[Phil Benedict]

It has often been commented upon on this site that increasing green speeds have come at the expense of interesting contours.  Yet the trend towards higher green speeds appears to be irresistable no doubt reflecting golfer preferences.  Two common boasts out of a typical club member are how tough their course is and how fast their greens are.

Personally I prefer fast greens too, although not because I want to brag about my home course.  I like the way the ball rolls on fast greens and the stroke needed for high speeds.  From an architectural standpoint, fast greens put a premium on distance control and course management.

[tlavin]

EGO

[JESII]

Not sure about that Terry...if you're implying that it's my desire to brag about how fast my clubs greens are...I don't think I've ever considered that approach.

I greatly prefer fast greens because of the combined challenge and creativity demands. Makes you think at least a shot earlier than do slow greens, and let's you imagine and then initiate a big tripple breaking 50 footer up over one hill then down another...

[Tom Huckaby]

Ego may well be a part of it; although truly fast greens can be ego-killing as the three jacks mount up.

And while JES brings up a very valid way to look at this, I think that's a view most don't get to... that is it's beyond them.. they just consider greens in terms of how the ball rolls for putts.

Thus I don't think golfers prefer fast greens as much as they prefer SMOOTH greens.  It's just more fun to roll the ball when there are less wobbles.  Unfortunately, the way grass works, smooth=fast.

[Cassandra Burns]

Thus I don't think golfers prefer fast greens as much as they prefer SMOOTH greens.  It's just more fun to roll the ball when there are less wobbles.  Unfortunately, the way grass works, smooth=fast.

I'll second that.  It's a lot easier (though by no means easy) to predict the roll and break of a putt on smooth greens.

What would it take to create and/or maintain slow but smooth greens with more contours?  Is poa a slower or stickier grass?

[Ken Moum]

I like the way the ball rolls on fast greens and the stroke needed for high speeds.  From an architectural standpoint, fast greens put a premium on distance control and course management.

I agree, but having put in about 20 years in a town where the only golf course had slow greens, I learned a but about this issue.

Really, really good putters hate slow greens because they think it helps people who can't read greens or control their speed.

Some bad putters like slow greens for the above reason.

But there's a subset of good putters who actually don't roll the ball all that well. They are good at reading greens, and good at hitting it the right distance, but they have a stroke that doesn't get theball rolling.

They DETEST slow greens, because a) their ball is always bouncing off line and b) their stroke simply cannot create enough ball speed to get long putts to the hole reliably.

I know this, because I grew up playing fast greens, and moving to slow ones absolutly killed me.

Over time, I figured out the problem, and changed my putting stroke to where slow, bumpy greens didn't hurt me that much.

For the last 10 years, I've gone back to faster, smoother putting surfaces, and I find that all my stroke has reverted to its old ways.

Now, when I encounter slow greens, I need to focus on making that other stroke, or I miss lots of putts.

Oh, and I agree that the green speed deal is mostly about ego.

Ken

[Dan Kelly]

I don't know about "golfers" -- but this is why I prefer fast greens:

Because they're more challenging ... and, therefore, more fun ... particularly when they're combined with some slope and some contour -- as much of both as is possible, given the greens' top speed.

Of course, pitching, chipping and putting are the parts of golf that I most enjoy -- so this might color my view of things.

[JR Potts]

It's easier to tap than swing.

[Dan Kelly]

It's easier to tap than swing.

Spoken like a 29-year-old!

[Brent Hutto]

It's easier to tap than swing.

Quite right. The way my putting stroke works needs a pretty darned big motion for an uphill 30-footer on a slowish green. It gets to a point where it's too big a stroke to make perfect contact reliably.

Slow greens also magnify any imperfect roll on the ball. You can get away with a little mishit now and then on fast greens.

In my experience, slow-but-smooth greens are much rarer than fast-and-smooth ones. As Tom H. says, just about everyone likes smooth greens.

Likewise I've generally found the majority of really firm greens to be of medium or faster speed. It's certainly not impossible to have slow-but-firm but I can't recall the last time I experienced that combination.

And finally, as JES says faster greens require more care on approach or pitch shots. Contour or speed either one can provide that challenge but my preference is for plenty of contour and then at least medium-fast green speeds to boot.

I can't imagine what advantage to the player there is in slow greens. Maybe it saves money or allows more pinnable area or other practical issues but don't pretend that slow is better than fast for actually playing golf. I've never met anyone who feels that way.

[Phil Benedict]

Is there a trend towards flatter greens to accommodate higher speeds?  Is this good for architecture?  Green speeds are slower in Scotland and Ireland, aren't they?

[A.G._Crockett]

I have a terrible, terrible feeling about where this thread could go...

Tom Huckaby, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[rjsimper]

Several reasons for a golfer, not a golf course-

1. John Kirk's Unified Theory - hitting a 40 footer that trickles the entire way is much more entertaining than slamming it and hoping it stops in the right spot.

2. People would much rather roll a putt 3 feet by than leave it 2 feet short...lagged long putts notwithstanding (and even those, to an extent, this is true on.  "Never up, never in" means we want things to have at least a chance.

3. Harder to start a ball online when you have to hit it harder

4. Faster greens generally are more smooth, and the ball rolls better

5. Smooth greens are more "fair".  Smooth greens are often fast, and if the putt is a left edge putt and you hit it left edge with the proper speed, you want it to go in.  Slow greens often bring more chance into play

6. Because the pros on TV putt on fast greens.

[Matt_Cohn]

The unified theory.

[Paul Stephenson]

It's easier to tap than swing.

That sums it up for me.

However, I am alone prefering fast greens for short putts, and slow greens for anything over 15 feet.  Or am I a chicken???

[Adam Clayman]

What would it take to create and/or maintain slow but smooth greens with more contours?  Is poa a slower or stickier grass?

C.B. I do believe Poa is somewhat tackier in it's playability on a day to day basis. The stroke requires attacking the putt versus the feathery wave needed on super fast bent greens.

What ever happened to asking the golfer to adapt his stroke day to day? Having the breens pushed to their maximum speed everyday, removes a variable the folfer should be aware of.

[Dan Kelly]

I have a terrible, terrible feeling about where this thread could go...

I have that feeling about every thread.

[Jason Blasberg]

b/c that's what the we all see the pros play on tv.

[SL_Solow]

Its all myth and hype.  Green speed is relative.  When agonomic limitations were such that keeping greens at 12 for any length of time was next to impossible, greens that ran at 10 were thought to be lightning fast.  A good greenkeeper could make them very smooth.  But as new grasses were developed, allowing lower cuts, and new chemicals were developed to keep the low cuts disease free, an arms race developed causing clubs to try to keep up and obtain faster speeds.  Of course maintenance of this type is more expensive but nobody cared.

For good putters with good nerves (caveat; I am generally perceived to be a good putter and fast greens don't scare me even in my 50's) the increased speeds helped separate them from less confident putters.  But most architects will tell you that the increased speeds inevitably have led to greens with less contour because it is impossible to make balls stop on steep gradients at the new speeds.  Hence the proliferation of flatter greens.  Even worse, see the USGA and others attempts to alter classic courses for fear of a repeat of the "debacle' concerning hole locations at Olympic.  As examples see the USGA mandated altering of the 3rd green at Olympia Fields North and the PGA inspired changes to  Medinah #3's 2nd.

As greens flatten the putting game becomes more of a test of nerve and stroke (or tap) and less of reading and imagination.  Better or worse?  That is a matter of taste but it is certainly different and more expensive.

[Kalen Braley]

I prefer fast greens but...

I will take smooth greens that are fast over very fast greens that are bumpy any day.  I've always equated slow greens with bumpiness and this drives me crazy on the golf course more than anything else.  I think the best example of smooth greens that were not overly fast were the ones at Pacific Dunes.  To this day, I still can't get over how true they were rolling and I was making bombs from everywhere.

Or perhaps this is just my perception because my putter was on fire that day, (too bad I couldn't hit my irons worth anything though. )

[Peter Pallotta]

SL
really fine post - thanks

"I greatly prefer fast greens because of the combined challenge and creativity demands. Makes you think at least a shot earlier than do slow greens, and let's you imagine and then initiate a big tripple breaking 50 footer up over one hill then down another."

JES
that's well said. From what I can tell, I'm not in your league as a golfer - which is maybe why I simply "like" a fast green instead of "greatly preferring" it: most times out, I'm just not good enough to take the challenge head on....at least not they way I'd like to

Peter  
 

[Brent Hutto]

I ought to amend my earlier assertion that I've never seen really smooth greens that weren't at least medium-fast. That's true in the USA where I've played 99.9% of my golf.

On my one trip to England I found the greens on the links courses at Littlestone and Deal to be commendably smooth and true-running but on the days I played them neither would have been considered anything like fast by USA club standards, although they weren't terribly slow either.

I love the poa/fescue/random grass found on links courses, even at Walmer and Kingsdown (chalky soil atop cliffs) the greens looked kind of patchy but putted true and the fastest of any of the English courses I played.

[Tim Pitner]

Because they watch pro golfers "on the TV" playing on fast greens, especially at Augusta (which they regard as the absolute pinnacle of golf).  

P.S. I generally like fast greens too but realize they don't make sense on all greens or on all courses.  

[Sorry for the redundancy, Jason (and Ryan)--I missed your posts].  

[Tom_Doak]

I played at Prestwick today and the greens were probably 8 on the Stimpmeter and had been lightly topdressed a day or two ago.  Nevertheless, they were as true as any greens I've seen for a while, the ball did not bounce or wobble once all day on putts long or short.

I agree with whoever said that golfers HATE when they leave a putt short and they like to blame it on slow greens.

By the way, occasionally when I haven't been to Scotland for a while somebody will try to tell me that the greens here are flatter than in the USA and putting is less important.  That is emphatically NOT true of Prestwick or St. Andrews or North Berwick or Machrihanish, for starters.  Prestwick had several greens with such a severe tilt that I wondered how fast they could let the greens get before it was unplayable ... the ninth green all falls away and left to right at what looked to be 6% ... I wished I'd had one of those "smart levels" in my bag.

[redanman]

Why Do (American) Golfers Prefer Fast Greens?

Because they think they are "better".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()