Is there a proper balance of green speed and contours?

[Steve Pieracci]

I consider these two elements a measure of the green's severity.  When the speed is to high for the elevation changes, then it becomes less enjoyable for me.  I know that a balance can be struck.  I recall at Tobacco Road, the contours were nice, but the greens not excessively fast.  Pasatiempo also has excellent contours.  The climate there seems to not let the speed rise beyond a nusance.  The opposite example is a course we have in town called Cinnabar Hills.  It has large contours, and excessivly fast and hard greens.    

So, is there a way to quantify severity?  Is it a product of speed and contour?  What do you prefer?  

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Hello Old Friend:

You've hit on one of my pet peeves as well.  Only I'm going to disagree with you about the local examples.  Have you ever played Pasatiempo when the greens were quick?  Seems not, or you wouldn't say what you do.  For quite a few years now those greens have become goofy-golf just about every summer... That is, absurd such that the ball won't stay anywhere near the hole just due to gravity, in any interesting pin position, on far too many greens.  Putt up to the hole, make it, great; miss it, ball rolls back to your feet if not further away.  As firm, fast and well-contoured as most of the greens are at Cinnabar Hills, I have never faced that situation there, any time of year, any green.  I find those greens to be difficult yes, but far from absurd.  And I think I've played it damn near as many times as you have.  

But anyway your general point is a good one:  catch Pasa on a sane day - which is basically anytime outside of summer - and the proper balance is struck there.  I just don't think it isn't at Cinnabar.

The problem of course is the green-speed arms race, which causes the Pasa syndrome at far too many other courses; who then react not by slowing down the greens, but by flattening them.  That is a crime.

Anyway, to me, the best greens have plenty of contour but no absurdity.  Say Pasa 3/4 of the year.  Cinnabar unless they use stupid pin positions.  Olympic Lake any time outside of the US Open.

TH

[Steve Pieracci]

Yes, you are correct.  I tend to play Pasa this time of year.

As far as absurd, that is a relative term.  Putting and have gravity bring it back is really absurd.  I think absurd is not being able to make 3 and 4 footers with out them travelling 3 or 4 feet past or left or right when missed.  That is more my experience at CBH.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Steve - OK.  I will say I agree there comes a point where any green can get TOO FAST - where one can't hit firmly even a 2 foot uphill putt.  And Cinnabar does get that way from time to time, especially those times they actively try - you know, when they advertise "US Open conditions" for a week or something in mid-summer?  I played in that last year and it did get comical.  But still, it was one's own fault if putts went past - just hit it softer!  Absurd to me means situations where no downhill putt can exist (the ball won't stay due to gravity), and putts that miss going uphill just roll back to one's feet and beyond.  And yes, Pasa gets that way.  Picture any of 5, 8, 9, the old 11 (new one eliminates this), back half of 15, 16, 17, 18, at speeds over 10 on the stimp.  It's goofy golf, and a shame.

So there is a proper balance, for sure.  Flat greens at really high speeds seem stupid to me also - might as well putt on one's kitchen floor.  So we do need contour, and really the more the better for maximum fun.  But speeds then do have to be kept down to avoid absurdity.

Or at least that's my dictate when I become King of Golf.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

I think this has become more and more of a problem, and I for one would much prefer less speed and more contour in greens.  We all understand the penalty for hitting your approach to the wrong part of the green, much less poor putting, but hitting bunts that roll off greens several times in a round is silly, not challenging.  

Getting this equation correct might be one of the true dividing lines between great, good, and not-so-good GCA, no?

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC - great point - only those who do the design often don't control the maintenance.  MacKenzie's Pasatiempo greens are PERFECT.  He surely never imagined them getting to 10 on a future stimp-meter.  Nor should he have, I think.

What's sad is that this is one of those many situations in which the feeling in here is by far the minority.  By that I mean, if we took a poll of GCA participants, I'd guess over 75% would prefer more contour and less speed.  But take that poll outside in the great big golfing world, and it would go 75% the other way.

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

AGC - great point - only those who do the design often don't control the maintenance.  MacKenzie's Pasatiempo greens are PERFECT.  He surely never imagined them getting to 10 on a future stimp-meter.  Nor should he have, I think.

What's sad is that this is one of those many situations in which the feeling in here is by far the minority.  By that I mean, if we took a poll of GCA participants, I'd guess over 75% would prefer more contour and less speed.  But take that poll outside in the great big golfing world, and it would go 75% the other way.

TH

And thus accounting for the popularity of some GCA's, often reviled here, who build huge, flat, fast greens?

[Tom Huckaby]

I guess so.  Give the people what they want.  Oh well.....

 

[Jim Nugent]

How would ANGC's greens rate on the speed/contour scale?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim - great question - obviously that's the poster course for quick greens, and they sure as hell seem to have a lot of contour.

Of course I've never been there in person, but judging from TV, I believe they have plenty of useable pins, so the severe contour combined with severe speed isn't causing the second part of the Pasa Syndrome (using only the flattest most uninteresting parts of the greens for pin positions because all else gets absurd).  I'd guess that the speed they get them to for the Masters would be a bit much for every day member play, but I'd also have to guess they slow them down a bit for such.

Seems to me those greens work pretty damn well and may well achieve the perfect balance - as speedy as they are.

Because you don't seem to see the "ball rolling back to one's feet due to gravity" effect there, do you?

TH

[Steve Pieracci]

Sorry I was away, the kids are climbing the walls...

Is there a way to quantify this?  

How about this:
For a single green,  record the stimp meter distance in inches.  Also measure the greatest elevation difference on that green for the given hole location in inches.  ( A single green would then have several ratings) Multiply the two together for the severity rating.   This would be useful for comparison purposes, say ANGC to Pasa.  It is more objective, and may give more insight than "those greens are evil!"

So, a 10" stimp reading multiplied by a 12" elevation change would give a severity of 120.  The units are correct.  

Can you tell I'm and engineer?

[Tom Huckaby]

Love it!

But stimp is done in feet.

Assuming we can work that out though...

I am absolutely not an engineer, but it seems to me that would give a very useful number.  Do this at every pinnable location and report the results.  You could report max, min, mean, average...

There you have it.  The Pieracci Scale for Greens.  All of the golf world would seek to have the right Pieraccis.  Course raters all over would curse you as we have to do all of these measurements... the young ones being forced to do this being said to be Pieraccied...

That last crap aside - just having fun with this - I think this is a hell of an interesting idea.

Long live engineers.
 

[Steve Pieracci]

Yes, the stimp is feet, my mistake.  

So the previous example would be 10 feet stimp x 1 foot elevation is  a 10 severity.  

Next will be to calculate the degree.  This could get exponential.  I see some higher level math being required.  I'll get back to you.

[ed_getka]

I'm not an engineer but think what would happen on your severity calculation on a Biarritz green. The numbers would indicate a benign green wouldn't they?

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm not an engineer but think what would happen on your severity calculation on a Biarritz green. The numbers would indicate a benign green wouldn't they?

I play an engineer on TV.  

And I don't think a Biarritz would be at all benign.  The numbers right near each of the slopes would be huge.  Remember the massive amount of measurements that are required to achieve a Pieracci figure - and why I as a course rater remain pissed as hell this has become accepted (looking into a future when it has been and it becomes part of course rating).

 

[Jim_Bick]

There are a couple of different issues here that I think need to be kept separate more than they are in these discussions. Let's leave aside those situations where new grasses or maintenance practices have significantly increased speeds since the greens were designed. I think most everyone would agree that for greens with interesting contour, that is generally not a good thing.

Where I think it gets interesting, (as Tom mentioned), is at courses where play is across several seasons during the year. Green conditions and therefore speed change during the year, contours don't. There are usually then two balance choices: maintain so speeds are right for the contours during the period of best conditions or right during the rest of the time. According to Tom,   Pasa's made the latter choice, which does cover the bulk of the year.

But where I think it gets a little tricky is in climates like the southeast, where one can't get too aggressive with bent greens  in case the weather gets away from you and real bad things happen.  A modern green designed for the new bents then looks "flat" and boring most of the year but for the three or four months when conditions allow the design speed, they come alive.

My point is that in these situations it's a choice with pluses and minuses both ways, so it's hard for there to be a universal right answer.

[Mike McGuire]

Here is a link to an article on the USGA website titled:

Measuring Green Speed on Sloped Putting Greens

[Paul Payne]

I am pretty open to almost any combination however I do find a green now and then that I consider unfair. I'll give two examples.

1) The Harvester in Iowa #12. It is a two tiered green with about a 2' drop from the upper to the lower level. During the summer they roll the grens very often making them a joy to putt. On this green however if you make the mistake of landing the upper tier with the pin on the lower you cannot putt. I have placed a ball on the edge of the drop and just started it rolling and gravity alone will cause it to roll off the front of the green and about 10 yards down the embankment. I think you should have an opportunity for a putt even if it is AWAY from the cup.

2) Tobacco Road #13. It is the par 5 that they show in many of their course photos with the completely blind shot into a deep punchbowl green. The green is shaped like a bathtub so when the pin is on the sidewall and you are directly below, it is very difficult if not impossible to putt. The ball will settle about eight feet from the cup. The putt is uphill but if you miss, the ball will roll back to the original eight foot position. If you look at statistics even the pros are only 30% or something like that from eight feet. This basically means you will card 4-6 strokes just to hole out from eight feet.

I consider both of these unfair but my opinion is biased because I've been burned by both.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Subjectivity seems to be at the heart of most of the opinions on what people think should be universal.

I suppose that subjectivity is a good thing when deciding where to plop down your hard earned cash. But is it really at the heart of what makes compelling golf or golf course architecture?

Whatever happened to dealing with what is in front of you at the moment, taking responsibility for, and then accepting the result? Be it good or bad.

Even the most "unfair" putting circumstance can be made with imagination and execution. Unfair is therefore a function of subjective expectations gone awry. Get over it and putt better.

[Jim Nugent]

I'm not an engineer but think what would happen on your severity calculation on a Biarritz green. The numbers would indicate a benign green wouldn't they?

Ed, your comment made me wonder if in one respect the Biarritz green IS more benign.  Suppose you have a Biarritz-type setup, but the swale and front part are not the green.  They are fairway.  If you were on that front part, you would probably pitch to the green, wouldn't you?    

Most players can not pitch the ball as close as they can putt it: if you can putt, you usually do so.  If so, seems like the Biarritz green makes the hole easier than it would be -- if the front section weren't part of the green.

I've seen some pictures on this site of holes that are set up like that.  How do they play?  

Steve -- I like your measuring idea.  What about putts that cross several sections of the green?  Also, how will you consider greens that slope in various directions?  Both these can make the green a lot harder.    

[Doug Siebert]

I am pretty open to almost any combination however I do find a green now and then that I consider unfair. I'll give two examples.

1) The Harvester in Iowa #12. It is a two tiered green with about a 2' drop from the upper to the lower level. During the summer they roll the grens very often making them a joy to putt. On this green however if you make the mistake of landing the upper tier with the pin on the lower you cannot putt. I have placed a ball on the edge of the drop and just started it rolling and gravity alone will cause it to roll off the front of the green and about 10 yards down the embankment. I think you should have an opportunity for a putt even if it is AWAY from the cup.

Paul,

Why is that unfair?  The effective size of the green when the pin is on the lower tier is the size of that lower tier, not the whole green.  Just because the whole thing is mowed as green doesn't mean you get to have a chance at a two putt from anywhere on that green, anymore than a pot bunker that requires you to play backwards is unfair because you don't have any real chance to get up and down from it.

There are certain places on some holes where you just CANNOT go, and the only time you have even the slightest claim to calling them unfair is the first time you encounter them when you are unaware of the perils.  Now that you know about that upper tier, if you go long and end up there it isn't any different than shooting at a back pin on a hole with water behind it -- if you do that, you presumably know the consequences if you go long.  After your first visit to The Harvester you should have known the penalty for going long....particularly if you were burned enough the first time to make you call it unfair

People sling around the word "unfair" way too often, about stuff that isn't unfair like fallaway greens that can't be held with a ball that lands on them, areas of fairways where the ball will roll off into the rough, collection bunkers, etc.  What Tom Huckaby is talking about with the "infinite putting" syndrome is pretty unfair because its totally an all or nothing thing (though if it legitimately will only come back 3-4 feet then its an argument only bad putters will make )  Most of what I hear being called unfair is just stuff where you get burned if you play your shots without really thinking about the consequences.  That should be encouraged rather than making architects afraid to include them for fear their designs will be deemed unfair.

[Paul Payne]

You know Doug, you are right on that one. I was wrong.

I have always worked under the assumption that once on the green with putter in hand you should be able to fugure out how to putt to the hole even if it means going backwards to do so. You are correct however, the penalty should be for not playing the green correctly.

By the way I do love that course and play it frequently and yes, after a few visits to the wrong side of the green you do learn.

What do you think about the other example I cited, of a pin on a sidehill where if you are directly below, you either make the putt or start back where you were at 8 feet out?

[Doug Siebert]

I'd agree that second case is unfair, but its more of a problem with the guy setting the pins not taking the maintenance practices into account or vice versa, rather than anything to do with the design.

The interesting question is how far away from the hole does the ball have to roll in a situation like that for it to be unfair?  Its not uncommon to play courses with enough slope/speed that uphill putts will come back anywhere from a couple inches to a foot.  Obviously that's not unfair.  I think most would agree eight feet is unfair.  Somewhere in between each person probably draws the unfairness line a bit differently, and as I alluded to in my previous post, I think its probably going to be dependant on how good of a short putter one is.

[Paul Payne]

Doug,

Yes there probably is a point at which a certain amount of rolling back from the pin would be considered fair. I would guess that distance would nedd to be very close or you'd have to look at statistics and say that the putt would be in the 80th or 90th percentile or something of that nature.

I had actually never thought about the role of the guy placing pins in all of this, because there are likely opportunities for this situation on many courses with fast greens.

[Steve Curry]

A courses greens should only be as fast as the point at which significant cupping area is deemed unplayable.

Steve