[George Pazin]

On another thread, Ted Kramer remarked that the oft-criticised greens at Pine Hill (by GCAers, anyway) really come alive with higher green speeds.

Are there other courses where this occurs? Does it occur at most courses?

I can't imagine the courses that comprise the Bob Hope celebrity invite ever being interesting, even stimping at 15. I might as well just putt on the concrete at work. Conversely, I bet the greens at Oakmont, Augusta, or Oakland Hills would be interesting at any speed.

[Tom_Doak]

George:  I suspect that is true of a lot of modern courses, where designers have limited themselves to 2% slopes or less in the cupping areas, and fairly modest transitions elsewhere.  Those won't get exciting until the green speed is 11 or higher.

[TEPaul]

George:

In my opinion, greens that have slope and particularly good contour really come alive not just at a higher green speed but between 10 and 11. From about 3-4 years of looking into this subject and particularly testing it endlessly on many courses (I officiate a lot of tournaments) that spread is the "magic differential".

The fascinating thing is on most courses with pretty good slope and contour the greens really come alive around 10 and at 11 many of them are right over the top. Some may think that's strange but I know precisely why that one foot differential can do what it does, and why it doesn't happen that noticeably below it and why things can go right over the top just over that differential.

From 9 to 10 is just over a 10% increase and the effects on "playability" in that one foot differential are not all that noticeable but the differential of one foot from 10-11 has an exponential effect on "playability" that can be 500% or so. The reason is all about lack of friction---eg in that differential of 10-11 friction is down just enough where "ball creep" kicks in big-time, and balls begin really building up speed transitioning over slopes and contours compared to below 10.

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

Shhhhh!  Don't go admitting that higher speeds of anything have any sort of "exponential effect" on something or Dave Moriarty will be over here telling you you have backtracked on your position in the Titleist thread

[TEPaul]

DougS:

That's hilarious, and believe me I wouldn't put that past him at this point.

I believe he must have lost a case in some mock trial in law school or something and it's been haunting him ever since. He probably rarely stops saying to himself---"If I just keep arguing I just know I can score a point against somebody, somewhere and somehow."  

But if you think the distance and Titleist threads are lulus, you should have seen him arguing with some of these people on here over what strategy means. That was a real beaut. At least he didn't try to slap some "control group" analysis and conclusion on the "strategy thread", but if it comes around again don't bet against it.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
I'm curious if you are talking about older courses with good slope and contour or newer ones?  Weren't the older courses designed to "come alive" at speeds of 6 or 7 (even though they didn't measure speeds back then?  

When Hogan won the Open at Oakland Hills those greens might have been rolling at 7 and I think they were "alive" don't you?  

Why now do they need to be at 10 or 11 to be considered alive?  Just curious about your opinion.

George,
Bethpage Black's greens are examples of greens that come alive (at least in my opinion) at higher speeds.  That is because there is not much going on contour and slopewise in all but a few of them and they are relatively boring otherwise.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I'm curious if you are talking about older courses with good slope and contour or newer ones?  Weren't the older courses designed to "come alive" at speeds of 6 or 7 (even though they didn't measure speeds back then?"


Mark:

No, I'm talking about the old courses that have some really good slope and contour. PV, Merion, your course, my course, you name it around here. I can probably count on two hands the problem greens that may be a bit too dicey in this district around 11. Interestingly, your #4 just might be near one of them. The reason I say they really come alive at that differential is because the friction is down enough in that differential where you really need to use your imagination sometimes and things you just never imagined were possible are possible. For instance, between 9-10 at my course on say #5 or #18 putting a 20-25 ft putt across the slope I'd play an extra foot of break but if the greens were over 10.5 to 11 I could play 10-15 ft or break. I could even hit that ball in the opposite direction up the kick-up on #13 or on #18 and bring it back 20 to 35 feet to particular pins. It can be a real ball to figure the possibilities out by really using your imagination and feel and pulling off these wild things. And then if you're in the wrong places just figuring out how to two putts is thrilling to me. The greens really come alive in that differential and they become very exponential to read and to putt. Ultimately playing greens at that speed gets down to what I call "ball creep". You could probably play half the break or less I'm talking about but the ball sure better go in because if it doesn't you could have a problem.  

[Doug Siebert]

Mark,

I agree with TEPaul 100% on this but your question is kind of interesting.  If the architects of the day knew what green speeds were then, why didn't they design them with even larger slopes so they could act like they do today when at the extreme edge (i.e., 11 or so, right before things start to get ridiculous)

Maybe the grass seed wouldn't take on steeper slopes, maybe they left some margin in case greens would be faster down the road, maybe they figured golfers of the day had enough problems with the bumpier, grainier greens back then without giving them putts that break 90-120* as well!

On the other hand, there would be a lot more pin positions in play on the greens TEPaul is talking about when they roll at 7 or 8 than 11, and maybe the pins were found there from time to time.  Maybe the greenskeeper just tossed a silver dollar over his shoulder and wherever it landed that was the pin for the day, for better or worse

[TEPaul]

DougS and Mark:

When I say I've been doing a dedicated study of the effects of greenspeed on playability in the last 3-4 years (particularly when officiating) I have been but believe me this subject is a ton more complex than just the effects on playability.

Doug raises a very interesting point about how the slopes and contours on these older courses played in the old days when they were likely never faster than 5-7.

It's hard for us to know how they felt back then about the playability of putting. I've also been looking for any written material on that subject from back in the old days and it's extremely hard to find which would indicate to me problems with "over the top" playability with greenspeed was probably just never a problem. I don't say it was absolutely never thought of, just that it probably never was much of a problem, certainly nothing like today.

Interestingly, the only articles I found in that vein from the old days was one from Tillinghast who said at some point he was terrified what might happen and what might be said by pros at some tournament on one of his courses just after it opened. I think he basically said he was hiding in the trees watching and hoping none of the players would get pissed at him when their ball slipped off the green.

And then I also found a more interesting article on greenspeed, way back when, by I think Travis when he explained how they would sometimes take massive steamrollers to putting greens and essentially do what they called "iron" them. That apparently could create what they felt were frighteningly fast greenspeeds for which they had some term for the speed (wish I could remember that term) but that process of "ironing" the greens had to be given up as a general practice because the turf couldn't take that kind of stress from the weight of the steamroller.

[Mark_Fine]

Doug,
That is what I was getting at.

Tom,
I'd suggest studying what Emil Loeffler and Fownes were doing at Oakmont with green speeds.  Stewart's book on Fownes is great, Emil's son (he spends most of his time in Florida) is worth talking to, and just researching Loeffler in general is invaluable on this topic as "Dutch" as he was called was The Man when it came to being a pioneer of green speed and green conditioning.  

I found the study of Loeffler for one of our Master Plan projects just fascinating.  Loeffler deserves far more credit than he gets for the evolution of Oakmont.  If you are interested in green speeds and how players/architects felt about playability back then, study this guy for sure.  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I have. I know all about Loeffler and what he pioneered at Oakmont with green speed and other thngs.

If you're that interested in the subject of Loeffler and Oakmont's green speed all the way back into the 1940s get in touch with me and I'll introduce you to the one and only Bill Stitt.

Bill Stitt is from Merion. He was on the board of GAP with me for years. He was also Merion's green chairman through one or maybe two US Opens.

I never knew where Bill came from until two things;

1. I started talking to him about my experiences playing in a couple of Penn Amateur Championships at Oakmont over the years and how I felt the greenspeed at Oakmont was like nothing any of us had seen anywhere else at that time.

2. We started talking about this video greenspeed study Pete Dye did of Oakmont from the Open in the 1960s and although the players (like Nicklaus) said the greens were the fastest they'd ever seen, Pete said they couldn't have been that fast because a certain type of green mowing equipment hadn't been invented yet.

Bill told me basically Pete didn't know what he was talking about regarding the green speeds at Oakmont that were lightening even back into the 1940s and 1950s because of Emil Loeffler. (My Dad played in the US Open at Oakmont in 1947 and he said the green speeds were like nothing else he'd ever seen).

As it turns out Emil Loeffler was Bill Stitt's uncle. Bill grew up living right at Oakmont and when he was a little kid (probably in the late 1940s and early 1950s) he mowed the greens at Oakmont.

Bill said he was a skinny kid and it damn near killed him mowing those greens that low and fast. The reason why is Emil was apparently the first to figure out back then how to effectively juryrig his hand mowers by filing the bed-knives (or whatever the reels where resting on) to within an inch of their lives. And he made the crew sharpen those blades every night.

Bill said he had to put the handle of the mower into his belt buckle and push like hell to mow those greens. Bill was a good player and he said there were no greens anywhere like Oakmont's for speed and waaay before anyone else did it.

Loeffler was creative and he was obviously inspired by his boss William Fownes who was a virtual maniac on a lot of novel things they came up with at Oakmont to make it tougher and tougher. Fownes was the guy who said something like--"A misplayed shot should be a stroke irretrievably lost forever."

I'm sure you probably know W. Fownes won the 1910 US Amateur and he was the president of the USGA in the mid-1920s and he was basically the one responsible for creating the USGA Green Section out of what was then the incipient reearch group that had become known as the USGA Green Committee (Piper, Oakley and the Wilsons of Merion, among a few others, were central to that early golf agronomy group).

Not just that Mark, but I found a guy a couple of months ago who also grew up right at Oakmont. He's 95 years old now and he remembers Oakmont from the early 1920s. He even caddied for Sarazen there.

[TEPaul]

But anyway to get back to greens really coming alive in the stimp differential of 10-11, in my opinion, again, it's a hugely complex subject that involves a ton more than just "playability" considerations (in how much break, and exponential break one has to play and the incredibly exponential effects of "ball creep" that just pops out in that speed differential of 10-11).

I'm just a huge advocate that no greenspeeds anywhere need to be above 11.

I say that for a lot of reasons;

1. A real 11 on the stimp plays like what most golfers think is about a 13.

2. Above 11 greens with some slope and contour on them can get out of control and "over the top" playabilty-wise in a heart-beat.

3. Greens consistently mowed to that speed can really be taken into the "stress danger" zone agronomically if the club and crew don't really know what they're doing. (in this vein the whole issue of rolling comes into play big-time).

4. IF, even 11 tends to get too dicey for some members their first thought is to "soften" the problem areas of the greens rather than slowing things down or dealing with the problem in a more prudent way for playability.

5. Some greens can run low on pinnable space really fast and exponentially when greenspeeds hit that differential. What causes that super rapid reduction in pinnable space at that speed differential? Just what I mentioned makes green so imaginative to play at that speed differential---eg "ball creep" and the fact that balls transitioning across slopes and tiers and real contours just build up speed exponentially and won't slow down when they hit what was pinnable area even at 9-10.

I'm a big fan of fast greens but my very first caveat is if one runs into playability problems with them the thought of "softening" is just NOT an option. The only solution is to slow them down or learn how to deal with the issue in other ways that can be explained if one just takes the time to look into it.

It's a very complex subject but it is doable. And again, in my opinion, no greens really need to be faster than a real 11 on the stimp, and unbelievably the Competitions Director of the USGA completely backs me up on that---and that includes the US Open. (Let's just hope the USGA lets him do his job)

Oh, and one more thing---for clubs that want to take their greens into that 10-11 differential with any kind of consistency or regularity just HAVE to give their super the right and the option to pull the plug on the course and that set-up at a moment's notice, and by that I mean not even a phone call to the golf or green chairmen. And golf and green chairman have to really pay attention regarding scheduling tournaments and such if the super looks like he's trying to red-flag them---particularly in August. And if the greens have too much moisture in them and it's really hot, just lock up the mowers and rollers.

In my area, last year was rife with so many cautionary tales that way it was just sad.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I've talked to Bill Stitt many times about Loeffler while doing research for a Loeffler course Master Plan.  Bill is a great guy and very knowledgable and was very cooperative.  He got me in touch with Emil's son among others.  Emil's one relative still owns/works on an Emil Loeffler design.  I researched most of Loeffler's courses and there was a good bit of info on him out there if you looked.  

[TEPaul]

Speaking of cautionary tales and doing the right thing, here's a good one.

The other day I went to a big USGA/Philly section agronmy  conference at Dupont C.C in Wilmington. There were some excellent speakers and subjects--the USGA regional agronomists Darin Brevard, Jim Murphy, Keith Happ and USGA senior regional agronomist and my regional guy, Stan Zontek (Stan's been doing this for 35 years) and Merion's 12 year Green Committee Chairman Bill Greenwood and Merion super Matt Shaeffer.

Matt's a wonderful speaker, really funny and informative. He was speaking on the subject of taking a course into a USGA Championship (in this case the 2005 US Amateur).

The summer was getting tough around here and on July 13 it got really nasty suddenly---eg super heat, then rain followed by super heat. Matt had over about a month to go to the tournament and the course started turning on him suddenly.

The other problem was to pay for various things to do with the Amateur Merion had scheduled one high paying outing after another right on up to about a week before the amateur. This probably was not a great idea in retrospect but from the day the course started turning until the last high-paying outing was scheduled the club was looking at revenue in the neighborhood of $1 million.

It was on a Saturday and a big outing was coming in on Monday. Matt calls up Bill and says; "Boss, I might have a problem." So Bill whips down there and says to Matt: "So what do you want to do?" And Matt says; I think we need to consider shutting it down, and probably totally." Bill says; "OK, do it", and Matt says; "When can we do it?", and Bill says, "It's already done".

Thank God they did that and that way. Merion had a really good US Amateur about three weeks later and if they hadn't done that it could've been a complete mess.

How would you like to make the decision Bill Greenwood did in about two seconds to pull the plug on the course totally and forego around a million dollars for your club in the next three weeks?  

[Ted Kramer]

As I have mentioned in other threads, Pine Hill seemed to "work towards" fast greens throughout last season. The greens were a bit slow early on and there was no real sense of over-stress on the greens during the really tough summer stretch. . .

But as we moved towards September you could really see things starting to happen. As the greens firmed up and sped up a little there was a buzz around the course and clubhouse. The members were getting genuinely excited about the conditions. By the time the Club Championship came around, the course was the best I have ever seen it, the conditions were OUTSTANDING!!

I don't know how fast the greens were last Fall in terms of stimp meter measurements, but they were really fun to putt on. Greens on a hilly course are tough to read to begin with, but a bad read on slow greens only hurts you so much . .  .once the ball really starts to "creep", those slopes become a real issue. The Greens at PH are very well tied into the sloping terrain, unfortunately it is tough to notice when they aren't rolling fast.

With a ton of non-member play I don't think that it is really possible to keep the greens rolling as quickly as most members would like for the entire season. But last fall gave everyone a glimpse of the great things to come as Pine Hill gets closer and closer to becoming a private club.

-Ted

[John Yerger]

Mark
I really believe that Emil Loeffler has been ignored in terms of his input at Oakmont. Most of his architectural efforts were in western Pennsylvania and a couple I'm familiar with, like Hannastown and Ligonier have wonderful greens. As Stewart mentions in his Fownes biography, "Henry and his son, William Jr., along with Emil "Dutch" Loeffler spent many hours walking, tinkering, twisting, tightening, tweaking the object of there affection."
Loeffler was also a terrific player having won a couple on Pennsylvania Open championships when they really had great fields which meant he Fownes understood championship golf. Is anyone going to tell me that Loeffler provided no tangible ideas in the development of Oakmont?
 I've spoken with a someone who is related to Fownes, as well as a member of Oakmont, and they are convinced of Loefflers influence but have no specific proof.
The Fownes family was to golf at Oakmont and Pittsburgh what Crump is to Pine Valley. Loeffler, who was started winning caddy tournaments at Oakmont in the early 1910's, came from the other side of the economic tracks. You can't compete against Fownes accomplishments and reputation which was epic.  In the most recent history of Oakmont by Marino Parascenzo, Loeffler recieved nary a mention. You would think somone who served as served as course superintendent from 1916 until 1948 and head professional from 1927-1948 would be recognized by the club.
Obviously, Mark Studer would be the most knowledgeable, beyond Loefflers family, with regards to Oakmont but he seems to be largely ignored by the club.

[TEPaul]

Fownes certainly was to Oakmont something like Crump was to Pine Valley.

The interesting little sidebar, though, is Fownes had some pretty interesting input into Pine Valley too at a particular time.

And here's a really interesting little sidebar---there is absolutely no question in my mind that there is a mini-tribute to Oakmont in Pine Valley too. I believe the reason why has something to do with the fact that Geo Crump had one of his best successes in his golf career at Oakmont---apparently he was the medalist there in an early Penn Amateur Championship. And of course Fownes was a significant member to PV from near the beginning. Not just that but Fownes actually went on record and said in his opinion PV was the best course there was, and better than his own Oakmont.

Can anyone guess what that Oakmont tribute of Crump's is at PV? If you think about it for about ten seconds it's actually pretty obvious.

[Craig Sweet]

At the Montana/Wyoming superintendents spring conference the USGA agronomy boys said green speeds are out of hand and we need to dial them back...

[TEPaul]

Craig;

The agronomy boys aren't worried about speeds in the context of playability, they're worried about speeds in the context of what they can do to the health of grass if a club doesn't really understand how to manage it. The clubs who know how to manage it are fine.

[Craig Sweet]

The clubs that know how to manage it are fine until Mother Nature kicks them in the ass and then they don't look so smart.

Besides, at some point the greens speed begins to manage the manager.

[TEPaul]

"The clubs that know how to manage it are fine until Mother Nature kicks them in the ass and then they don't look so smart."

That's a good point Craig. I thought it was pretty impressive that our super who just retired last year after over 25 years at my golf course which is just a little less than the time I've been there, when I asked him if he ever really lost a green and he just said: "Not yet". I sure don't remember any. That's pretty impressive in this region some call the northern tier of the "suicide belt".

[Paul_Turner]

George

Greens that are simply extensions of the fairway need speed to really play at their best.  Subtle greens that have small but complex burrows or greens that tilt away from the line of play.

[TEPaul]

Although personally I'm a fan of fast greens because I think they do come alive at a certain speed (as is the title of this thread of GeorgeP's), I most definitely do strongly recommend a limitation on speed as I'm sure you can see. My suggested limitation is the one foot differential I've mentioned of 10-11.

I most certainly am not saying that all courses should try for green speeds of 10-11, not at all, I'm just saying I think that's where ANY course, and EVERY course anywhere should STOP. I just don't think a speed above 11 is necessary anywhere.

Nevertheless, this is a complex subject and the fact is too many courses are either pushing their speeds above 11, or think they are or want to. I definitely do not agree with that.

I realize mow height is in no way an exact correlation to green speed on various courses but I think most clubs that have a decent operating budget and expertise could probably eventually get their mow height as low as around .105-.115 and with a regular rolling program get their greens into the 10-11 range if they wanted to. But to do that they have to know how to do it, when to do it and definitely when not to do it or when to take it out. (The types of conditions to mow and not to mow are really important)

Interestingly Stan Zontek the other day strongly recommended a regular rolling program for clubs interested in faster greenspeed rather than just trying to do it ALL through lower mow heights (including double or even four way cutting as apparently Shinnecock did on the weekend of the Open).

I understand that rolling is somewhat controversial or was but Stan did recommend it and he is the USGA's senior regional agronomist. Perhaps the real key to rolling competently is simply to fully understand under what conditions it should NEVER be done--eg when greens are too wet or otherwise too stressed in either dry or wet conditions. I guess the over-all caveat for successful management is WHENEVER greens are stressing for whatever reason, take them totally out of aggressive practices IMMEDIATELY. (Stan also recommended that all clubs should get themselves really good soil thermometers).

It is fairly certain that a good rolling program can increase green speed by up to a foot.

The real reason I'm writing this post, though, is to encourage, once again, those interested in the subject of greenspeed and how to properly manage it and CONTROL its insane increase to get on and begin to analyze this website;

GCIS.inc

I think it is a really good one that has its heart and mind in the right place on the subject of controlling green speed. I've spoken to Michigan State agronomist Thom Nickolai, whose site this is, a lot about this subject and I suggest any of you who are involved in clubs and are interested in this subject do the same. (this website was basically inspired by the green speed analysis done at Crystal Downs by super Mike Morris. I traveled out there last summer to speak with him about it).

I see no way at all that this site and its message CANNOT help but be positive on this complex issue.

It was somewhat disappointing to me that some whom I know who are very much on the side of controlling and promoting reasonable green speed did not and apparently would not support this site, its message and its mission.

I sometimes wonder why some of the very people who argue for a solution also argue against a decent vehicle for that solution when it comes along. It makes me wonder if all they really care to do is just argue, period.

I encourage everyone to look into this website (GCIS.inc) and get in touch with Thom Nickolai. On the complex issue of increasing green speeds and the dangers and problems they can bring to agronomy I firmly believe the gist of this website can only help.

[JohnH]

"(My Dad played in the US Open at Oakmont in 1947 and he said the green speeds were like nothing else he'd ever seen)".


TEPaul,

Was reading through this interesting topic and came across this - possibly a typo?  The 1947 US Open was played at St. Louis CC won by Lew Worsham by playoff over Mr. Snead.

John

[Craig Sweet]

Tom...rolling greens....something that many courses are doing now is rolling the area close to the pin location. Maybe 4 or 5 roller widths in both directions (east/west-north/south) on either side of the hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()