[wsmorrison]

At some point in increasing green speeds, do balls roll truer?  I know if taken too far the ball begins to creep at the end of the putt.  But before that, don't faster greens (not talking firm here, just speed) tend to putt truer?

Maybe an artifact of this is that soft greens tend to be slower--perhaps because you can't cut and roll soft greens as often?

[JESII]

Patrick,

I have to ask this because it comes up so often and I have no experience with it. Are there really many courses that have flattened their greens in recent (20 or so) years due primarily to accommodate higher green speeds? Where are they?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I was out visiting Mike Hurdzan a week or so ago and we had lunch at the Ohio State Univ courses.  Mike said that several of the Scarlet Course greens were flattened primarily as a result of today's green speeds.

I don't know of examples in our area (Philadelphia).

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Yes, many courses have flattened their greens in the last 20 years.

"Where are they ?"

Well, in my area they'r close by.

Green Brook, Montclair, North Jersey and Preakness Hills just to name a few in my area.   And, many, many others.

Worse yet, is that more courses are contemplating such dire alterations and disfigurations to accomodate higher speeds.

I'm sure others can name courses with greens altered for speed.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jes

others include

San Francisco GC
Quaker RIdge
Baltimore CC
Pasatiempo
Engineers
Apawamis

Is this ALWAYS a question of speed or are some of these greens altered because they simply did not have any good pin locations at anything CLOSE to acceptable modern green speeds (ie 8 or so)?

[JESII]

That is a shame. I'm sure you're right that others will have examples if you were able to come up with those that quick.

I now see Geoff's response and have to wonder what the motivation is. Is it an accommodation, or is it really neccissary?

[ChipOat]

As Ken Venturi once observed, slow greens tend to favor the better putter, especially on flat/uphill putts as you need a better stroke on them as opposed to fast greens where often times you just have to get the ball rolling and hope you picked the right line.  He didn't mean stupidly lightening fast greens and, given my shaky putting stroke, experience says he's right.

However, slow greens are much easier to chip to (at least for me) as distance is more important than precise direction in most cases.

Having said that, really shaggy greens aren't much fun for anybody although you don't see those around much, anymore (at least not in the NE).

It is my opinion that many, if not most, Golden Age greens are now kept MUCH too fast.  The contours simply were not intended for anything much above 6-8 - who could have imagined in the 1920's that those speeds would ever be possible?

I've heard that C&C told the folks at Easthampton that they would build them the awesome green complexes the club requested ONLY IF the club would pledge not to maintain them any faster than 9.  If that's true, it's the right thing to do.  I find those greens very puttable even though they are quite "creative".

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I view it as a total accomodation. Appeasing some golfers definition of fair, rather than requiring them to play better.

It is ambiguous on 29 different dimensions, and not so much oxy-moronic, as moronic.

I wonder when Pebble will ever dare to destroy the art that is the 14th green?

[Jason Topp]

If the greens are bermuda, I enjoy them slow with a lot of grain.  Nothing reveals whether you can putt or not better than a 3 footer into the grain on bermuda.  I actually miss the older greens when I go to a southern course now.

On bent greens, I like them fast and firm.  It adds a lot of interest when you are forced to think about where to hit an approach, especially with a wedge in your hand and a severe penalty for hitting it above the hole.  Because I am not the greatest wedge player in the world, the choice between trying to stick it close and leaving an uphill putt is a difficult one for me.  I should probably always leave it below the hole but never want to do so.

[JESII]

What are the agronomic effects on maintaining greens "slower" versus "faster"?

Can we save money?

Can we increase consistency from tee-to-green? In both playability and appearance?

What other benefits can evolve from a slower speed goal?

What are the benefits of speeding up greens? even at the expense of re-contouring greens[/i].

[Jason Blasberg]

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:

I actually think it is the direct opposite, slow greens have a far greater margin for error with both line and speed.  

Slow greens break less in my experience and permit a stroke with little to no tempo.  

Putt greens at 11 or so and the weaknesses in your stroke are magnified big time, especially from about 6 feet.

Jason

[Brent Hutto]

According to my teaching pro, there are two different issues with your putting stroke on fast vs. slow greens. Fast greens are a test of touch and as Jason says any error is magnified. Slow greens (esp. slow, grainy ones) are a test of how well you roll the ball and any off-center contact or decceleration is magnified.

Weekend before last I played at Penny Branch golf course in the well-known crossroads of Furman, SC. The greens there were moderately slow (probably Stimping around 8-ish) but very grainy. I'm guessing they are Common Bermuda.

Anyway, what I noticed comparing my putts to my nephew's were that his ball tended to wander in some amazing directions and almost never track in a direct line to the hole. Mine OTOH tended to have pretty much the right pace and to track quite truely the majority of the time. The difference is that I was catching the putter on the sweet spot and putting a good roll on the ball. He had a little looser, big backswing and then kind of ease into the ball. The grain was eating him up on 10-20 footers.

I was watching a tournament on TV several years ago and Billy Mayfair was in contention. This was back before he got rid of the worst of that big loop in his stroke. My teaching-pro buddy commented that if Billy had to play on the typical public course Bermuda greens around here he would never have earned a dollar on Tour.

[BCrosby]

That so many people differ on which kind of greens are harder to putt is revealing in and of itself.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not sure about this one.  Perhaps I'm wrong but doesn't the argument that fast greens are more challenging end with the logical conclusion that the best greens would be those with about .000002 degree of contour on average stimping at about 25?  

[Pat Howard]

I think I'm with TEPaul on this one. I much prefer fast greens to slow ones as long as the slopes and undulations permit it. On slow greens I tend to get sloppy with the line and end up hammering most putts straight at the hole. Quick greens (of course this is a subjective term) require much more of my touch and attention to be succesful.

[Jerry Kluger]

I think it is clear that the speed of the green based upon some objective number is not the answer.  The answer is a combination of speed plus contour or slope.  Let me suggest that a green is too slow when you feel that the best shot is one that leaves you above the hole so you are sure that you will putt it hard enough to reach the hole.  To me a very important factor in designing a hole is challenging the golfer as to where to hit the shot to have the best chance to make a one putt.  Of course, sometimes the shot necessary to accomplish this is too much of a risk so the player shoots for a spot to avoid the trouble and accept a two putt. If a ball does not roll back off of a false front when you don't hit it far enough into the green then the green is too slow.  

So do I enjoy slow greens - sure, provided I feel that I can stroke a putt rather than hit it.

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,

I don't think anyone has put forth the argument that you dispute. The idea that has some support on this thread is that over the normal range of green speeds (call it 7 to 14 on the Stimpmeter) the faster end of the range is a better test and/or more fun than the slower end. I agree with that idea. It does not follow from that statement that greens faster than are normally encountered would be better still.

At one extreme, Stimp readings of 20+, you would have the situation where the greens have to be almost dead flat. Nobody here would like that.

At the other extreme, Stimps of 5 or less, you'd have the situation where the only possible interest would come from extreme contours because you'd basically be chipping and never truly be putting as the term is understood today.

In my opinion, the best way to design and maintain green complexes involves a reciprocally determined interaction of contour/slope and green speed. Build greens with interesting contours then maintain them at a speed where they are almost too fast to be pinnable, right on the edge of unfairness. When the good Doctor was building Pasatiempo he probably chose the degree of slope so that the grass he expected to see planted on them could appoach that "right on the edge" challenge. Nowadays the grass people want on their greens putts faster which implies a slightly smaller scale of contouring. But at a speed of 9, 10, 11 or so that doesn't at all mean "flat".

[Doug Siebert]

While its possible to enjoy very slow greens if they are especially wildly contoured (I'm talking like TOC's Himalayas in contour) and roll very true, that combination is just not found in the US.  Anywhere.  (Prove me wrong)

The reason some of us have trouble with very slow greens is that you need a different putting stroke.  It wasn't for nothing that everyone in Bobby Jones' day had that wristy 'pop' stroke.  I find I roll the ball better on really slow greens doing that but can't make a four footer to save my life popping the ball.  So I adopt a sort of hybrid popping the ball when I'm trying to get it close, stroking it when I'm trying to make it.

Part of my frustration is probably because really slow greens probably have long enough grass to have grain, which I have no clue how to handle.  I'm too young to have ever played greens with significant grain (other than just uphill/downhill from water flow) so I don't really know how to deal with it.

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, Your challenge has been met. Please contact me next time you are within 5000 miles of Denver.

[Mike_Cirba]

Brent,

My point is the same as yours.   It's all relative.

A relatively benignly contoured green might be fun and challenging at a 12 or 13.   A highly contoured or sloped green might be all one can handle at 8 or 9 or possibly 10 on the edge and provide the same challenge.

For pure fun and interest, I prefer the latter scenario.

The problem comes when greens that were built 80 years ago for speeds in the 6 to 8 range now get regrassed and mowed as if they were going to hold the US Open.  

[James Edwards]

I love slow greens!

The reason why is because I know that 90% of the field will bi*ch about it and will putt poorly because of it

9% are poor putters anyway and couldnt care less whether they are slow or fast

and that leaves me who will take advantage of the other 99% and just go and out there and try to make every putt I look at...

I love them!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()