[Patrick_Mucci]

I continually see high handicap players surveying putts from all angles, plumb bobbing and consulting with their partners and caddies, just like the PGA Tour Pros do on TV.

Is consideration for the pace of play partially responsible for the softening of putting surfaces on new golf courses ?

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,

I haven't heard of that reason before. Regarding greens and the pace of play, I've always assumed it was more about the speed rather than the contour, although I guess the latter kind of accentuates the former. When greens get really quick, the ball always seems to trickle an extra foot or two beyond the hole, necessitating more reads and looks because of fewer tap-ins.

I've always felt that that is generally the reason tournament golf is much slower than regular play. Quick greens demand much more care and attention, and unfortunately, more time.

TK

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  A management company took over one of our courses [Riverfront in VA] just before it opened, and their gurus talked openly about softening some of the greens to speed up play.

Then the course opened and everyone realized the greens were the primary feature of the course, and the speed of play was reasonable, and the management group dropped the idea of spending six figures to change the design.

ANY interesting design feature can be interpreted to slow up play if you want to look at it that way ... bunkers, water, slopes around greens, anything.  Part of being a good designer is balancing these factors so the course is interesting without being excessive.

[JWL]

Patrick
I concur with TD's assessment regarding design features and slow play.   Without question, large, undulating greens are a major factor is pace of play when compared with smaller, less contoured greens.    The constant marking, and remarking of putts that don't quite fit into the "leather" add up tremendously over the course of a round.   Chipping, on the other hand to smaller greens that have been missed, doesn't require the pin to be tended and play in turn isn't quite as mandatory.   Again, this speeds up play.
TD is correct about any design feature interrupting play, and I agree that balancing these factors while keeping the course interesting, without being excessive, is part of being a good designer.

[Larry_Keltto]

At Kingsley this week, I asked John Kirk this question, but with a bit of a twist: Because of slow play concerns, is it less likely for public courses to have devilish greens than private courses?

In asking the question, I was thinking primarily of resort and CCFAD types of courses, where most players would be unfamiliar with the greens. Conversely, of course, members at private clubs soon learn how to play their challenging greens and pace of play isn't as much of an issue.

[Rick Shefchik]

Dawdling is the chief cause of slow play. It does take a little longer to play a demanding course than an easy one, but you can easily whack 30 minutes to an hour from most group's rounds, no matter what course they're playing.

It's very sad if management decides that it is better to dumb down their golf course than improve their methods of herding the cattle.

[Craig Sweet]

Our greens speed remain fairly consistant, so where we set a pin determines the difficulty one will face on the green. When I set a pin on Sunday it is in a location considerably easier to putt to than say a Wednesday pin. Speed of play almost totally dictates where the pin is cut.

[A.G._Crockett]

I would be curious to hear from the experts how much if any difference there is in maintenance cost and time from flatter greens.  Does it take significantly longer to mow heavily contoured greens, or is that a non-factor?  Are heavily contoured greens harder to maintain in other ways?

Timely question, Pat Mucci, as I face a 5 hr. round on the second day of our club championship tomorrow.  The pins will be buried on our 6200 yd. course, and play will be SLOW!  I went out at 7:30 today and we were in in 3:15 without hurrying, but I will be at noon tomorrow with 7 flights out ahead, and the pace will be brutal on the greens.  

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat - I don't feel it is slow play per se that is responsible for the lack of devilish or challenging greens, as much as the focus on stroke play rather than match play. As the American version of golf evolved away from "playing a game" to become a "competition of sport" there seems to have been an increasing emphasis on course "fairness." Individual scoring has become the primary focus of American golf and, as a result, most golfers want courses (and greens) that "reward" their well struck shots. If you tell a friend or family member that you played golf what is their first question... "What did you shoot?"

Devilish or challenging greens do not, for the most part, lend themselves to consistantly good scores. Therefore, Americans tend to praise courses that allow them to get the most out of their individual skill sets and eschew courses and greens where the ball bounces at odd angles or has to putted through humpy, slopey, or complicated greens. Smooth, slightly contoured greens put a smile on the face of the "card & pencil" crowd and since that is the vast majority of golfers in this country, greens and courses are built to win their favor... and green fees (it is a business, after all).

PS - Loved the baby blue shorts at The Creek!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

It may be because the golfers you reference haven't been exposed to interesting or challenging greens.

I still believe one of the inherent attractions of the game is the challenge presented by the architecture, and the more interesting, the more unique the architecture, the more interesting the challenge and the more attractive the game becomes.

However, the practice of mimicing the PGA Tour players, as presented on TV makes low and high handicapers take far too much time lining up and surveying putts from 360 degrees before they putt.

I'm always fascinated by the golfers who putt the ball past the hole but never watch it from the time it passes the hole until it comes to rest.  That observation would negate 99 % of the need to read the next putt, especially from 360 degrees.

It seems to me that most time lost is lost on the greens and as such there seems to be a trend to create bland putting surfaces, especially at fee based golf courses where time is money.

By the way, I think you may be green-blue color blind.
Those shorts were light mint green, or light aqua marine.
The baby blue shorts are reserved for another day.

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat - I'll go with light aqua marine! Too cool.

I agree that an inordinate number of golfers take too much time surveying and studying their putts, but I think it is because they are so concerned with their score. Mimicking the pros is just one of the ways this obsession with score manifests itself.

If more people played golf as a competitive game without so much regard to individual score it would speed up play... and "quirk" would be a welcomed, enjoyed, and fun element of golf again for the masses... like it used to be in this country and like it still is in the UK and Ireland. We wouldn't have so many golfers pissed at the end of the day because they shot 91 instead of 89.

It's the thing I love so much about golf in Scotland and Ireland (the only two countries outside the US where I have played). It's generally not about what score you shoot on a given day; it's about who won the game and who buys the drinks. If you're out of a hole you pick up the ball and move on... and you finish in 3 to 3 1/2 hours or so. Americans just play away until everyone has putted out regardless of the overall significance... even if it takes 5 hours! Why? Because everyone is so fixed on shooting a number. We've got to have that damn score. It's how we measure ourselves.

Yale and The Creek obviously have devilish and challenging greens. As I played those courses for the first time this week I tried to imagine what a modern day architect would do if building a course over the exact same property and routing. I doubt you would see the blind and semi-blind shots like those at Yale, or the severly contoured greens like you find at both courses. Take #9 & #10 at Yale. What would happen if a modern day architect tried to create holes like that... with greens like that! He would be run out of town. But, because Yale is an antique they are revered. Off the top of my head, the only modern courses I can remember playing with anything similar (in quirkiness) to what I saw at Yale and The Creek are Mike Strantz' Tobacco Road and Baxter Spann's Black Mesa. And features of both courses, especially Tobacco Road, have been called "over-the-top" by several modern pundits.

Again, I don't think it is slow play that is responsible for the lack of challenging greens. I think it is because most golfers don't shoot a good score on these greens and have been taught by the "good" players that these old style courses are not "fair."

One of my good friends is Larry Penley, the golf coach at Clemson University. Larry is old school. He loves Yale. His players, however, who played the NCAA eastern regional there last year, hate it. Because they don't think it's "fair." Given a choice they would never play a tournament at Yale. Unfortunately, I think this is the majority attitude among golfers. That's why most modern courses don't have these kinds of features, and why we should celebrate the modern architects that are bold enough to incorporate these features into their courses... instead of declaring their efforts "over-the-top."

[RJ_Daley]

I really think Mike Whitaker as the best take on this subject.  I'd add that too many casual players play too many games at once.  How many times to you see a foursome playing nassaus with each member of the foursome, and skins, and/or wolf and/or crack and/or calvin and all those extra sort of games in the same round!

My usual group plays 2-2-2s with each other and a skins carry over.  We usually finish in 4 hours.  But, we do vary between ready golf, continuous putting, and sometimes gimmies.  Yet, when there are a bag full of skins on the line, etc., making them putt it, or someone marking a tap in and all slows up the game inordinantely.

I do think that some modern designers design bland greens, not conciously so much as subconciously or by default to fairneess and to the way the game-culture has evolved, which is the card and pencil score and gambling mentality.

Match play is golf at its best, and we'd have a lot more great golf design if we had more match play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ & Mike,

It would seem to me that a 10 footer requires the same amount of diligence at match or medal play.

It seems to me that whether you're playing to challenge yourself, the golf course, your opponent or the field, each putt has the same significance and requires the same amount of diligence.

However, it seems to me that too many golfers have been influenced by what they see on TV.

We forget that golf is the vocation of PGA Tour pros whereas golf is an avocation for the rest of us.

Surgeons are meticulous and take their time when operating within milimeters of nerves and vital organs.  
Too many amateur golfers think they're brain surgeons when they're on the greens, and as a result, time ticks away, and therein lies the problem.

Amateurs pursuing a hobby are trying to act like professionals who are pursuing their livelihood.

Golfers should begin reading their putts as they approach the green, and not just when it's their turn to putt.

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat - It's not the one 10-footer that is the problem. It is four golfers sweating over their four 10-footers that drags everything to a halt. If two or three of them were to pick up because their score was irrelevant to a match you would see a dramatic jump in pace of play. Same is true for other shots as well, not just putting.

But, your question was about challenging greens and whether or not the lack of such greens was caused by slow play. You seem hell bent on blaming it on golfers mimicking the pros... which is quite a stretch. I like my theory better!!!

[Craig Sweet]

My observation is it isn't the old duffers that are slowing down play. It's the young punks that get on the tee...take two or three practices swings...walk around and stand behind the ball...point the club at the green...line up the shot...waggle forever...and then hit the tee shot...on the green they look the putt over from every angle, take three or four practice strokes...step away...line it up again, and finally, miss the putt.

The old duffers...they walk up and hit the ball...usually...and on the greens they look at the line and putt...now, it may take them three putts from 20 feet...but they sure are faster!

At my course, pin location is important because we want to keep people moving...there are other ways to do that, but someone has decided pin location is one answer...the second thing we're doing and it's related...we're adding more tee area and another set of tees.." black championship" tees...thus our "white" tees...the everyday tee...will be moved up to what is sometimes called the "ladies" tee area...the current "green championship" tee will move up to where the white tees are coming from...the theory being, people will keep playing from the "white" tees, but the distance from the new white tee will be 500 yards shorter than the current white tee location...so...we are tricking people into playing a shorter course to keep the speed of play up. A total joke in my opinion.

[Craig Sweet]

By the way..getting back to the original question...I think it's a combination of a desire for fast greens and a desire for a 4 1/4 hour round that have led to less contour and interest in green design.

For all I know it might be a proven fact that the majority of time spent playing a golf hole occurs on the green...for whatever reason...logically, or illogically, the powers that be have targeted the greens as the place to address this.

Here is something a buddy and I do occasionally to speed up play...once on the green...we pick up and give ourselves a two putt...if we want...we'll putt a particular putt...often we do this when we drop by the course for a quick 9 or 18 before dark...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()