News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« on: July 19, 2006, 01:16:11 PM »
or should putting speeds dictate architecture.

I know where I stand, but, what does the developer and consumer think ?

What do you think ?

Please confine your answers to the real world.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2006, 01:30:13 PM »
Pat,
Yes.
But I do think that marketing, mowing manufacturer engineering and plant geneticist have created a benchmark which architects try to maintain.  
JMO
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2006, 01:33:12 PM »
Yes.

But understand it can go both ways; that is, for every one contour freak who wants greens like Adam and others have described those at Ballyneal, there would seem to be 10 golfers who do want their greens as fast as can be, and that necessarily means flat, because no one likes goofy golf.

Of course it sucks to bejesus when the speed freaks take control at old courses with highly contoured greens... need I lament about Pasatiempo again?

TH

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2006, 01:48:42 PM »
Yes.

Just as the shape of a race track dictates how fast you can drive on it. Not vice versa.

Bob

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2006, 01:51:22 PM »
Pat,

GCA has ALWAYS been affected by construction, implement, and maintenance technolgy, whether its in placement of hazards or contouring of greens.  To do otherwise would be folly and frankly, it would be folly to design otherwise.

Even though you know where you stand, why should putting green speed be any different than any other aspect of design?  Is this where we draw the line in the sand?

BTW, as a practical matter, I have designed greens with contours trying to dictate that they be maintained at slower speeds, and it doesn't work. Eventually - perhaps starting with one event, but with pressure for every day speed increases - the greens get faster and golfers complain about the contours.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bob Jenkins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2006, 02:13:52 PM »
BCrosby has hit it on the head. You can change the speed of greens with maintenance but you cannot change the contouring so there is no question that the contouring must generally dictate speed.

Bob Jenkins

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2006, 02:18:06 PM »
Pat, I think it does. We both know undulating greens become unplayable at certain stimps.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2006, 02:34:29 PM »
BTW, as a practical matter, I have designed greens with contours trying to dictate that they be maintained at slower speeds, and it doesn't work. Eventually - perhaps starting with one event, but with pressure for every day speed increases - the greens get faster and golfers complain about the contours.

Golfers, being people, complain about EVERYTHING!

My question, Jeff, is: What do they do after they complain? Do they quit playing the course?

My own preference is for greens as fast as the contours will allow.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2006, 02:43:49 PM »
Dan Kelly My question, Jeff, is: What do they do after they complain? Do they quit playing the course?

Dan, my experience is that they just complain some more! Their real passion is complaining, and they just play golf as a means to that passion. Thus, they tend to return to the course.

I still recall your comments about the Quarry putting surfaces:

"I think the $75 is the greens fee for putting alone....."

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2006, 03:09:09 PM »
Dan, my experience is that they just complain some more! Their real passion is complaining, and they just play golf as a means to that passion. Thus, they tend to return to the course.

Exactly!

And how better to get them complaining, and coming back for more, than with greens as fast as their considerable contours will allow?

After all, it's just chipping and putting! Any doddering old fool can chip and putt! And it surely can't be the greens' fault if a guy can't manage to figure them out -- even if they're right on the border between Quirky and Goofy.

On the other hand: I DO think a course can permanently alienate golfers with tee shots and approach shots that live on that border, or that even occasionally wander over into Goofyland.

I still recall your comments about the Quarry putting surfaces:

"I think the $75 is the greens fee for putting alone....."

You will please note that I was not complaining!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2006, 03:59:42 PM »
Dan,

I actually originally took your comment to be sort of a left handed stab at the greens contours at the Quarry. I (as always) could be wrong (or too sensitive)  However, the Quarry contours are just about where I wanted them.  I still cringe a bit at the 4th green, which is a bit steep given its a small green at the end of a 271 yard par 3.  Overall, the greens are a good example of being nicely in tune with the average green speed up there (usually 9-9.5)  If someone doesn't like them, then I guess they just don't like that course.  It happens.

I have never heard the Goofy Golf phrase used for anything but greens with steep contours and green surrounds with gawdawful deep bunkers. For tee shots, I agree that golfers won't come back if they can't hit narrow fairways or can't make forced carries. However, I think these are more commonly referred to as "Mickey Mouse Golf." ;)

As to not being able to make putts, I think for 99% of golfers its never their fault - its always the green, the attractive beverage cart girl, the aerification holes (or lack thereof so that there are no marks to line up over), a partner rattling change, the alignment of the sun and moon, the cough medicine they took earlier that day, lack of sleep.....

In fact, I think courses will be too long when they are longer than the line of excuses that golfers use to explain a bad score.  Somehow, I don't think courses can catch up to infinity, however...... ;D
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2006, 04:11:56 PM »
I actually originally took your comment to be sort of a left handed stab at the greens contours at the Quarry. I (as always) could be wrong (or too sensitive)

You could be (and are).

If you'd quoted me accurately, earlier in this thread (I thought of saying this earlier, but decided not to; it's unbecoming for a newspaperman to claim he was misquoted!), you'd have quoted me saying that a player "gets his money's worth on the greens alone." Exactly what I meant!

I'm only very rarely a left-handed stab kind of guy.

If I have something critical to say, I'll either say it with my right hand, so you can't miss it (right uppercut to the jaw), or I'll keep it to myself!

You couldn't design greens contoured enough to have me call them "goofy" (or "mickey," or "pluto" even), so long as it was physically possible to get one's putts to stop in the neighborhood of the hole locations.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 04:24:42 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2006, 04:24:07 PM »
Is this goofy? No, it's FANTASTIC!

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2006, 04:28:48 PM »
Dan - you hit the nail on the head earlier - it's not goofy so long as gravity allows a ball to stay by the hole locations.

What sucks is that either greens are dumbed down to allow for this, or pin placements are, because most golfers are speed freaks.  And either way sucks.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2006, 04:30:15 PM »
Count me as solidly in Pat's camp.

Jeff/Dan -

Let's face it, people don't like have their weaknesses/faults exposed. But on the golf course, I think it can be particularly difficult, because it's easy to justify a missed fairway (I don't play enough, I don't get to the range enough, the wind blew it,etc.), but it's much harder to accept poor shots on the green, because relatively speaking, it just seems so easy to putt. (At least, it seems like it should be so easy to putt.)

Having said all that, you can't design courses for those lacking in self-esteem! Send 'em to Dr. Phil. As stated before, they're always going to find something to complain about.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 04:31:17 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2006, 04:40:03 PM »
George - I can't imagine many in this forum who wouldn't be in Pat's camp on this issue.

But don't you find the real world to be pretty much the opposite on this?  If not, then why are so many existing courses being dumbed down, and new courses being built with flat greens suitable to very fast speeds?

The question here isn't "should", the question here is "what can be done to reverse the trend."

Thankfully we have the Ballyneals, Rustic Canyons, Pacific Dunes which are fighting the good fight.  So perhaps the tide is turning... let's hope so.

TH

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2006, 04:47:37 PM »
It's kind of like the chicken/egg thing to me.

People tend to follow the leaders of anything. When you hear the TV people and golfers going on and on about fast greens, people tend to think that's what's best.

I've played with plenty of people who complained greens were too fast, but I haven't played with many who felt the contours were too much. I must hang out with a better crowd than you, Huck. :)

Although I will also add that I actually took some lessons last summer, and the pro who helped me also played in an Open qualifier the day before one of my lessons, and he did in fact complain that the course hosting the qualifier had goofy greens.

Just another reason to not trust low handicappers....

 :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2006, 04:52:06 PM »
It's kind of like the chicken/egg thing to me.

People tend to follow the leaders of anything. When you hear the TV people and golfers going on and on about fast greens, people tend to think that's what's best.

I've played with plenty of people who complained greens were too fast, but I haven't played with many who felt the contours were too much. I must hang out with a better crowd than you, Huck. :)

Although I will also add that I actually took some lessons last summer, and the pro who helped me also played in an Open qualifier the day before one of my lessons, and he did in fact complain that the course hosting the qualifier had goofy greens.

Just another reason to not trust low handicappers....

 :)

Bingo, bingo, bingo, bingo. And a bango and a bungo thrown in for good measure.

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2006, 04:54:32 PM »
Low handicappers should not be trusted without a doubt.  Glad I'm not one.

 ;D

Interesting too, we must indeed hang out with different crowds or play very different golf courses.  I have heard MANY complaints that greens were too slow, never in my 35 years of golf have heard anyone complain they were too fast (outside of my own complaints about Pasatiempo and others in here re the contour/gravity issue).  So long as they were flat, there is no such thing as too fast.  I also have DEFINITELY heard complaints about too much contour... the term "goofy golf" was not made up by me.

Oh well.  The bottom line remains that fast/flat greens are seen as good, contoured/slower are seen as bad, by the vast majority of golfers - be it due to TV or whatever.  And so long as that's the case, we do have an uphill battle.

TH



« Last Edit: July 19, 2006, 04:55:22 PM by Tom Huckaby »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2006, 05:00:57 PM »
The funny thing is that if people had more exposure to the Oakmonts and Augustas of the world, they probably wouldn't be so quick to call other courses' greens goofy.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2006, 05:03:27 PM »
The funny thing is that if people had more exposure to the Oakmonts and Augustas of the world, they probably wouldn't be so quick to call other courses' greens goofy.

Yeah well what's the chance of that?

Remember Patrick asked us to stay in the real world.

TH

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2006, 05:07:24 PM »
Patrick doesn't even live in the real world.... :)

You can learn plenty from TV, books, and viewing a course in person without playing it, if you choose to pay attention and think.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2006, 05:09:25 PM »
Patrick doesn't even live in the real world.... :)

You can learn plenty from TV, books, and viewing a course in person without playing it, if you choose to pay attention and think.

That's a big if.  Keeping this in the real world, what percentage of golfers do you expect to go to this "trouble"?


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2006, 05:14:29 PM »
I think there are at least 4 or 5 people out there willing to learn.

 :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom Huckaby

Re:Should architecture dictate putting speeds
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2006, 05:15:58 PM »
Yep.  But not many more.  Most just want fast greens, hot cart babes, cold beer.

And they have a lot of fun....

It is a big beautiful world of golf, room for one and all.