Varying Green Speed: NOT FROM GREEN TO GREEN!!

[Adam_F_Collins]

Why don't we see more use of varying green speeds in defense of par? Why do clubs spend so many millions narrowing, reshaping and lengthening, when they could create so much challenge through more variation of green speed?

Weekend hacks have to deal with green speed variation from one day/course to the next, and sometimes it varies a LOT.

Why can't this be more of the case with the pros?

Why not throw an 8 on the stimp once in a while?

Is this some kind of taboo? Why is this not a viable option?

[JSlonis]

Adam,

The answer is quite easy...the tour pro's would scream bloody hell.  And, I really couldn't blame them.  I don't really care for this as a viable option to challenge the golfer.

For me, there are enough other factors to worry yourself with when playing golf, especially tournament golf.  Trying to guess if one green is 11 on the Stimp while the next one might be 7 is not a true test during the round.  I honestly don't see the point to it, or think it would be that much fun.  Would it be frustrating?...You bet.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm not suggesting anyone vary it from green to green.
Just from day to day.

A

[JSlonis]

Ahhh, from day to day.  That's a bit easier to handle.  Actually, I'm sure that for many tournaments, the green speeds do vary from Thursday to Sunday.  Ideally, they'd be a bit quicker come the final round if that was what the tournament officials wanted.

Also, given the excellent condition of most tour greens and the preparation for the tournament, it would be very difficult to have a green 11 on the Stimp one day, and then have them slowed down to 8 the next.  There probably is not enough growth to accomplish enough of a speed change in just one day, it would seem to take more time.

[Adam_F_Collins]

It just seems to me that green speeds on tour are generally very fast. Even on non-tour courses, greens have to be fast to be considered "good".

Why is this? When you look at old films, they had to hammer putts. Now, I'm not suggesting we return to that, but couldn't green speeds be varied much more than they are? How slow is slow on tour? About 10.5? 11?

What if it varied from like 8 to 14?

Would it be conceivable to begin a tournament at 8, then Friday 10, Saturday 11.5, Sunday 14? Can the greens handle that? Could that be done? And if so, why not do it?

[Craig Sweet]

I'm not sure you could do that....go from 8-14 over 4 days.

I know from the perspective of my course that we begin tuning the greens for the Montana Open a good month in advance and shoot for 10.5-11.5 over the course of 4 days....we shoot for greens that will roll at those speeds....if we wanted  them to roll 8 we would do things different...we would do things different if we wanted them at 14.....we want them on the down side of a fertility boost...

[TEPaul]

"Would it be conceivable to begin a tournament at 8, then Friday 10, Saturday 11.5, Sunday 14? Can the greens handle that? Could that be done?"

Adam:

The short answer is no it could not. But maybe they could make them play and putt on temporary greens on the fairway for the first three days that're running about 2 on the stimp, and on Sunday make them play the greens running about 11.5.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Has there been a recent Masters where there was not varying green speed due to rain in recent years?

Wind, sun and rain provide more than enough variables, why have artificial variables?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

Because it's a bad idea.

[Adam_F_Collins]

AFC,

Because it's a bad idea.

Ahh, that's a thoughtful response. And why is it bad, Patrick?

[Andy Levett]

Back in the summer, someone posted a link to a great interview with the current head greenkeeper at St Andrews.
To paraphrase him, he said it was difficult to get the Eden green (pure sand, exposed to drying winds) and the home green (heavier soil, protected by buildings) to the same pace, but that was what was expected so that was what they did. I believe (don't sue me, I could be misremembering) he personally thought there was a case for variable speeds but had to abide by the status quo.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I realize Patrick simply said it's a bad idea and that's not a very satisfiying answer but it is a bad idea. A few of the reasons why is firstly there's little question hardly anyone would like it or accept it and secondly going from 8 to 14 during a tournament is not only agronomically very difficult but also extremely agronomically dangerous.

Would you accept these rather obvious answers or do you just want to continue to push the theory?  

Just asking.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

Because it's a bad idea.

Ahh, that's a thoughtful response. And why is it bad, Patrick?

It is.

And, it's an accurate response

Who decides on the pace of each green ?
On what basis ?
Who will regulate blade height ?
Will you have dedicated machines for each green ?
At what cost ?

Why would you deliberately create variable green speeds ?
They occur naturally in the field.

What is gained by it ?

Logistically, it would be a nightmare.

From the perspective of playability it would be a joke.

To repeat, it's a bad idea.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

There you have it. Can you now see how much more insightful, common-sensical and leveled-headed I am than Patrick Mucci?

[Scott Cannon]

I asked the same question a few months ago. This is a response from TD:
"They have gotten to the point where they probably do have comparable conditions probably 35-40 weeks a year.  That is why they have such trouble at the "other" events ... Masters, U.S. Open, Kapalua, etc.  They seem to have trouble on some of the shorter courses with tilted greens, like Westchester, because they are having trouble adjusting to the slower green speeds which are required because there is too much tilt to set them at 11 1/2.

Brad Faxon is in the minority, because he thinks he would be better off if other players had to adjust.  He can call Tim Finchem, and I'm sure he has ... but Finchem knows which side the majority is on, and he's on their side, because they write his check."

[Mike Benham]

Not to be a smarty pants, but there are variable green speeds every day on every green.

Uphill and downhill putts, into the grain and with the grain, all effect the distance the putt will travel.  The challenge is with the golfer to predict how firmly to strike the putt with each variable.

[Adam_F_Collins]

AFC,

Because it's a bad idea.

Ahh, that's a thoughtful response. And why is it bad, Patrick?

It is.

And, it's an accurate response

Who decides on the pace of each green ?
On what basis ?
Who will regulate blade height ?
Will you have dedicated machines for each green ?

Um. Patrick... Start by reading the thread. I already attempted to clarify that I'm not talking about varying speed from green to green, which I agree - would be terrible. So beyond that, what's so wrong with the idea?

And to Tom Paul, (taking your agronomic point into account) make the minor leap to a less severe variation of green speed, and entertain the idea for a second. Come On! What's the big impossibility? At the root of what I'm asking is a much greater variation of green speed than we generally see. In general tour green speeds are fast.

All I'm really asking is why not vary it much more than it is - and what why is that such a huge problem to consider?

Scott Canon - thank you. That's interesting input.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

Because you can't go from 10 to 8 to 12 to 9 over four days.

There's more to creating desired green speeds than just penning them in.

[Craig Sweet]

AFC...

Here is how you go from green speeds of 8 to 10...to 11.5...to 12 over four days....

Use Round Up....

[Adam_F_Collins]

Craig and Patrick,

You're not reading. Patrick, I never suggested fast-slow-fast-slow over four days. I'm not quite that stupid, but thank you for assuming that I am and neglecting to actually read what I wrote.

Craig, I asked about the IF IT WAS POSSIBLE to vary of speeds changing from 8 to 14 over four days on one course, but when Tom Paul said it was not agronomically possible (which is understandable) I suggested the idea to consider not such a drastic change, but one more drastic than what we generally see from day to day, on tour.

If you're so dead set against thinking about an idea, or so bent on speaking that you can't take the time to read what has been said, then focus your attention on something more comfortable for you.

[peter_p]

Agreed that the pros would howl. But there would be nothing against having greens at different speeds if the pros knew about it in advance and had it available to them in the practice rounds.
They didn't complain about the different speed of the 18th at Southern Hills for the US Open a couple of years ago.
 

[Craig Sweet]

AFC...Typically during the Montana Open we double cut the greens each morning....the green speed will vary from day to day by anywhere from 6 inches to a foot.

We do nothing different...the weather can remain constant, yet the speed will vary day to to day...

[Adam_F_Collins]

Okay Craig, that's interesting. Without trying, the speed just 'naturally' varies by .5-1 foot.

Now what could be done, within reason to vary it by more? Say 1.5 -2 feet? Is that possible? Could it be done without hurting anything or adding notable cost?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I'm sure a super could probably vary the speed of his greens by 2-3 feet during a tournament if he wanted to. All he'd have to do is just not mow the greens at one end or the other of the tournament.

Also rolling generally adds up to a foot to speed. Rolling may even do more than that. At a regional USGA agronomy conference our Regional USGA agronomist mentioned a USGA Senior Amateur Championship where it was so wet they couldn't mow the greens for a few days and so they just rolled them every day and apparently noone could tell they hadn't been cut.

So, it's certainly possible, I guess, to vary the speed by maybe up to 3 feet by just not mowing and then mowing and rolling on the other end. But I don't see any way a super could go from 8 to 14 in four days or maybe even in two weeks or a month, if at all. I'd thinking taking greens from 8 to 14 would begin to cut and destroy the plant crowns at the high end.

So agronomically it's probably possible to vary speed during a four day tournament by 3 feet or so but I just don't think doing something like that would be endorsed by anyone. What's the point of doing that? Is it to make it more difficult by attempting to confuse players more? Supers and set-up people could also do that be attempting to make greens more bumpy, or maybe culivate grain back in them to make them more complex to read and putt.

There's probably a number of things that could be done to make putting and chipping harder but I doubt any of that would be acceptable to golfers.

Maybe I'm wrong, and only I feel that way. If somebody ran a tournament like that I'd view it as a dumb gimmick, and I'd wonder what their purpose was.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why don't we see more use of [size=4x]varying green speeds in defense of par[/size]?

Why do clubs spend so many millions narrowing, reshaping and lengthening, when they could create so much challenge through [size=4x]more variation of green speed ?[/size]

Weekend hacks have to deal with [size=4x]green speed variation from one day/course to the next, and sometimes it varies a LOT.[/size]

Why can't this be more of the case with the pros?

Why not throw an 8 on the stimp once in a while?

Is this some kind of taboo? Why is this not a viable option?



Here's what you wrote.
I read it correctly.
Perhaps you forgot what you wrote.[/color]