Is there a proper balance of green speed and contours?

[Doug Siebert]

On any course with moderately interesting greens of significant slope, the greens wouldn't need to be very fast at all to find some great "evil greenskeeper" pins.  Any time you hit a shot that gains speed down a slope you've found a location where cupping would might be unfair.  Anytime you see a ball go up and back down a slope you've definitely found an unfair location.


I'd submit that the more places on a green that are "unfair" cupping locations at the green's typical range of speeds, the more interesting and fun that green is, and by extension the hole that green is a part of (assuming of course it has sufficient fair places left in the remaining space)  The more places like that you find, the more options you have both on approach shots and hitting shots around the green, and the more thought required for proper approach angles and/or where to miss the greens.

On really wild greens, like St. Andrews' Himalayas, you've got multiple options on putts!  I remember having great fun trying the same putt with different lines.  I found one "hole" on the putting course of about 25 feet that I was able to get within a couple feet of the hole playing the putt with one, two, three, four and five (yes, FIVE) breaks!  Three breaks was the most reliable to get it really close and have a decent chance at holing it.

I see too many greens where it is possible to place the cup ANYWHERE on the green.  Those are the most boring greens possible, and those who construct them should be shot without benefit of a last request.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve Pieracci,
There is a chart that's part of a USGA Turf Library article which identifies the intersections where slope and speed combine to create a situation where friction won't stop a rolling ball. The parameters given are between 13 speed/4 degree slope down to about a 5 speed/ 12 degree slope.
If I can find the article I'll post it here or IM you. The article is jam-packed with physics and formulas and I think if you translate them into practical use you come up with something like Steve Curry's view, "A courses greens should only be as fast as the point at which significant cupping area is deemed unplayable".
You also touched on the subjective aspect of speed/slope as it relates to balance. It may be important to know this but if a set of greens can run at 13 and the majority of players like it at 9, then 9 should be the number.      

[Sean_A]

I am not sure why some find it necessary to push greens to their maiximum speed.  Why do speeds need to be in double digits on a flat or contoured green?  I can understand if weather create the situation and the club doesn't have the labour to stem the problem or for a few events a year (though I personally don't advocate changing conditions for club events).  

It is the constant desire of golfers to want quicker greens which helps drive the business of developing better grasses.   This in turn makes it easier on greenstaff to make greens quicker which handcuffs archies because they are put in a position of having to decide if they should build a particular green because it is "unfair" at certain speeds.  

I have only seen a few incidents of greens that I thought were excessive when speeds are under 10.  The game would be much better off if people would think "keep it simple".

Ciao

Sean

[Steve Pieracci]

Thank you Mr. Kennedy, I look forward to the article.  It sounds like this is a tool that the architect can use to shape green complexes.  Does he then instruct the super to cut length to speed?  It makes sense for the majority of players to dictate speed, but when they opt for faster than the slope dictates is when fun starts to suffer, IMO.    

[Mike Benham]

Does he then instruct the super to cut length to speed?

I don't think many of the architects have control of the course conditions after the construction phase is over.  The Super works for the course owner, management company, greens committee and if they set a maintenance standard, then his job is to meet it, and keep the turf alive.  Throw in having to work within a budget, or operate at a reduced level because course revenues are down, and you can have a situation where the architects preferred maintenance meld is thrown out the window.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve,
Here's the article:
http://tinyurl.com/cw599

I don't think you'd find a majority of players opting for speeds that are unmanageable. In a large sampling of players there would be those who liked them too fast and those that liked them too slow but I think they'd be the minority view.

[James Bennett]

Jim Kennedy

thanks for the link - I'll look at it shortly.  By the sounds of it, the calculations for extreme greens situations has been done.  I look forward to testing the local slope on a couple of our more severe slopes at my club.

Steve Pieracci

I'm not an engineer, but I have always worked alongside of them.  Some of their thinking rubs off. So, assuming that we want to measure speed and slope, I was thinking (pre Jim Kennedy's link) that we need three separate measures of green speed/slope - stimp speed, slope adjacent to the hole and slope of the green complex/complexes.

1.  Stimp.  as per the satndard measure.

2.  Localised slope (pinnable locations).  Given the need for say a four feet circle around a location of reasonable terrain, why not construct a 100 inch long spirit level, and measure the localised fall of a 50 inch radius around the hole/possible hole location.  A two inch difference in level equates to a 2% average slope across the pinnable local area.

3.  Green complex/complexes.  The total amount of fall on a green can be influenced by separate design features, eg false fronts, ramped backs, tiers and spines.  So, a simple measure probably needs to exclude any strong features such as false fronts, ramp backs and tiers.  These could be considered as separate features.  What is left is the average slope of a greens complex.

This greens complex could be a single slope, or a combination of undulations.  A single slope is relatively easy to measure to determine an effective slope (as per the localised slope, but bigger).  The undulating green is more difficult.  IMO, a 'simple' measure of undulation would be to take the line on the green of the greatest undulation and sum the absolute values of the various rises and falls on that line for the extent of pinnable area of that green complex (ie excluding any false front, ramped back or strong tiering).  A more complex measure would involve several lines of measurement (matrix style).

Getting an engineering measure of the severity of slope of a green complex looks difficult.  Perhaps someone has a simpler measure.


James B

[Jim_Kennedy]

James B,
You might be interested in this:
http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_need_speed/index.html

[James Bennett]

Jim Kennedy

thanks for the two posts - I really liked the analysis from the 1997 Green Section record by Arthur P Weber.

My interest is now to know the actual local slope on a couple of our greens, enabling me to understand how playable some areas are, if green speeds get up.  We have a couple of greens where the slopes are stronger.  Recently, pins were located in more extreme parts of these greens, but at times when the stimp was perhaps 9 feet rather than 11 feet.  What I expected would be an impossible pin was actually a marginal pin (especially for a par competition).

I note from the Weber article the use of digital read-out spirit-levels on golf greens by greenstaff/match committees.  I have seen these and have wanted to use one at our club.  Looks like another $250 purchase is coming.  It will enable a quick calculation of the local hole area slope.


With regard to the second article and the member survey, I recall this from ealier discussion this year.  I'm wondering whether some (?many) golfers will in the short-term think they prefer the faster greens, but with the more benign hole locations.  More like lawn bowls rather than golf putting.  Any knowledge whether hole location/speed combination came out in other surveys conducted?

thanks again.

James B

[Jim_Kennedy]

James,
You can rent what you need although it would be cheaper and as reliable to make a water level. Here's how: http://www.factsfacts.com/MyHomeRepair/WaterLevel.htm
Just add a tape measure.

[James Bennett]

thanks Jim, got it.  I love low-tech solutions.

James B