Slow hard greens - Limey's pipedream?

[Lloyd_Cole]

I'm starting to think that the pro tournaments held on 'classic' courses would be more fun to watch and tougher on the players if the green speeds were slow - I mean really slow, and were also kept very firm indeed. Firm enough that wedges from the rough, or mediocre bunker shots would not stop in 20 feet. Pitch and run shots and running approach shots would be essential, and would actually be viable options, as opposed to trying to run the ball on to glass... Wouldn't the redan at Shinnecock have played as designed if there was just more grass on it?? What if a 5 iron from the correct angle was actually an easier option than  a wedge from the wrong one? So the chances of the PGA or the USGA thinking this way are less than zero, but are there any great courses out there that are not obesessed with greens being super fast? And what is actually wrong with slow greens, other than their being currently declasse??

[JESII]

Wouldn't the redan at Shinnecock have played as designed if there was just more grass on it??
Yes.

So the chances of the PGA or the USGA thinking this way are less than zero, but are there any great courses out there that are not obesessed with greens being super fast?
No.

And what is actually wrong with slow greens, other than their being currently declasse??
The fact that technology allows for faster (read: better) speeds. Not utilizing that technology would be the reason slow greens are viewed as "declasse".

Not mine, but them's the rules.

[wsmorrison]

"Wouldn't the redan at Shinnecock have played as designed if there was just more grass on it?? What if a 5 iron from the correct angle was actually an easier option than  a wedge from the wrong one? "

Lloyd,

In fact, the wrong angle was used during the 2004 Open.  The tee shots have been played from the Macdonald tee to the Flynn green for a long time now.  So long that people forgot that the Flynn tee was obsoleted and sat under a small grove of trees.  Well, the trees are gone and the tee evident to anyone that has a good eye for architectural archaeology.  We hit from the Flynn tee this year to the green running about 10 and not real firm but neither was it soft.  Even draws held the green quite well.  It is amazing that a shot to that green really can be influenced by an offset of only 7-10 yards!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Some interesting comparisons I took from last Spring. I found out in subsequent visits exactly where the MacDonald tee was, and it is by far the much better angle to the hole for this Redan to work properly. The current tee wasn't Flynn's, it was built for 86' Open and rebuilt other times since in the same spot.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Another one I took and pieced together of the green.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Quote - The fact that technology allows for faster (read: better) speeds. Not utilizing that technology would be the reason slow greens are viewed as "declasse".

Jes II, maybe we have a chichen and egg thing here. Surely we wouldn't have super green cutting machines, and all manner of turf grass research if folk were already happy with the greens we had in 1975. Certainly the corportations involved may fuel the frenzy with their latest gizmos and press releases, but we could ignore them and they would go out of business. Latest is not always best. And certainly not when the strain being put on many of the grasses as a consequence causes them to be subsequently saturated for fear that we might kill the very thing we are obsessing over.  The demand for speed, and controlled 'perfect' playing conditions created it's own pestilence.

[wsmorrison]

"I found out in subsequent visits exactly where the MacDonald tee was, and it is by far the much better angle to the hole for this Redan to work properly. The current tee wasn't Flynn's, it was built for 86' Open and rebuilt other times since in the same spot."

Tommy,

Who told you or how did you discover that the Macdonald tee was centered near the cart path?  That is just not true.  The current tee is the Macdonald tee.  The Flynn tee is as you describe it in the photograph and as Tom Paul and I have been saying for several years now.  I have a map of the pre-existing course at Shinnecock Hills and it shows the location of Macdonald's tees, greens and features.  The tees indicated in the drawings are precisely where they are today.  Not only that but the current green is a Flynn green and not a Macdonald, Raynor, Banks or anyone other than that wild and mild nature faker himself  

[Doug Siebert]

Quote - The fact that technology allows for faster (read: better) speeds. Not utilizing that technology would be the reason slow greens are viewed as "declasse".

Jes II, maybe we have a chichen and egg thing here. Surely we wouldn't have super green cutting machines, and all manner of turf grass research if folk were already happy with the greens we had in 1975. Certainly the corportations involved may fuel the frenzy with their latest gizmos and press releases, but we could ignore them and they would go out of business. Latest is not always best. And certainly not when the strain being put on many of the grasses as a consequence causes them to be subsequently saturated for fear that we might kill the very thing we are obsessing over.  The demand for speed, and controlled 'perfect' playing conditions created it's own pestilence.

Don't know if thats true.  People didn't just start liking fast greens because that's what the pros play or that's what their buddies said.  Yes, that's true today but IMHO it probably started because fast greens are far more likely to roll smooth and true because of the extra maintenance and care required to get them to be capable of handling faster speeds, so it was rare to see slow greens that rolled smooth and true.  I'll bet that's even more true today.

Its always been my theory that most people (certainly average golfers) who say they prefer fast greens really mean they prefer true greens.  There's nothing more annoying that having the ball jump and jiggle around where its pretty much random whether a 5 footer will drop or not regardless of how soft or firm you hit it.  People see that on the crappy shaggy muni greens that stimp at 6 and not at the snazzy club with greens running at 10 and decide they like fast greens more, even if it does reduce margin for error in judging the speed on longer putts, cause larger breaks, etc. that should make putting harder.

Personally I think with average golfers it would be a much harder sell to give them greens as firm as you are talking about, they'll bitch a lot more that anything they land on the green bounces over than they will about greens that stimp at 6 instead of Masters speed.

[James Bennett]

Doug Siebert

There is a lot of truth in your comment about seeking truer greens.  The trueness of roll for a given speed has a different shelf-life depending on the turf and turf quality.  

In autumn following renovation, we have been caught with greens that might run say 11 on the stimp but are not good enough to roll truely for the afternoon players.  However, a several weeks later, the winter low-growth and tightening of the turf may mean that the greens have increased to perhaps 12 on the stimp, and be rolling more truely.  Same greens, but one is rolling more truely than the other.  

We now endeavour to keep our green speed slower when the shelflife of cut is less than a day.  Rolling greens helps to improve the quality, but that too has a short shelfl life.

James B

[Pat Howard]

Thanks Thomas Naccarato for the Shinnecock #7 pics. I can see how the different angles from the tee position would greatly influence the shot required.

I think that in general, golf courses would be better off to firm up the greens and let them grow out a little. The average golfer would find the slower greens more suited to their game and would be presented with more options around the greens.

However I feel that the ultimate test for the expert golfer still demands firm and FAST greens, requiring all the skill and imagination the player possesses to successfully navigate them.

[ForkaB]

Lloyd

I don't really get your point.  Hard greens with a 3 O'clock shadow are going to be less punishing of "medicore bunker shots" etc. than hard ones which are clean shaven, no?  In fact, what you describe is winter golf in Scotland, where your approach shot might bounce 20 feet in the air if hitting a frozen green, but the chip back will stop 1/2 way to the hole.  As I've said before, this can be thrilling, but one still always looks forward to Spring.....

I do believe that the normal UK links maintenance practices of firm with stimps of less than 10 are lots of fun to play, but these courses also play MUCH better when they are really tuned up to 12 or so.  Fortunately this happens only a few times a year.  If it were regular fare, most of the punters would give up golf or spend more time with their golf shrink than normal.

[Marc Haring]

I agree with Lloyd. There are also additional agronomic benefits to slow firm greens in that you can raise the height
 of cut and ease up on the irrigation. In short, (no pun intended) the grass will be getting closer to enjoying life as it would get it in nature
 if it was just left alone. Maintenance costs would decrease, less fungicide and water and hopefully the NPK applications can be reduced to
pretty much nothing.

As a matter of fact, this year I’ve got away with one light application of low nutrient liquid fertiliser and nothing
 else and I’m cutting the greens at above 3/16ths of an inch through the growing season,
not that the grass ever does grow much in those conditions. The greens are running at about nine
which would be considered medium pace these days and they are very firm. Also I’ve got practically no disease and there
 is no need for frost greens as the tough cell wall can take the extra punishment no problem.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Marc.  I agree, since what I was trying to say is that firm with "medium" pace is ideal for most of the year, but it's also a lot of fun when you juice up the course for a big tournament.

Lloyd, on the other hand is arguing for "slow" greens, which I would assume to mean 1970s-80s standards in the UK (i.e. about 5-7 on the stimpmeter).  Do you agree with this?  And Lloyd, if I am misinterpreting you, please let me know.

[Marc Haring]

Rich

I don’t know is the short answer but I’m sure this is entirely hypothetical as greens speeds being what they are, I just can in no way see a move back to those sort of speeds. 8 to 10, yes but never 5 to 7, but it would be great fun. Tiger and Co will have to get some real Billy Casper wrist action going again.

I think the grass would have to be significantly longer which will create a couple of problems namely as has been pointed out before the greens would appear bumpier although I would argue it would be a result of the ball moving so fast to get to the hole that the slightest green imperfection will send it airbound. Also I think grain could start to be a real problem. But I do think it would encourage the ground game as the ball speed would be much easier to control. At the moment on the usual warp factor greens these days the last thing you want to do is get the thing rolling because there’s just no way of stopping it.

[ForkaB]

Marc

Love that phrase "warp factor" greens!  To be honest, it is much more sophisticated and means a lot more to me than "Ideal Maintenance Meld" and/or "fast and firm."

Your point about "grain" is a good one too.  The faster greens get the less the skill in reading grain is important.  This is good for me as I am an illiterate grain reader, but is good for golf, particulalry at the highest levels?  I am not sure.

Thanks

Rich

[Brent Hutto]

Marc's comment about wrist action is on point. The putting stroke that Tiger Woods uses (or for that matter Brad Faxon and Loren Roberts) is optimized for fast, smooth greens. These guys would object to playing occasionally on really slow greens if for no other reason because they'd have to develop a wristier putting stroke to be effective in those situations.

I just can't imagine a good Tour putter relishing the need to use a Billy Casper type stroke for a week or two and then revert to their normal dead-hands stroke for tournaments on modern style greens. One principle that's important for the modern putting stroke is the elimination of extraneous hand and wrist action. Think about the implications of deliberately adding wristiness for a while and then turning around immediately and eliminating it again. Sounds like a recipe for the yips to me.

A game played on otherwise modern courses by current players except with the Stimp 7 greens might be interesting but it's not compatible with the actual game that exists on Tour today. There's a reason current Tour players putt better than anyone ever did prior to 1975-ish (no matter what Dave Pelz may say otherwise). It's because the modern putting stroke on perfect greens makes a lot of putts that would have wandered off line in the 50's or 60's. The game evolves to match the courses (and of course vice versa).

[Lloyd_Cole]

Replies in no particular order

Brent - shouldn't we sometimes have tournamnets that take the experts out of their comfort zone? Isn't much golf that we see these days deathly dull? I'm afraid I disagree re Tiger and Brad both of whom use more and more wrist in their stroke when faced with very long putts. Tiger does pretty well from 40 yards off the green at TOC. I'm sure he'd whine, but I'd guess he'd also adapt better.

Brent - I tried to be clear that this idea would be impossible on modern courses as they seldom allow the ball to bounce onto the green. Many of the older courses that we seem to love so much were specifically designed to accomodate this shot, or certainly this alternative.

Rich - I didn't have a specific stimp in mind as I don't really have enough experience to know a 12 from a 10, both of which seem pretty fast to me.. but I wasn't thinking of Scotland in the winter, more like Ganton or Woking on a normal weekend. If Marc says 9 is considered medium these days then therabouts should be slow enough to be feel really slow to those guys. More important than the number is the consequence - shots from the rough don't hold easily and run up shots don't necessarily run through. Hard bounce, slow(ish) roll.

I'm certainly not arguing for bumpy greens, but the obsession with getting a true roll is unhealthy, and we a re reaping the consequences of it. There is luck and chance in every area of golf, and we need to be able to deal with it. For every bump that knocks a putt off line you have a misread putt that goes in, or a bump that knocks a ball back on line.

I played Kingston Heath a couple of years ago. They had rebuilt about half their greens at that time. The new greens were the best - truest - I've ever seen and were certainly not rolling at more than 9.

[TEPaul]

The responses are interesting but personally I've always liked greens on the fast side. I just think they take so much more thought to play simply because they can be so much more challenging than slow greens. On the other hand, firmness is very important to me on most courses, particularly the older ones.

[JESII]

Quote - The fact that technology allows for faster (read: better) speeds. Not utilizing that technology would be the reason slow greens are viewed as "declasse".

Jes II, maybe we have a chichen and egg thing here. Surely we wouldn't have super green cutting machines, and all manner of turf grass research if folk were already happy with the greens we had in 1975. Certainly the corportations involved may fuel the frenzy with their latest gizmos and press releases, but we could ignore them and they would go out of business. Latest is not always best. And certainly not when the strain being put on many of the grasses as a consequence causes them to be subsequently saturated for fear that we might kill the very thing we are obsessing over.  The demand for speed, and controlled 'perfect' playing conditions created it's own pestilence.

I think that strain and saturation comes from poorly informed green committees in general. The grasses being developed today can be quite remarkable in their ability to withstand firm and fast prep. That concept gets covered on here frequently and there are many contributors much better suited to explaining the process than I, but some of the grasses even 'need' to be cut at very low heights. The "hard" part of your topic line I am on board with 100%, and I am also on board with the notion of keeping greens just fast enough so that they can be kept as firm as nature will allow (in other words, firm preparation get priority to fast stimp meter readings), but I think the ultimate presentation is rock hard greens with speed that is just at the edge of 'over-the-top'.

All that being said, I think speed variance would be a very good way to challenge top players. The technological evolution has removed much of the creative imagination that used to be required in shotmaking, one way to re-introduce some would be through a concerted effort to produce greens that roll at somewhat different speeds in consecutive days, or maybe consecutive holes  . Would that be over the top?

[JESII]

Sean,

I think you're dead on about the US courses striving to create consistency. In my view it all goes into the same "fairness" recipe that is seemingly much more popular in the US than out of. Maybe it's the fascination with the stimpmeter. This must be one factor that sets the different cost of the game between the US and UK.

I guess my personal opinion on this is skewed because I would prefer greens at 11 every day if that is the upper limit of those particular greens, but if I'm trying to challenge the top players I think varying that stimp reading is one good way to do it. On the other hand I don't think it's wise to do much in the way of everyday maintenance practices with a once a year tournament in mind. It makes sense at Augusta because of the nature of that relationship, but on pretty much every other course I would advise to do what is best for the every day player. Does any of that make sense? After going back and reading it a few times it seems to say what I want but it doesn't make any sense either. Sounds like a John Kerry election bid speech.

[JESII]

I think what Marc Haring's first post says is great, so long as those longer blades of grass can be shortened to whatever height gets the speed up when the occasion calls.

Is there any debate as to whether or not Firm is preferred to soft regardless of actual speed?

[Tags:]

Tags: