Different grasses for different greens

[David Stamm]

While reading Thomas' book last night I came across an idea he mentioned on page 51 that I had forgotten about since the last time I read the book. He talks about the idea of using different grasses for different greens to provide the golfer a unique challenge of adjusting to the differing speeds. I know this has been done to some extent because of growth challenges on certain parts of properties because of lack of sun (and he mentions that), but could this be gotten away with today? Assuming that the grasses considered would not have any problems growing in a given area, would this be a viable challenge for modern golf? Would it be considered too gimicky?

[Tom_Doak]

Are you asking that seriously, in the age of the Stimpmeter?

An architect today would be crucified for it.  For that matter, as far as I know, Thomas didn't even try the experiment.

[Scott_Burroughs]

My club is this way all the time.  Some greens have poa infestations (along with some Bermuda) all over the place and some have virtually none.    The non-infested greens are faster and not as bumpy.

Not that the architect had anything to do with it (nor the shrinkage of the greens, even noticeable within the 11 years I've been a member).

[David Stamm]

Tom, I'm simply asking if this could ever work as opposed to 8000yd courses that are in the future so the better golfer could be challenged by a different set of circumstances. I can imagine that today's architect would be looked at as a kook for even suggesting it to clients, but how would an architect as yourself view this, forgetting about if would go over with customers. Do you like the concept, dislike it and why?

[Tom_Doak]

I think it would be too much variety, which is something I'd rarely say.

Golfers have a great deal of trouble adjusting to the speed of greens on a day-to-day basis, much less a hole-to-hole basis.  That's why we build practice greens and why most clubs try to maintain their greens consistently.

I agree it would be very challenging and interesting to have to try and adjust to different grasses on the greens, but I think I've only met a handful of players who would get the hang of it, and the other 99% would be frustrated over their additional three-putts.

[Gary Slatter]

If you hang around Pro shops for 40 years it's amazing how often you are told that 14 is fast and 16 is slow or something to that effect.  or "how come you have different grass on the putting green" or ....
When we were planning the REEF Club I asked the designer to please try to make any green slope to the west downhill and any uphill putt to the east, just so the inevitable grain's effect would be similar to gravity's influence, otherwise the punters think we have different grasses.  we got 14/18, and ALL flat putts tend to slide westerly..just like every course in Florida.

[David Stamm]

I think it would be too much variety, which is something I'd rarely say.

Golfers have a great deal of trouble adjusting to the speed of greens on a day-to-day basis, much less a hole-to-hole basis.  That's why we build practice greens and why most clubs try to maintain their greens consistently.

I agree it would be very challenging and interesting to have to try and adjust to different grasses on the greens, but I think I've only met a handful of players who would get the hang of it, and the other 99% would be frustrated over their additional three-putts.

Thanks Tom. That makes sense.

[redanman]

Greens should be homogeneous, fast faster and fastest and flat and true.

This is the belief of the majority of players in America.

Therefore, this idea is anathema.

[Matthew Hunt]

If you play any "Farmers Field" layouts you never have consistant green speeds.

[Jari Rasinkangas]

To have different grasses for different greens would be a nightmare for the superintendent.  Different grasses need different irrigation, fertilization, aeration etc.

And at least in colder climates different grasses need different mowing heights in spring when grass starts to grow after winter and in autumn when the grass is prepared for the winter.

Jari

[Chris Cupit]

As unconventional as I am I think this would suck.

But, I totally reject the notion that bunkers should be consistent.  I think they should be almost intentionally inconsistent since they are hazards.

In bunkers a player when he addresses the ball has a chance to get the "feel" of the shot and hitting out of a hazard should be a crap shoot.

But greens intentionally inconsistent would slow up play and it would be hard for a player of any skill to really "learn" how  to judge the different speeds--it would be all local knowledge or play would grind to a halt as everyone would try and figure out some way to decipher what the particular green speed is for that hole.

And maintenance would be a nightmare.

Just my thoughts.

[Jon Wiggett]

If you play any "Farmers Field" layouts you never have consistant green speeds.

Matthew, this is not necessarily the case. Green speed (not quality) is more dependent on type of grass, green situation and the type of maintenance than it is type of build.

But taking this theme futher, those of us who belong to the dew sweeper brigade know all about changing green speeds. Hell, if your in the 3d or 4th group the speed changes as you get closer to the hole!