How much pinable area has been lost to increased greenspeed over last 50 years

[Mike_Young]

I am guessing at least 40 percent.
Now does this make up for increased distance of the ball since the "miss" target has become smaller?  And does anyone have reason to believe that greens will not become faster over the next 10 years.  I say they reach 15-16 by 2010.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Please don't suggest that letting your greens shrink is a solution to increased distance    Next clubs will start doing this which IMHO would be a huge mistake.  

As you well know, the most challenging and interesting pin positions are often along the edges of greens.  These are all but lost when greens shrink.  I actually believe that expanding greens makes holes harder for better players and easier for weaker ones.  The weaker player is just trying to hit the green and making the green larger for them makes the game more fun.  The better golfer likes to aim for the pin and if the green is expanded to its original size and shape, the pin can be placed closer to the edges (which is often where the trouble/hazards are) and they are more likely to find that trouble more often.  I might post some pictures later if I have the time.

[Mike_Young]

Mark,
I think you are missing my point.  CLUBS HAVE BEEN DOING THIS>>>Without doing anything we have allowed greens to shrink in relation to what they were intended just by increasing the speed.  I fully understand edges and bringing "shortsiding" into play.  I am saying that an area that was designed at 4% that can no longer be used is now lost pinable area and it will continue.  that is why you see so many greens today that seem to have less character when in fact they have been designed knowing that speed will increase and eventually no more than 1% will be an acceptable area for pins.
Lets say a dead guy green had 6000 sq ft originally and has 6000 sq ft today but with a stimp of 12 vs the old 7.  Effective green area has been lost AND it is going to continue.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

That is why I applaud Mike Davis & the USGA who has set a goal of having the greens at Winged Foot play at a consistent 10 & 1/2. This allows for holes in locations that haven't been played too in a long time.

I also believe that on many classic courses, and Winged foot is a prime example of this, cost-restrictive maintenance practices brought about some severe shrinking of greens as well. I have photos (courtesy of Neil Regan) of 18 West at WF showing an electric cart parked in the rough back left of the green and another from 1929 showing this entire area as putting surface!

They have taken Neil's research and worked toward slowly recovering these green areas over the last three years.

Hopefully the USGA will use the recovered area on #10 to put a pin way back left behind the bunker.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I did miss your point.  Sorry.  You are correct in what you say.  The situation is even worse in that very few of the dead guy 6000 ft2 greens are still 6000 ft2.  Most are much smaller due to mowing practices.  If nothing else, at least return them to the original size.  The other option to get more pinnable area (which most of us like to avoid) is to "soften" some of the more severe contours.  This has been discussed on this site many times along with ways to accomplish this.  

[Mike_Young]

WF is what made me post this.  Ed Hoard, whom many know for his PGA rules seminars etc had a trip around WF a few weeks ago and was told that 10.5 would be the #.  He said the expaned/recovered areas were very good and also the "tree" program was good.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I did miss your point.  Sorry.  You are correct in what you say.  The situation is even worse in that very few of the dead guy 6000 ft2 greens are still 6000 ft2.  Most are much smaller due to mowing practices.  If nothing else, at least return them to the original size.  The other option to get more pinnable area (which most of us like to avoid) is to "soften" some of the more severe contours.  This has been discussed on this site many times along with ways to accomplish this.  

As we speak of limiting the ball, clubhead size, shaft length, why not also limit green speed.....that is also a technical aspect of the game and there is now a mower that is advertised to cut at .06125.  1/16 in.
And we can even go back to fairway height since it has as much to do with distance as any club or ball.
It wold keep us from changing contours.IMHO

[HamiltonBHearst]

I thought WF has softened some of the greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I can't quantify it, but, I believe it's substantive, especially when you consider all of the greens that have been softened just to accomodate increased speeds.

And, I agree with you, I think speeds will increase and more contour and slope will be removed in the future.

The trend toward fast and faster greens doesn't appear to have abated.

When character is sacrificed for speed, nothing good happens.

[Mike_Young]

I thought WF has softened some of the greens?

I don't know. but they have brought back some of the perimieters and supposedely will keep speed around 10.5.
Pat,
Yep.  Could be thatone day a substantive slope or feature is only a couple of inches in elevation.
Mike

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I hate to bring up one of my least favorite examples of classic architecture but have you ever seen the slopes on the greens at Augusta National.  I'm not sure softening them is in the cards anytime soon.  

But I agree with you that slope is being taken out of greens.  I remember Nicklaus talking about his greens at one of his courses down south.  He said he was afraid to put more contour in them because he knew the club wanted them fast and he was afraid they would be unplayable.  I'm not sure any are above 3%.  

I believe you can still put contour in greens.  You will just have to make them bigger (unfortunately like the direction everything else in going in golf) and make sure there are enough flatter areas to pin.  

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I hate to bring up one of my least favorite examples of classic architecture but have you ever seen the slopes on the greens at Augusta National.  I'm not sure softening them is in the cards anytime soon.  

But I agree with you that slope is being taken out of greens.  I remember Nicklaus talking about his greens at one of his courses down south.  He said he was afraid to put more contour in them because he knew the club wanted them fast and he was afraid they would be unplayable.  I'm not sure any are above 3%.  

I believe you can still put contour in greens.  You will just have to make them bigger (unfortunately like the direction everything else in going in golf) and make sure there are enough flatter areas to pin.  

I agree.  Now should the USGA address under the "technology issues with equipment ecause one day there will be a mower, roller and topdresser that will take us to 20 on the stimp.  They should.

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

If a course with greens like say Somerset Hills, NGLA, Merion East, PVGC etc, etc, takes their greens from 7 to 12 sure they'll lose around 40% of their pinnable space.

But the subject of "pinnable" space on greens like those at 11 or 12 has to be looked at in two distinct ways when it comes to actual playability.

In the first instance the greens aren't losing that percentage in what is actually pinnable (I think most of us understand what some think a set-up test for "pinnability" is) if one is only talking about the two putt likelihood generally in the area or sometimes the quadrant the pin is in, if you know what I mean.

The second instance is when one considers the two putt likelihood or the up and down recovery likelihood when the ball needs to transition from other recovery areas or other green space areas not in that "pinnable" area.

The problem is that beginning around 10.5 and on up friction is down to a degree where "ball creep" takes over, and balls coming from other areas often build up so much speed on contours and slopes outside those "pinnable" areas they just can't stop in those pinnable areas.

This kind of thing gets into what we sometimes call "greens within a green".

Taking a green from say 8 to 9 is an actual 13% increase in speed but from a "playability" standpoint that increase changes things maybe 20-30%. But when you increase speed from about 10-11 which is an actual 10% increase in speed "playability" on contoured and sloping greens increases dramatically and exponentially to maybe 500% or more. The reason for that exponential phenomenon in playability is due to lack of friction when green speed hits that differential (10-11) which results in the phenomenon of "ball creeep". And then you need to combine that with the fact of how much increased speed balls can build up transitoning across various slopes and contours at that differntial and above.

[ForkaB]

Why is this an absolute question?

In the UK, well designed and well-maintained greens will "stimp" anywhere from 7 to 13, depending on the time of year and the weather.  When they are "7" you have the whole green to work with.  When they are "13" you must be very thoughtful and creative in setting pins.  In both cases, fun ensues.

If one is "losing" pinnable area, either the design or the maintenance practices are seriously flawed.

IMHO, of course.

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

For a company to advertize that their product can cut at .06125" is frankly just irresponsible for a whole variety of reasons.

First it's probably pretty close to bullshit anyway because of the physical limitations of the bedknife. To actually cut a green at .06125" the bedknife would have to be almost paper thin and it wouldn't last more than 6-9 greens.

Second, cutting greens at that height will probably kill any grass in a short time---eg at that height the blades will probably just cut the plant's crowns and kill the grass.

So, for someone to say that a valid stimpmeter reading of 15-16 is actually acheivable in the real world of physics on grass is either not very well informed or just bullshitting.

The interesting thing about increased greenspeed is that we are now at a point that for a whole variety of separate but contributing reasons green speed increase has to stop in the real world for reasons beyond our preferences---eg it physically can't continue to increase to something like 15 or 16 if golfers want to continue to putt on grass.

In my opinion, the magic differential for the top end of green speed anywhere on any green on any golf course is 10-11 on the stimpmeter.

The USGA's Competitions Director, Mike Davis, who should know as much about this kind of thing as anyone completely agrees with me because we had a long talk about this entire subject. It seems like in his opinion, a real 11 (which to most non-elite or non tournament golfers would feel like about a 13) is just fine for a top speed for even a US Open.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Why is this an absolute question?

In the UK, well designed and well-maintained greens will "stimp" anywhere from 7 to 13, depending on the time of year and the weather.  When they are "7" you have the whole green to work with.  When they are "13" you must be very thoughtful and creative in setting pins.  In both cases, fun ensues.

If one is "losing" pinnable area, either the design or the maintenance practices are seriously flawed.

IMHO, of course.

Excellent point Rich.  Although I think it has less to do with maintenance practices and more to do with the mental disorders that afflict those in charge of clubs. One board member told a superintendent that "the best solution was to slow the greens, but that isn't going to happen and we won't repeat this conversation."  

In light of this terrible mental disease probably the best solution is to maintain the exisitng slopes and use them as strategic features and then expand the peripheral areas particulalry the more strategic areas of the green to create more pinnable area.  This does increase green sizes and maintenance but it also increase enjoyment.  

I doubt this strategy would be employed on dead masters courses because it makes too much sense and the people involved with those course are too caught up in their history, but for other more normal courses expanding the peripheral areas of the greens while maintaining the steep, less pinnable areas of the existing green makes for some very exciting strategies while preserving the original green.  

I don't think some architects would like this idea because it costs much more money to totally rebuild a green and soften the slopes and surprisely many architects base their fees on a % of construction costs so they profit more from rebuilding greens rather than expanding them.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark Fine:

Augusta National HAS changed the slopes on its greens over the years, they just did it 15 or 20 years ago when nobody else was thinking much about it because they were already pushing the speed limit back then.

The eighteenth green was changed more than once to make it more of the two-tiered green we know today ... originally it was just a steep back-to-front slope with a bit more slope in the middle.  They changed it once the year after Hogan had a six-footer to win and three-putted to lose; and they changed it again in the 1980's (can't remember the exact year).

Kelly:

Your proposed solution of expanding greens is interesting, but there must be some cases where it wouldn't work ... many greens are steep because the original grade was even steeper, and what's left around them isn't exactly flat.

We have got to get the point across that green speeds are near the breaking point for good design.  Where's an ASGCA initiative when you need one?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I realize some of the greens have been rebuilt in the past.  I know the guy who did the construction work on #18 and also on #9 when they were last changed.  However, there is still a lot of contour in both those greens.  

Kelly,
You make some good points.  However, I would think (and hope) that most of the guys who appreciate the "dead masters" courses would not really like to or would want to rebuild greens to soften contours.  That is an absolute last resort and it usually happens when pushed to do so by the club.  If they are doing it to increase their fee, then the club has chosen the wrong architect.  

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, case in point is Pasatiempo, take #8 short par 3 downhill.  When that green runs 10+, there are really only two pinnable locations.  Neal Meagher had his slope-meter a couple of years ago, and the main back to front slope is 6%!  My recollection is fuzzy, but I think only down front and back right are pinnable.  The green size is reduced by 75%.  

[Jim Dawson]

Good Morning All,
I play some on a local course in Milwaukee that was built and designed by a local grading contractor. He went a little nuts with the slopes on some of the greens, but keeps the speed around 8.5.
This allows for some great pin placements and offers a nice change of pace to the very fast green that I play 3 times a week on our home course.
JD

[Phil_the_Author]

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this another example of a problem caused by technology?

When the "dead guys," as some like to refer to them, were designing, they built greens where the speeds were much slower than today. We know that and that maintenance equipment technology has changed from hand-pushed mowers cutting greens after they were whipped with bamboo poles to surgically-precise equipment that NASA would be proud to put on the first mission to Mars enabling greens to look like the head of an enlisted man walking out of the barber after his first "cut."

The second thing that the dead guys were designing for were greens where par-fours were having shots come into them hit by 5, 4, 3, 2 or even 1 irons at a low angle. Undulations in greens allowed for these shots to stop on the green and for strategy to be built into shot angles.

Todays game with balls that come close to needing air traffic control permission to land on fairways and greens from a time zone or more away with enough spin that would make a dragster designer happy require an entire different set of design parameters.

In a good number of cases, the only way for the dead guys greens to maintain a balance between fairness and challenge is to maintain them at near warp speed, thus cutting down on pinable areas.

Though it has been refered to earlier by several posters, that is why this years U.S. Open may prove singularly important with reclaimed green areas that can be used for pin locations because the green speeds will not get to what they might have in years past.

Mark, you wrote, "You make some good points.  However, I would think (and hope) that most of the guys who appreciate the "dead masters" courses would not really like to or would want to rebuild greens to soften contours.  That is an absolute last resort and it usually happens when pushed to do so by the club."

Yet then there are holes such as #17 at 5 Farms where some of the back side contours were softened with the result that the back portion now has a number of pinable locations that had been abandoned in years past. With a green speed of 8-9 for daily play the hole is everything that most players, even very good ones, can handle.

[Anthony Butler]

At most of the events on the PGA Tour the greens roll at 11 + and you see plenty of pins tucked in the corners because the designers of these TPC style golf courses knew how much slope is possible for each area to remain a possible pin location with the desired green speeds.

The question is very similar to one you might ask yourself when renovating an old house. If your kitchen from the 50s isn't working, you don't stop going into the kitchen, adopt a fifties lifestyle or, god forbid, demolish the kitchen. You change the kitchen to fit your lifestyle needs today.

In that same context, if you want a green to offer all the same pin locations under today's playing conditions you have to 'renovate' the green. NSWGC has taken slope out of at least four Mackenzie greens because in the usual 20mph wind at La Perouse the ball wouldn't stop on these sections of the greens period. Forget about putting a pin there.

In consultation with the greens committee. The Supt. Gary Dempsey remodelled these greens (most recently 7 & 17) and restored playability to large sections of the putting surfaces. As far as I can tell, none of the challenge of the hole was removed.

[Phil Benedict]

We have got to get the point across that green speeds are near the breaking point for good design.  Where's an ASGCA initiative when you need one?

Is there an "ideal" speed that allows for slope but doesn't return putting technique to the wristy strokes needed pre-1970?  Contour is fun but I don't like green speed that requires too much "hit."

[Anthony Butler]

Mike, case in point is Pasatiempo, take #8 short par 3 downhill.  When that green runs 10+, there are really only two pinnable locations.  Neal Meagher had his slope-meter a couple of years ago, and the main back to front slope is 6%!  My recollection is fuzzy, but I think only down front and back right are pinnable.  The green size is reduced by 75%.  

That green is insane. It's impossible to stop a putt from 15 foot behind the hole within 10 foot of the cup. My take was that Pasatiempo management viewed this green as a fun little 'adventure' during your round, not a design flaw to be fixed. Now that the course accepts less outside play, you wonder why the membership hasn't tackled club management about it. Someone told me that Crystal Downs has some greens with close to this amount of slope.

IMHO - a Mackenzie green should not be viewed as a protected site. The Good Doctor would probably redo that green himself after seeing how much playing conditions have changed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I think the answer to your question lies in intent.

While greens here can stimp at 7-13, the overwhelming desire or trend is toward 13 with 7 viewed as "something wrong with the greens" syndrome.

The thought of softening greens # 1, # 3, # 6, # 10, # 11, # 12, # 13 and # 15 at NGLA is horrifying, yet other clubs have softened greens with contour and slope, real character, for the sake of speed.

Years ago, Mike Rewinski started a thread, "The need for speed" and the consumption, if not fixation on the ever increasing speeds by memberships.

It's a trend with a terrible outcome, the loss of pronounced character in greens.

Donald Ross and his contemporaries would be horrified.
Ross's comments on pages 46,47 and 48 in "Golf Has Never Failed Me" are interesting.