[Tim Pitner]

I think the overwhelming majority of golfers want fast and mostly flat greens.  They want a good chance to make putts and to putt on greens nearly as fast as Augusta.  

When in my hometown in Iowa, I play at a club (the course Zach Johnson grew up on, btw) that has eighteen greens sloped from back to front, with little interior movement.  They keep the greens pretty fast and, from above the hole, they are very quick.  They roll very true, but I find them pretty boring.  The membership does not--they go on about how nice their greens are.  I'm pretty confident these people would not like Ballyneal's greens at all--far too slow.  In truth, when I played it, the greens at Ballyneal were slower than optimal--something like a 7 on the stimp when a 9 would probably be ideal.  (I think that was a function of the hot June we've had in Colorado and not wanting to mow the greens too tight).  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

That's why I asked everyone to stay in the REAL world.[/color]

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 ?

Because the putting green is the final field of play within the overall field of play, and as such it should enjoy special status or treatment.

Putting surfaces should provide a unique, diverse challenge, not a one dimensional challenge.  A one dimensional challenge at the putting surface has a ripple like effect throughout the rest of the hole, diminishing or destroying strategy, tactics.

In addition, the one dimensional challenge at the putting surface creates one dimensional challenges on approach and recovery shots, and that can't be good for golf.[/color]

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.

That's unfortunate.
Those golfers are being deprived, by their own choice, of the joy of facing contoured and/or sloped greens with approaches, recoveries and putts.[/color]

Eventually - perhaps starting with one event, but with pressure for every day speed increases - the greens get faster and golfers complain about the contours.

I agree that golfers complaints are erosive in nature.
Part of that problem is societal.
The "Whiners promoting fairness" club.
The eradication of the intended challenge.

Today, golfers, rather than rising to the challenge, seek to diminish or eliminate it.

I firmly believe that TV and the PGA Tour are part of the problem.

That it's all the rage for a club to have greens with speeds that mirror what they see on TV for the Open, PGA and Masters, not understanding that those conditions only exist for one week of the year, and most often for one week in a decade.

But, the perception is that clubs should have greens that putt at 11-13 every week, and once the "club" accepts that perception, then, the greens have to be flattened.

In the last 20 years club after club has disfigured their golf course by flattening their greens in the name of speed, despite the fact that the average member is a 14 to 21 handicap player.

End of rant  [/color]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Oh feel free to rant on.....Much of what you say is twue, its twue.....However, I am not sure about any generalization - yours included.  

I don't think you answered my previous question about judging an approach shot to a flatter but faster green.  Also, just because greens are flatter generally doesn't mean each can't have their own unique challenges for the approach shot and even putting.  I try to consciously vary my slopes on different greens from 1.75% to 2.75%.  If a golfer can't get a read on a green based on others on the course, does it matter if it would vary from 4-6%?

For that matter, the broad statement that "golfers today" are trying to minimize challenge may be not universally true.  I think they believe they are keeping the challenge in bounds given the green speeds they like.

In short, I would prefer to discuss the actual intracasies and comparison of old greens to new, although for most of us, it would be conjecture, than to go off on yet another rant about how sucky the modern game is......it still seems to appeal to many, many people as it stands today, no?

[TEPaul]

"George - I can't imagine many in this forum who wouldn't be in Pat's camp on this issue."

TomH:

Well, then, I guess you didn't imagine me. And I don't disagree because this is Pat's thread.

No, I certainly do not believe putting speed should be dictated by architecture. I believe that every entity that has to do with golf and architecture should get on the bandwagon and tell the world of golf that green speeds in the differential of 10-11 is absolutely as high as green speeds should go on any course of any club. That should be the absolute maximum limit and the reasons why can and should be very clearly explained, not to menition that they are supremely logical for very basic reasons---eg playability and agronomic health and endurance.

I think the USGA (who actually owns the stimpmeter), the ASGCA, the GCSAA, university agronomy departments, the Tours, television commentators etc, etc, should get behind this most important subject and tirelessly explain it to all as often as possible.

If courses choose to run speed below that, so much the better, but that stimpmeter differential should be nigh on the enforced speed limit without exception.

I feel that between 10-11 is the magic differential---imagination, challenge and fun just rocks in that differential. It's exponential compared to speeds below it. And frankly I have never seen a green that can't handle that differential in playability, and I guarantee you I've seen some of the greatest and most dramatic greens in the world.

Architecture certainly should not dictate putting speed---putting speed should have a speed limit put on it across the board.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Sadly, TEPaul is confused.
I know, I know, that's his normal state.

He actually agrees with me but doesn't know it yet because he doesn't understand the gist of this thread.

Please, try to help him out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Oh feel free to rant on.....Much of what you say is twue, its twue.....However, I am not sure about any generalization - yours included.

Jeff,

As with any generalization, there are exceptions.[/color]

I don't think you answered my previous question about judging an approach shot to a flatter but faster green.  

In general, I think they're one dimensional.
One merely has to account for additional roll.
One doesn't have to worry about carrying a high contour or tier or having their ball deflected should its margin of error be unacceptable, and, the punishment for failure to properly execute on a flatter faster green is in general, merely a longer putt on a faster green, with little or no contour or slope.
That seems fairly benign to me.[/color]

Also, just because greens are flatter generally doesn't mean each can't have their own unique challenges for the approach shot and even putting.  

I agree.
As I said above, generalizations yield to exceptions.

But, contoured, sloped greens have a unique character not found in flatter, faster greens.

And as such, there is far more diversity in design and play when one builds a contoured green as opposed to a flat green.[/color]

I try to consciously vary my slopes on different greens from 1.75% to 2.75%.  If a golfer can't get a read on a green based on others on the course, does it matter if it would vary from 4-6%?

It's not just the read that should offer the challenge, but the ability to execute as well, on the approach, recovery and putt.

I hate to offer up NGLA's 1st, 3rd and 6th greens as exhibit A, but, there's sheer genius in each one of them, along with their surrounds.

I can read all of those greens exceptionally well, day in and day out, however, I can't execute exceptionally well, day in and day out.

The challenge they present, with my approach, recovery and putts are spectacular, yet fun.  In medal and match play they can be nerve racking, especially with their position in the play of the golf course.

You, and other architects face a real dilema.
Producing a product that presents a challenge, excitement and fun, while at the same time catering to the masses, and, the masses want super-speed, and super-speed only works on flatter greens, hence, the perameters of your work are sometimes predetermined by the wrong* forces.

* "wrong" is my thought, and not an absolute.[/color]

For that matter, the broad statement that "golfers today" are trying to minimize challenge may be not universally true.  

As exhibit "B" I would offer all of the wonderful contoured and/or sloped greens that have been disfigured or destroyed over the last 20 years for the sake of higher speeds.

While it may not be universally true, I think it's safe to say that it's generally true.[/color]

I think they believe they are keeping the challenge in bounds given the green speeds they like.

I find it hard to believe that 14-21 handicap golfers like super speed, yet, I've been to clubs that revel in the high speeds of their greens.

There's one club I know, which is subject to wind, with firm, superfast greens.  While they have little in the way of pronounced contour, they have slope, and if you have a putt that's downhill, downgrain and downwind, you can't get there from here.  They are beyond challenging, yet, the members take great pride in their condition.

I happen to like fast greens, I think my lousy stroke does better on them, but, when one taps a 3 footer and has a 6 footer coming back, the emphasis of the game has been misplaced.[/color]

In short, I would prefer to discuss the actual intracasies and comparison of old greens to new, although for most of us, it would be conjecture, than to go off on yet another rant about how sucky the modern game is......it still seems to appeal to many, many people as it stands today, no?

The game retains its inherent lure despite homogenization.
While the challenge remains, it's being watered down.
Putting from point A to point B with moderate to minimal slope is boring and provides little in the way of challenge, fun or interest.

One of the reasons I was seriously disappointed that the USGA awarded the Walker Cup to Merion rather than NGLA was that the viewing public would be deprived of exposure to NGLA and the genius of its architecture.  Merion has had and will continue to enjoy tremendous TV exposure.  NGLA is an architectural treasure, a secret waiting to be discovered.

So, yes, the game remains challenging at many levels, and it remains fun, but the uniqueness, the character is being squeezed out of the green end for the sole sake of speed.

Okay, throw in a little maintaince and a lot of "fairness" too.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

If architecture dictated putting speeds, what speeds would you suppose architecture should or would dictate?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Should architecture dictate putting speeds
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.

TEPaul,

The question is not posed in the context of a single, universal speed, or any speed, rather, it addresses the creative process in golf course architecture, design principles.

If speed dictates architecture, then you get mundane flat greens.

If architecture dictates speed then you get contour and/or slope.

Now do you see, grasshopper ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The question is not posed in the context of a single, universal speed, or any speed, rather, it addresses the creative process in golf course architecture, design principles.
If speed dictates architecture, then you get mundane flat greens.
If architecture dictates speed then you get contour and/or slope.
Now do you see, grasshopper?"

Patrick:

Once again you don't comprehend much. I did not suggest that there should be some single universal green speed. What I said is that it's my belief that there should be a universal LIMITATION on green speed----and that, in my opinion, is in the neighborhood of the 10-11 differential. If any course feels that the reasonable maximum for their greens is 5 or 8 or something below the differential of 10-11, then fine.

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that architecture dictate putting speed. Would you mind telling us how you feel that would happen or could happen? Did it happen in the past? Of course it didn't and the reason why is that architecture can't dictate putting speeds as we've been seeing for a number of decades now. What needs to dictate putting speed generally is a far better understanding that there needs to be a limitation putting speed. At this time there is little to no understanding or acceptance of that fact.

So, if that is true, as I see it (and apparently the USGA's competitons director sees it and Thom Nickolai who created a green speed analysis process sees it) that limitation lies in the 10-11 differential for many but not all existing greens.

We may think we are innovative in many ways but one thing none of us is going to alter is physics, and that's what relates directly to the playability of green speed and existing putting greens.

However, if some architects want to get into designing and building some greens with the radical contours of MacKenzie's infamous green at Sitwell Park, then obviously that would dictate a reasonable maximum green speed of perhaps 5 or so on the stimpmeter.

Personally, I think greens like that are silly and frankly are nowhere near as interesting, challenging or fun at 5-6-7 as greens like Merion's or PVGC's at 10-11.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Once again you don't comprehend much. I did not suggest that there should be some single universal green speed. What I said is that it's my belief that there should be a universal LIMITATION on green speed----and that, in my opinion, is in the neighborhood of the 10-11 differential. If any course feels that the reasonable maximum for their greens is 5 or 8 then fine.

I've always felt that 9-11 was a good range.[/color]

Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that architecture dictate putting speed. Would you mind telling us how you feel that would happen?

Sure.

When you have substantive slope or contour you inherently limit putting green speed.

The proof of that is the flattening of many contoured and/or sloped greens.

Thus, the tail is wagging the dog.

# 10 at WFW might be a good example for you.[/color]

Did it happen in the past?

YES, it did, but, that's not what clubs wanted, they wanted faster speeds, hence, they eradicated the intended architecture and replaced it with something that accomodates higher speeds[/color]

Of course it didn't and the reason why is that it can't dictate putting speeds as we've been seeing for a number of decades now.

I've just showed you how it did.[/color]

What needs to dictate putting speeds is a more universal understanding that there needs to be a limitation universally on putting speed, and as I see it (and apparently the USGA's competitons director sees it and Thom Nickolai who created a green speed analysis process sees it) that limitation lies in the 10-11 differential for many but not all existing greens.

I don't believe that I'd agree to such a narrow range.
8 to 11 would seem more reasonable.

But, then again, you want to dismiss the reason to limit green speeds to 10-11, and that is that the architecture can't accommodate higher speeds, because in order to accomodate higher speeds and hole locations, greens have to be made flatter.  They have to lose their character, interest, sport and challenge to accomodate higher speeds.

Don't let the tail wag the dog[/color]

We may think we are innovative in many ways but one thing none of us is going to alter is physics.

Remember, nothing rolls like a ball.
And, there's nothing interesting about a ball rolling on a flat surface.
The interest, sport, fun and challenge is in greens like # 1, # 3 and # 6 at NGLA.

Architecture must dictate green speeds, green speeds shouldn't dictate architecture, which is the trend amongst courses today.[/color]

[TEPaul]

I asked:

"Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that architecture dictate putting speed. Would you mind telling us how you feel that would happen?"

Patrick responded:

"Sure.
When you have substantive slope or contour you inherently limit putting green speed.
The proof of that is the flattening of many contoured and/or sloped greens.
Thus, the tail is wagging the dog."

Patrick:

That just may be the best example I've ever seen of you completely contradicting yourself and your point, and the lack of reality you exhibit on this issue.  

If you have substantive slope and contour and you inherently limit putting green speed, then why is the proof of that the flattening of so many contoured and/or sloped greens? Why weren't the existing slopes and contours of existing greens left as they were and green speed limited to suit them?  

The obvious answer is that there never has been a good enough understanding and acceptance of the fact there needs to be a universal LIMITATION placed on green speed. There is no reason at all to continue to try to increase green speed past 10-11.

[Adam Clayman]

I honestly can't bad mouth the "goofy" golf Huck has tagged. If it weren't for a goofy pin position I never would've qualified for a special event. Watching the others five putt was similar to watching an under-matched B-ball team, stall, the entire game. Every nuances became amplified.

Flattening greens for added speed is the same old same old, reducing the challenge under the guise of making it harder. In truth it makes it easier.

Hears a story I'll butcher for you, but at least i'm sharing.

Sand Hills had some event more than a few years back. College, or prestigious Am, I don't recall. The day was tough for old Corey Crandall because they were sweating the green speeds.
Hot dry winds had conspired to make the Sand Hill greens super fast. Were' talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 14'. The sweat was that the wind would pick-up even further, and make the place really goofy.

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

That sound you heard was your post sailing over my head.  That's ok, most of yours do.  You do love to talk in riddles...

 

Let me try to get this straight though:  you LIKE golf where five-putting is the norm?

Goofy-golf by my definition means greens so fast that the ball won't stay by any interesting pin position just due to gravity.  To me it's silly.

And of course I am absolutely NOT advocating flattening greens.  What I want is what you have - highly contoured greens at sane speeds.  Pasa gets this way from time to time, and it's wonderful.  Interestingly, many of the greens at Santa Teresa have this characteristic... some are flattish, but some are crazy fun.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Quit stealing my thread ideas!  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=24354;start=msg449746#msg449746

[Brent Hutto]

...I am absolutely NOT advocating flattening greens.  What I want is what you have - highly contoured greens at sane speeds.  Pasa gets this way from time to time, and it's wonderful.

First let me say that I too find it appalling when a classic course gets so caught up the greens-speed race that they would rather flatten (and often butcher) their wonderful old greens that settle for a Stimp reading or 8 or 8.5 as the maximum speed. A pity when that happens.

That said, I'm not so sure that for a course built today I would be in favor of greens so tilted or internally contoured that they can't be played (or become "goofy golf") at a Stimp of 12+. If you want greens where some 20-foot putts have 15 feet of break, that is achievable by a large contour and a speed of 8 or a somewhat smaller contour and a speed of 10 or a much smaller contour and a speed of 12. Since most good modern players prefer Stimp readings of 11, 12 or more then why is it offensive to design greens around that preference?

Looking at it like an engineer (admittedly not the most useful perspective but it's my nature) you can keep the degree of break somewhat constant by trading off speed versus the scale of the contoured features. What does not remain constant is the effect on the incoming approach shot. A very, very fast green with a 2% front-to-back slope and a slowish green with a 5% front-to-back slope may offer similar breaks on sidehill putts but they offer a very different target to an incoming 4-iron with little spin or an incoming wedge with too much spin, right?

So my question is this. Does the desire of some GCA "purist" types for big, old-fashioned contours and Stimp readings of 8.something arise from enjoyment of hitting the ball harder with the putter or from a preference for the effect of large, easily visible slopes and humps on the incoming shot from the fairway? One thing I enjoy about my home course when they speed the greens up (and firm them up, which is a parameter I haven't brought into this discussion yet) is trying to imagine how the ball will creep around on the green before coming to rest after an approach shot or even a wedge recovery. I'm not sure that more highly contoured greens with a slower surface would offer that same subtle pleasure.

[Brent Hutto]

Let me follow up my own post with another question.

Imagine two courses with very different greens. One has highly contoured greens that are best played at a Stimp of 8.5 and the other has small but interesting contours and an ideal Stimp of 12. The two sets of greens at their proper speeds produce a similar (large) amount of break on putts.

Which of these sets of greens will be more forgiving of less than ideal firmness of the greens? I'm not talking about sloppy wet where approach shots bury in their own pitch marks but rather those occasions where they're just a little more receptive than we'd like to see due to weather or conditioning issues. Wouldn't the ball move around before stopping a little more on the faster (less sloped) green?

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent, those are great questions.

I just can't imagine greens that stimp at 12 that would allow for non-goofy golf.  That is, 12 is REALLY fast.  With any sort of interesting contour, the ball wouldn't stay by the hole - gravity is powerful.  Maybe we're getting too caught up in the stimp numbers though.... I know I never said I wanted greens at 8...

I just want greens that are interesting that aren't also goofy, as I defined that.  Make them as fast as you can without being goofy.

It's really that simple, as I see it.....Dan Kelly summed it up very succinctly many posts ago.

TH

[George Pazin]

Brent, if Oakmont's greens work at 10 or higher, I can't imagine there are many, if any, greens that require a speed of 8.

I can't speak for others, but for me, I enjoy the challenge of making a good read on a putt with a decent break, and I enjoy the planning required for a green with enough contour/pitch to have different options for different hole locations.

In thinking more about what I hear people complain about, I think the most common green complaint is when someone hits a green and bounces off. Most seem to think they have some preordained right to hold a green if they hit it, regardless of how much they are capable of spinning it. So I think more people have a problem with firm than fast.

This criticism is more understandable if the green is fronted by a hazard, but not otherwise, imho.

[Brent Hutto]

Maybe my for-instance numbers of 8 and 12 are off base. Pretend I said 9 and 11 instead. I'd still maintain that "interesting contours" are possible on greens that are perfectly playable at 11+, it's just that they'll be subtle and you won't be able to necessarily see them from the fairway.

So maybe there's an element of visibility here. Is it more fun to correctly read and execute a right-to-left break of 10 feet on a 25-foot putt:

a) due to an enormous-looking mound that has to be traversed

rather than

b) due to a subtle rise that requires playing 10 feet of break because the greens are so darned fast?

I may be an oddball but I prefer B. It's fun to judge a big break correctly when maybe the other guy couldn't have. It's even more fun to judge a big break correctly when maybe the other guy couldn't even see it. That's one reason for liking fast greens.

[Brent Hutto]

Most seem to think they have some preordained right to hold a green if they hit it, regardless of how much they are capable of spinning it. So I think more people have a problem with firm than fast.

Yep, they definitely think that way. It ends up leading to my least-favorite maintainance meld. Grass that's trimmed short enough to Stimp at 10.5 but in order to keep it healthy at that length it has to be kept squishy-wet. That is a very common regime for hybrid Bermuda greens here just below the transition zone. It's one of many reasons my club's course is better than most others in the area. Our super and greens committee is more willing to accept slightly longer grass (maybe Stimping 9.5) in order to keep the green reasonably firm, although certainly not often as firm as Tom Paul would prefer.

[George Pazin]

Brent, it sounds like we like the same thing, we're just defining it differently.

I will say I don't think I've ever seen a putt break 10 feet that wasn't obvious. I've never seen a subtle 10 foot breaking putt, regardless of the speed.

What I mostly dislike is seeing 30 foot putts that look dead straight, and when you hit it, it is dead straight. It never ceases to amaze me how little putts appear to break on TV during the pro telecasts. I hope it's just the angle.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - I get what you are saying, really I do.

And subtle breaks are great fun also - and in fact are more challenging, I'd say.

My complaints are just against the extremes - anything in between is gonna be just fine by me.  

I also do like variety.

So... some courses with fast greens and subtle contours (working out to large breaks), that's great by me.

Some courses with wild huge contours, that's great by me also.

Just so long as goofy golf doesn't occur at either.

TH

[Adam Clayman]

Huck,
 Yes, I do like to make you think. I suppose my point is that greens should have a spectrum of speeds. Somedays they are slower than others. However, along with that spectrum comes the possibility that nature will conspire to take them over the top. While heavily contoured greens work best at a managable speed, I relish to opportunity to see them in all types of situations. If that situation is a consistent speed every single round, how is that not formulaic?

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam:

That's better.  I understand that.  Well said.

I just wouldn't want to play goofy golf more than once in a very blue moon.  It would get old quickly... as would VERY VERY slow greens.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent Hutto,

What you and others fail to understand is the influence architectural contours have on the play of the hole.

Most confine their discussion to putting, when far more is involved.

A ridge running through the green is a contour.
It divides the putting surface.
Getting to the right side of the ridge with one's approach is paramount, ditto the recovery.
Those ending up on the wrong side of the ridge are faced with a challenging two putt.

Expand that simple concept to tiers, ridges, slopes, etc., etc,. and you begin to see a golf hole come alive.

Flatten a green and get it to stimp at 14 and you have nothing more than another linoleum floor.

The beauty of internal contouring isn't confined to putting, it extends backwards, to recoveries, approaches and drives.

If speed dictates architecture, NONE of those interesting internal contours will exist.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()