What about firm and slow?

[George Pazin]

Played a nice daily fee here north of the Burgh yesterday, and I couldn't help but notice how much easier the greens were to putt than my local muni. They were probably stimping around 9-10, but they were just so smoooooooooth.

There were several times I lined up 10 footers and just knew they were going in. Solid read, easy stroke, boom, bottom of the cup.

Contrast this to my local muni, where you almost have to make a mini golf swing to get the ball moving. I find it much easier to mishit a putt when you have to put some effort into it.

So my question is: How much do you sacrifice in ease of ballstriking (I'm assuming, for the better player, slower greens are easier to hold) with slower greens that are very firm, like those of my muni?

Please, let's ignore the contours somewhat so this doesn't evolve into another thread in our ongoing debate about flat greens versus contoured greens and who each challenges.

 

[Scott Szabo]

Firm and slow is about the worst possible condition out there, IMHO. I agree with your statement about slower greens being more difficult to putt, at least to me.  Also, when I'm talking about slow, I am meaning something less than the 9-10 on the stimp that you mentioned.  

I'm not sure about your statement that slower greens are easier to hold.  Generally speaking, when I come across slower greens than normal, they are usually firmer than normal, for whatever reason.  I've played some courses with greens running 12-13 that are quite easy to hold, if not spin back, which I know is detested on this site

[TEPaul]

Scott:

I'd seriously question, and I mean seriously, that any recreational golfer or even local tournament golfer sees greens that are 12 or certainly 13 on the stimpmeter. The club may say that or the super may say that but I doubt it's the truth. Have you ever actually watched greens stimped that you're told are 12 or 13?

[Craig Sweet]

Has anyone else noticed that the older bents...like Penncross for example....are more fun to putt than the newer A's and L-93's etc?

I find that penncross blades are not as dense, and they lay over...where as the newer bents are dense, and the blades are stiff and upright....the difference is the ball on penncross picks up the break at slower speeds...where the ball rolls straight and doesn't take the break on the newer bents...I see a break, play for the break, but it doesn't happen on newer bents...

[George Pazin]

Scott, what do you mean by worst possible condition? Worst - most difficult? Worst - most boring? Worst - easiest?

I think the worst possible condition for a course is fast and soft. It encourages, no, demands aerial dart throwing golf.

If I were giving marching orders to a grounds crew, I'd sacrifice speed for firmness all the time - but is it necessary to do so?

My preferences:

1) firm and fast
2) firm and slow


BIG GAP


3a) soft and fast
3b) soft and slow

For the supers:

What is easiest to maintain? Most cost effective? Best for healthy turf?

[Scott Szabo]

TEPaul,

The only greens I have ever played that I was told were that quick were at Sand Hills and Castle Pines, so I'm going on what I was told.  My club's greens run at about 11 or so for tournament play, or, once again, that's what I've been told, and that's quite quick enough for me!

My day at Sand Hills was about as enjoyable a day as I've ever had on a golf course.  The conditions were quite firm, but allowed for a high, soft shot into a green if that was the choice of play.  I wasn't limited to one particular shot, and that's the kind of golf I enjoy playing.  If I wanted to hit a high soft shot, I could; if I wanted to hit a low runner, I could do that as well.  That's my idea of perfect playability.

George,

When I say worst possible condition, I mean most boring.  Firm and slow almost contradict each other, don't they?  I don't see how that can be enjoyable.

I'll give you an example of what I mean.  I had the opportunity to play Ballyneal last year in its infancy, and the course was quite slow.  I enjoyed viewing and playing the layout, but was frustrated beyond belief when trying to putt on greens that couldn't have been running much more than 5 or 6.  Obviously this was due to the grow-in phase, when mowing the greens down much at all wasn't an option.  Certainly not a knock on Ballyneal, but my enjoyment was dampened a bit by the slowness of the course.  I understand it is quite different now that it's had a chance to mature, and hope to get an opportunity to take another look.    

Based on the courses I typicall play, firm and slow is due to a lack of maintenance (i.e. cash), which is a serious downer.

As for fast and soft, I agree with your assessment, but I don't see that too often.  To me, when I think about soft greens, I think about not being able to run a shot to a back pin, or making short shots around the green quite easy.  It takes the imagination out of the game, and that's what I don't enjoy.

Scott  

[Andy Troeger]

Scott,
When I was in Colorado I played one round with fellows that had played Ballyneal the day before and they said something similar to that...great layout and course, but the experience was dampened slightly because the greens were still exceptionally slow. They I think played on a Monday though, so maybe they just were not mowed that day (?).

I'm with you though generally, firm and slow is usually not a good combination, because about 90% of the time its a maintenance issue that also makes for firm, slow, and bumpy. If it were at least still fairly smooth that wouldn't be so bad, but it's not much fun to have the ball bounce all over the place then not be able to recover very well because of the additional putting challenge.

Then again, at least when I'm playing it doesn't bother me in the slightest to play on soft greens. This silly game is hard enough as it is and I'm almost incapable of generating much backspin anyway so I'm all for having a little advantage

[George Pazin]

George,

When I say worst possible condition, I mean most boring.  Firm and slow almost contradict each other, don't they?  I don't see how that can be enjoyable.

I don't see how they can be contradictory - plenty of lower budget courses play this way.

As for whether or not they're fun, I guess it's mostly in the eye of the player. I find the bounces to be challenging and interesting, which means fun in my book.

I hesitate to say pool table smooth greens are easy - pretty silly for someone of my caliber - but they can get boring if they're also soft, unless the contouring/pitch is outstanding.

[Scott Szabo]

George,

When I say worst possible condition, I mean most boring.  Firm and slow almost contradict each other, don't they?  I don't see how that can be enjoyable.

I don't see how they can be contradictory - plenty of lower budget courses play this way.

As for whether or not they're fun, I guess it's mostly in the eye of the player. I find the bounces to be challenging and interesting, which means fun in my book.

I hesitate to say pool table smooth greens are easy - pretty silly for someone of my caliber - but they can get boring if they're also soft, unless the contouring/pitch is outstanding.

George,

I thought part of the fun of firm courses was allowing for the bounce and ROLL of the ball after landing (i.e. meaning fast).  Most of the slower courses I play don't have much roll, thus my contradicting thought.  Of course, most of the slower courses I play are that way in large part due to limited maintenance budgets, not allowing for daily cutting, etc.

I agree with you that soft, fast greens can get boring without movement, tiers, etc.  I do think that faster greens tend to be smoother, thus easier (in my mind) to putt.

Scott

[Dan Kelly]

I just came back from a practice green that was perhaps the slowest green I've ever putted on. I have no idea about stimps, but take it from me: This thing was incredibly slow. Just amazingly slow.

At first, I thought: I'll stay just a minute or two. Don't want to get used to hitting it this hard, because I'll never see a green this slow again.

What it took to get the ball to the hole was a serious RAP on a long putt, and a considerable STRIKE on anything longer than about five feet.

Reminded me of those old Shell's Wonderful World of Golf greens, back in the early '60s.

And then I stayed for a while (because I was enjoying actually HITTING putts, instead of just penduluming them; it felt almost, well, athletic!), and I noticed that it was harder to get the ball close to the hole on lag putts today than it usually is on that green, where I putt often. It's never super-fast there, but it's always been considerably faster than it was today. Whoever had set the holes had put them higher on the contours and closer to the edges of the tiers -- because, at that speed, he could! What would have been crazy hole locations at high speed weren't crazy today.

It was FUN to putt aggressively, with a let's-make-this approach instead of a let's-baby-it-up-there-so-it-doesn't-scoot-on-by attitude.

This green was soft as a feather-bed. It would be no fun at all, IMO, to play on greens that soft AND that slow. But: Is firm-and-slow really possible, outside the linksland? That could be just outstanding!

[jeffwarne]

Firm and slow is great.
Most links courses play this way (If you're defining slow as Scott as is, at less than 9-10 on the stimp)
Slower greens allow for more contour, are far more maintainable, and don't have to be kept soft in heat stressed conditions.

More contour allows greens sloped enough where angle of approach actually means something, particularly if the greens are firm.

want to watch the pros struggle?
Slow down the greens and use more sloped pins.
An uphill putt may actually require some skill again, and a downhill putt will be just as difficult if more slope is used in selecting a pin.

soft and fast is dullsville and quite common.
sadly,the less people know about golf the more they ask the two stupidest questions in golf
What do your greens stimp at?
Do your greens hold? (greens don't hold-shots do(quality ones that is))

[Andy Troeger]

Since I'm not sure I was very clear the first time, when I went on my rampage against firm and slow, I meant REALLY SLOW. Unless I'm playing somewhere out of the ordinary, the courses I play most frequently are probably average in speed to begin with at best. That I have no problem with, but I don't like fuzzy greens that are hard as a brick  

[George Pazin]

I thought part of the fun of firm courses was allowing for the bounce and ROLL of the ball after landing (i.e. meaning fast).

That's why firm and FAST is number 1, and firm and slow is merely number 2.