[TEPaul]

Some on here have said in the past they actually enjoy slow greens.

Somehow, I just don't believe them. I think what they are really saying is they enjoy greens that are relatively fast compared to greens that are too fast to control basically regulation putting even with intense effort and imagination.

Is there anyone on here who actually prefers greens that are 7 compared to 8, that are 8 compared to 9?

To me maybe 10 is sort of the magic number that can basically work almost anywhere, and also be a ton of fun and challenging.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't enjoy the added interest, challenge and imagination requirement of greens at 10 or so?

And believe me, this question is not just about putting.  

[Mike McGuire]

The greeens at Lawsonia are about a 7 at best most of the time. I am used to the same greens at West Bend at around 10.

Lawsonia is an hour away from my house. I play it every couple years or so.....  Just not as much fun as it should be.

[cary lichtenstein]

I have no problem with slow greens

[Joe Hancock]

Slow greens really make a mockery of my poor putting stroke. The need to be pure is heightened (pardon the pun) on slow greens. Easier to play to, but harder to putt, IMO.

Joe

[cary lichtenstein]

I'm an old guy and I remember when we had to "pop" every putt the way Gary Player still does. It was fun and a round every now and again like that is fun.

[Jon Wiggett]

I still enjoy playing those early morning rounds on greens covered with dew. It is fun to see the track left by the ball and trying to judge the correct speed to stop the ball in the quick zone around the hole where the dew has been removed by early groups.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

At the moment I’ m playing regularly on a recently opened course where the greens cut is kept high to help the grass development.

The greens are slow but still react to the undulations in the green making reading the line interesting. The putt is a real positive stroke not just a push. Once you are used to it, it’s just normal fun golf.

I find the critical factor in  « putting playability »  is the speed playing down the down slopes. If the ball is accelerating too fast and only requires a touch then I find it less enjoyable. If it stops half way down the hill, then putt it harder the next time.

Putting off the green is a sure indication the green is too fast and not enjoyable.

[Doug Ralston]

I have hands like mallets, and if the green is fast I cannot get a 'feel' for the speed to control it. I putt much better when I am 'striking' the ball. Yes, I prefer 6 to 10.

[A.G._Crockett]

I like "not fast" fine, but slow is different.  Most bermuda greens are what I'd term "not fast", but truly slow just isn't much fun.

I do think that a medium speed puts a greater package of skills into play than either extreme of speeds.

[Adam Clayman]

Greens that run at 7, hopeful have severe-ish contours, allows for playing the ball closer to the ground, being more aggresive with approachs and promotes a  4-9 iron Chip shot, versus lob wedge lob wedge lob wedge. Bringing more clubs into the mix is a good thing, idn't it?. And, While I hate to sound like Johnny Miller, adding the element of grain, is challenging, both physically, and mentally.

As someone who is currently going back and forth between two courses, One, runs 10+ and the other is currently in that 7 range, I find the greater challenge is going to the slower. Adapting to faster greens, does not appear to be that much of a problem. (based on my lowest round of the year yesterday on those Corey Crandall greens with serious ball creeeep)

Both are fun,, imo.

[TEPaul]

Well, thanks guys, that does it. Most of you like slow greens and you're all a bunch of nut cases.  

[Adam Clayman]

Speed freaks has led us to flat lines, hasn't it?

[JR Potts]

I hate slow greens.  I love "balls-fast" greens.  And yes, that is a GCA term.  

[Brent Hutto]

I'm with Mr. Paul on this one. I can't really imagine anyone preferring to play on greens that are Stimping 6 or 7. On some of the public courses around here the Bermuda greens are that slow during transition season and it takes all the fun out of the short game.

I recognize that point that extreme putting speeds are not compatible with highly contoured greens but in my experience you can have all sorts of interesting contours and still find pinnable locations at Stimp readings of 11-ish. One of the first really good golf courses I ever played was Cuscowilla during the first Dixie Cup and those green complexes are great. I'd say the putting speeds were in the 10-10.5 range when we were there and I didn't see any infinite putting and nobody in my foursomes had a four-putt.

There's a big difference between fairly quick greens that register 10, 11 or maybe up to 12 feet on the Stimp meter and ridiculous overkill that would lead to removing all the contours from a course's greens. Maybe it's a quirk of my own game but if an extremely humpity-bumpity set of greens truly requires slowing down to 8 or less to be pinnable then I'd say that course is less fun than a course with large but reasonable contours that can be played at a 10 or so.

In other words, playing on over-the-top contours can't possibly be enough fun to make up for very slow greens, IMO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Well, thanks guys, that does it. Most of you like slow greens and you're all a bunch of nut cases.  

Tom,

Go up to play Lederach and then come back and rephrase the question!    

[JSlonis]

I can't stand slow greens.  I think it lessens the skill required, lessens strategy and makes playing more boring.

I finally had the chance to play Riverwinds GC this past Friday. It's is located in West Deptford, NJ, along the Delaware River, and was designed by Peter Fazio.  While I liked many of the holes, the softness and slowness of the greens made the round less challenging, and ultimately spoiled what could have been a fun round.  Overall the course was in pretty good condition, but the very slow speed of the greens took a lot of the thought out of the game.

With slow greens, you don't have to worry or think as much about where your approach shot needs to be played.  If you hit it above the hole, no big deal.  Whereas, if the greens had some pace to them, you'd have to pay attention.

[Brent Hutto]

With slow greens, you don't have to worry or think as much about where your approach shot needs to be played.  If you hit it above the hole, no big deal.  Whereas, if the greens had some pace to them, you'd have to pay attention.

That's a good point that hasn't previously been brought up on these "slow greens" threads. I would think lovers of strategic golf-course design would pay attention to this issue.

Perhaps a strategic ideal would be a green that accepts an approach shot from one side of the fairway whereas an approach from the other side runs through the green. Almost as ideal is the situation on fast greens where you can keep the ball below the hole from one place and it will run past the whole from another, leaving a downhill putt that nobody wants to face.

Greens that are too slow really encourage firing at every flag because the cost of having a severely downhill/sidehill putt is minimized and you're not going to make as many 20-foot birdie putts on slow greens as on fast ones. There are valid reasons they try to speed the putting greens up beyond all normal measure at Augusta or during a US Open, it isn't just an ego indulgence.

[JSlonis]

Brent,

Exactly.

More times than not, on a course with slow greens, it's actually easier to putt from above the hole, because you don't have to bang the ball quite as hard.  This is of course, exactly the opposite of how you'd play the hole if the greens had some speed.  

redanman,

Riverwinds greens were "glacial".  I like that phrase.

[JESII]

While he did not directly ask it this way, I think Tom question was intended with one set of greens in mind. In other words, who prefers NGLA's greens when they are 8 as opposed to 9? Or Ace when they are 14 as opposed to 15?

Of those who answered yes to preferring slow greens, is your answer still yes in this context?

For me I'd agree that faster is better right up to the point that the greens become too fast to putt, which is obviously different at each course. Tom Huckaby has talked about Pasatiempo being ideal at about 9 feet, I believe, and would be way over the top at 11 feet. That's fine, but is 8 better than 9 at Pasa?

[Brent Hutto]

It is indeed relative. Tom gave his definition as a Stimpmeter reading of 10-and-up being fast and 8-and-lower being slow. The fastest greens I've ever played on were probably right in the 12-ish range and once you get much beyond that pace I have no doubt but that the greens will need to be fairly flat.

If NGLA requires about a 9, should we perhaps consider that our informal lower limit on what is a reasonable slowness to accomodate interesting contours? Tom's original post is correct IMO in saying that somewhere in the 10.something range is a good sweet spot that will accomodate most course designs while still being speedy enough to avoid obviating approach-shot strategy.

My own ideal would be greens with sufficient contouring to be fair and playable (if only barely) at 11-ish with the option of choosing suitable hole locations to run them at 11.5-12 to offer a borderline-unfair challenge in a tournament. My own home course is pretty close to that amount of contour with the added challenge of a bit of grain in our hybrid Bermuda. Most of the year they are maintained at a speed in the 10's and we certainly care whether we're above or below the hole with most approach shots.

[EDIT] Next weekend we'll have our club championship and, weather permitting, I suspect I'll get to try them out for my first time at 11+ while keeping a scorecard. As of right now I'd answer Mr. Sullivan's question by saying the closer the speed gets to over-the-top (without actually getting there) the better I like it. Slower than necessary is never better. If I four-putt a couple times this weekend I reserve the right to change my mind  

[Adam Clayman]

Do you people actually expect to get what you prefer?

[Brent Hutto]

Adam,

Yes, I have played a lot of rounds of golf under conditions that were at least a decent approximation of what I prefer. So when I show up to play a good golf course I do indeed have expectations of an interesting challenge on the greens and conditions that bring that challenge to the fore. I don't care what course we're talking about, if the greens are squishy wet or so shaggy I have to use a pop stroke to get the ball rolling then I'm disappointed.

Now if by "expect" you mean do I think it's possible for things to be perfect every single time then of course not. Golf is a game played on grass outdoors and conditions vary. But just like I "expected" to face a tee shot over a ocean chasm on the sixteenth hole at CPC I also "expected" to see the ball rolling briskly around those wonderful MacKenzie greens. It's a big part of what makes a golf course fun. Certainly playing on sanded and punched greens the time I visited Pasatiempo leaves me in the dark about a good deal of the course's appeal.

[BCrosby]

A distinction needs to be made between slow greens and soft greens. Two very different animals, but people tend to conflate them.

One of the glories of links courses is that their greens can be slow (7 or 8 on the stimp) but very hard. You can't fly the ball at pins, which tends to leave longer putts, which I have always found more challenging when greens are slow.

Greens on Tour events tend to be fast and soft. That is the worst of all worlds. It allows good playes to pin hunt while providing ideal, smooth surfaces for making putts inside 12 feet or so.

Bob

[Geoffrey Childs]

I think this is an interesting and relevant topic.

I think that short putts tend to be a bit harder on really slow greens while longer putts become boring.

Someone posted recently that they absolutely hate it when balls stop on slopes.  I'll second that and add that I think its CRITICAL to keep interest in the short game for a green to have a significant "trickle factor" where the ball runs out with the capacity in some directions and angles of play to cause potential damage to your score on the hole. Slow greens simply don't have this capacity and thus have significantly less interest to me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think you can ask the question in an isolated context.

In addition you have to define slow in the context of today's accepted speeds.

And, there's a critical element missing, the configuration of the putting surface.   The contours and the slopes.

If you defined slow as 8, regular at 10 and fast at 12, 8 on contoured and sloped greens is interesting, and not just from a putting perspective..

But, on relatively flat, uninteresting greens, 8 doesn't excite or present the challenge one comes to expect today.

There's a tangential question for you to consider.

On "Greens within greens" are slower speeds and the difficulty in long range putting, part of the inherent penalty the golfer pays for being inaccurate with their approach or recovery ?

When you think of all of the putting surfaces with marvelous slopes and contours that have been eradicated due to faster speeds, you have to question those decisions to destroy the character of those greens and you have to reconsider the wisdom of increasing the speeds such that golfers couldn't cope with the contours and slopes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()