Pinnable positions/green speeds/respsonsibility

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

If a green has incredible contour, which results in the surface becoming unpinnable, due to speed, what is the best solution for the hole?

Flattening the green creates a situation where the hole's greatest attribute is weakened, yet it creates more pin positions on a green that otherwise suffers from heavy traffic.

If an architect is hired to rework the green, does the responsibility lie with the architect or management, if the mandate is to create more pin positions?  If the hole is structurally weakened, yet creates a more reliable green, what is won?

While the answers would seemingly point towards slowing green speeds, I believe this is an idealist solution, which is equivalent to reversing aging.

So what is the answer for a course that faces these two choices?  Compromise a hole for the sake of conditioning, or suffer the conditioning, but retain the great green?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ben;

Isn't it sort of humorously sad that we're even asking that question?

Which is easier, cheaper, more sensitive, more interesting, and historically respectful; destroying the contours of a great green that has survived ages, or mowing at a slightly higher height?  

[ian]

Ben,

First you try to save the green, make sure there are no other mitigating circumstances such as shade or drainage causing poor turf. You only rebuild when you can't achieve quality turf, not because of increasing difficulty. St. Thomas #3 & #4 were saved by removing a hillside of trees, they are steep but healthy.

Since you have a truly great green, map it before renovation, the new green can duplicate the strategies and pinning areas with gentler slopes in the pinning area. Pin areas can be slightly expanded to allow for more useable surface. Cataraqui #2 and #3 were rebuilt with this method. They are the same greens, but slightly larger and marginally flatter.

If an architect is brought in to rebuild a green, it will be flatter and have more pin positions.

What do you do? Teach the club the value of what they have, then encourage them to reduce speed temporarily as a trial, hope like hell they see the wisdom of that decision.

Mike, well said.

[Tom Doak]

Okay, now let's go to the real world!

I would always try to resist rebuilding a green as long as possible.  But at San Francisco Golf Club we had to rebuild all of them, and it was quite clear that with the new A-4 bentgrass on them, a couple of greens were just too steep.  The second green would not have had any pin placements at all if they kept it at 10 1/2 feet on the Stimpmeter every day.

Generally, when architects do this work they overreact and make something flat to be sure they achieve their objective.  The recontoured 18th green at Olympic is like that -- they fixed the severe green and now it's just a boring short par-4, because you don't have to be afraid of getting above the pin.

At SFGC we left the front entrances of the greens alone and lowered a couple of the greens at the back, taking a 4 per cent slope to about 3 per cent.  You'll still have to worry about putting off the green on the new surface, but it won't be automatic.

Again, this is one of the toughest calls we have to make.  We'll probably have to do the same on a couple of greens at Mid Ocean Club next year.  But I hate messing with greens contours!

[Doug Siebert]

OK guys, perhaps you can educate me here.  What do you see as the differences in playability between a green of moderate speed with a higher slope versus a green of higher speed with a moderate slope?  If you take a green where a ball you barely touch from a certain spot will roll 40 feet to the bottom of a hill mostly due to the slope, and after renovation you have a green where you barely touch the ball from the same spot and it rolls 40 feet mostly due to the speed, what is different?

My first bounce against such a slope may be more moderate, but all the rolls will be the same.  It'll make up for that deficiency by being more difficult to read.  After this modification the overall severity of the green would be higher since you are only smoothing the "problem" areas, plus those areas where your pinnable positions were at the edge of sanity before.

I do understand this would be a very big project.  I imagine it being done with a laser or radar device to map the green's topology which could then be plugged into a computer program for a first pass that would then be modified by the architect, but I'm probably imagining something that's still a bit in the future.

[TEPaul]

I just wrote a one page proposal as somewhat of a solution to this problem for my own club. So as not to type the post again it can be found on the "Johnny Miller Ruined Golf" thread at 12/1/8:46pm.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom Doak,
That was exactly the answer I was looking for, I was looking for the real world explanation and you had it.

One point that I had not considered, the overreacting of architects.  This would seem to be the most common mistake and there are plenty of examples like Olympic.

I am happy to hear your own hesitation regarding changing contours.

Which greens are you considering at Mid Ocean?

Tom Paul,
I think your solution is spot on.  This would negate the need to constantly rework greens (starting with the most severe working down) with each increase on the stimpmeter.

Mike Cirba,
I agree with you, but again, I feel that is hopeless desire, so I was looking for the alternate suggestions.

[Lou Duran]

Mike C,

Do you believe that slower green speeds, say 5 - 8 on the stimp, are more interesting, fun, and a test of skill than greens in the 9 - 12 range?  With today's technology and products, it is not difficult nor particularly damaging to the turf to maintain greens at or near 10.  Don't you think that Dr. MacKenzie would have built more "moderate" greens if that level of speed was possible back then while still being able to attain the same level of interest?  It seems to me that the playing characteristics of classical golf courses have changed as much by the introduction of new grasses and faster speeds as by the change in new clubs and balls.

  

  

[Tim Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

I'm quite sympathetic to your view and think someday people may wake up and wonder what has really been accomplished with technology.

However, if the club insists on change I hope architects will approach it like Tom Doak described. Though I've only played Olympic once, I did feel the old green was pretty cool. Sorry to hear shot placement has become far less important. I would think that is a big loss for members who play regularly.