent grade.  

 

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  Your last statement is correct.  

The one green I had the most reservations about changing was the second at SFGC.  Almost the entire green was at a 5% grade, except for one small area which was 4%.  All the greens were being rebuilt (due to nematode problems, not to make them "fair"), but they were planting A-4 and the club repeatedly said they wanted the greens at more like their club championship speeds for everyday play.  At that speed, they admitted that the second green was barely playable, and I didn't want to rebuild the green and then find out the whole thing was unplayable, so we softened it.

The truth is that most greens should never be leveled, but the possibility is always there when the greens committee decides to rebuild ... and it's not just architects who push committees to rebuild greens.  We have had four different clubs where we consulted come to us and tell us to rebuild their greens, when we didn't think it was necessary and had not recommended it.  They were pushed into doing it, either by members trying to keep up with another club across town, or by the USGA Green Section's local representative.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul is a big champion of this green speed tracking thing and I would love to believe that it would show clubs the light and get them to slow down their speeds ... but it could just as easily convince them to rebuild one or two greens so they could speed up the others."

TomD:

gcisinc.com, seems more than willing to make it loud and clear on their website and in their entire greenspeed analysis process (from the point of view or playablitity sans a stimpmeter reading number) that the purpose of this is TO PRESERVE EXISTING SLOPES AND CONTOURS on existing courses.

It's one thing for others to just bitch and moan about the problem but what do they propose to do about it? What's the alternative to the way things are now? I think gcis.inc at least is proposing a very reasonable process for a solution to this problem. Plenty of people complain about the PROBLEM but If anyone else is proposing a more effective SOLUTION than gcisinc then I'd love to hear what it is.

It's be great if the USGA or the USGA Green Section would do more about this problem but they aren't going to do any more than they are---not now anyway. I know that because I called them and asked them.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I don't agree that the A and G strains are dangerous to contours and slopes. Some thought the "A" and "G" strains had to be maintained too fast for the slopes and contours of some greens. That seems to be turning out not to be the case. We went to the 'A' strain about 2-3 years ago as did Aronimink and PCC. Our greens are in the 9-10.5 range and the A4 could probably be maintained at two feet slower than that and be just fine particularly with a regular verticutting program.

The good news about the A and G strain is it just loves dryness so the chances of any course losing greens is seriously minimized compared to poa and the other grasses that're more common than A and G right now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

It's a problem exacerbated by viewing PGA Tour golf on TV.

Some delight in presenting diabolical green speeds to competitors in an effort to defend par.

Kelly and Corey are correct.
Reclaiming lost areas is a great first step.
Kelly's concept of expanding the greens beyond their original footpad is very clever, very cost efficient and a great practical solution to the problem.

A course I"m familiar with is about to destroy one of their great greens due to a lack of understanding with respect to the value of the approach shot, indescriminate tree planting over the years that altered the angle of attack on the approach and drive and a failure to adjust the angle and grade of the tee.

There were numerous simple solutions that would have enhanced the hole, but, now I fear it will be lost forever, losing its uniqueness, its fun and its challenge.

EGO and a lack of discerning minds will be responsible for this loss.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  We still disagree about the effect of A and G strains on green speed.  I agree that they do not FORCE superintendents to make their greens too fast, but when you combine the ABILITY to do it with the HUMAN NATURE of superintendents and their bosses, this is frequently the result.

The analogy I use is that of handing the keys to a Ferrari to an 18-year-old and his three best friends, and telling them to drive at the speed limit.  Think they would stay out of trouble?

As for GCIS, it is all based on polling the members of the club to determine the ideal speed for greens, and I just think the members of the club are likely to pick their speed too high and then talk about modifying the most severe of the greens ... just as they do now, at many clubs.

Another analogy:  those same members should all be trusted to eat the right amount for their own self-interest, but are any of them overweight?

Americans consistently choose bigger, better, faster things, whether they are any good or not.

[Craig Sweet]

I know this has probably been suggested before, but I recommend you throw away the stimpmeter. When a member asks what the greens are rolling you say "about 10"...and leave it at that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

You have to be mindful of the employee-employer relationship.

It's as Tom Doak says.

When you take the King's schilliing, you do the King's bidding.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I don't remember saying precisely that.

[Craig Sweet]

I see, so you post the green speeds everyday on a chalk board at the first tee, and the members grumble when they fall below 11.5?

So, throw away the stimpmeter and say they are running around 11-11.5...end of story, end of problem.

If we had no device for measuring green speeds supers would maintain the greens at "appropriate" speeds that would account for contours,fertility,etc, and NOT the EGO's and delusions of a membership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

We still disagree about the effect of A and G strains on green speed.  I agree that they do not FORCE superintendents to make their greens too fast, but when you combine the ABILITY to do it with the HUMAN NATURE of superintendents and their bosses, this is frequently the result.

To borrow from euclidian geometry,
If it's not congruent (precisely), its similar.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I see, so you post the green speeds everyday on a chalk board at the first tee, and the members grumble when they fall below 11.5?

So now you make the absurd quantum leap from throwing away stimpmeters to posting stimp readings every day.
Why not every hour.

Used properly, the stimpmeter is a valueable tool[/color]

So, throw away the stimpmeter and say they are running around 11-11.5...end of story, end of problem.
So, when the President finds out that you're lying to the Green Chairman who reports to the Board, you'll be fired.

You're right, that will be the end of story, end of problem.
They'll get a new superintendent that they can trust.[/color]

If we had no device for measuring green speeds supers would maintain the greens at "appropriate" speeds that would account for contours,fertility,etc, and NOT the EGO's and delusions of a membership.

Stimpmeters only quantified specific speeds, and not the concept of speed.

Speeds are determined, not by supers, but by their employer's directives, mother nature and agronomic skills.

It's not the superintendent's golf course, it's the member's golf course.  And, if they want fast greens, and those speeds can be achieved without harming the greens, then the superintendent should exercise his professional skills in achieving them, or, communicate to his employer why they can't be reached.[/color]

[A_Clay_Man]

It's a problem exacerbated by viewing PGA Tour golf on TV.

Brad's article hints that this is a misnomer. Quoting Jon Scott who says tour speeds for all of the 04' season were 10.6. Up only one foot in nine years.

also,
The article did mention that for the health of the turf pusing envelopes isnt' an advisable practice if one wants to remain employed.

It's not the superintendent's golf course, it's the member's golf course.  And, if they want fast greens, and those speeds can be achieved without harming the greens, then the superintendent should exercise his professional skills in achieving them, or, communicate to his employer why they can't be reached.
 
 

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick, no I was being sarcastic. I have seen several "clubs" that post the daily green speed at the first tee. Its silly. So what? Do the members EVER hit a few putts before playing, you know to get a sense for how the greens are rolling? If they do what does it matter whether they are 10 or 11.5?

The problem with fast greens, and stimpmeters, is it has become a contest, and it has become speed for the sake of speed. Good agronomics often are the loser in this battle. Old greens with great contour are often the losers in this battle...is the battle lost for "green slope"? I'm afraid it is so long as people manage and value a golf course based on green speed.

I'm curious,how so is the stimpmeter a useful tool? Useful for what?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()