[Joe Hancock]

Really?  None of you guys like fast greens?

Bryon,

On some courses, fast greens may be the only interesting facet of play. On other courses, they may be detrimental to fun, challenging and interesting pin positions.

Of course I like fast greens...sometimes. Like others who've said it above, my preference is to play greens with enough contour so as to not rely on the speed to be interesting.

Joe

[BCrosby]

Putting on fast greens isn't any harder for good players than putting on slow greens. They adjust to both.

I always thought the historical reason for fast greens was that they made chipping and pitching much more difficult.

Which I think is true.

Bob   

[John Kavanaugh]

I love roll out.  I love fast greens because they add interest to every stroke from 200 yds in which by a quick approximation counts for a minimum of 75% of all shot played.  Sure they are expensive and the solution is simple...work harder, practice more, become more interesting.

[John Kavanaugh]

Putting on fast greens isn't any harder for good players than putting on slow greens. They adjust to both.

I always thought the historical reason for fast greens was that they made chipping and pitching much more difficult.

Which I think is true.

Bob   

Not so much more difficult as more interesting.  If you ever get the chance to play a horseshoe chip you will look forward to the next opportunity.  Who ever looks forward to a chip?

[TEPaul]

"So, somebody tell me why everyone thinks greens need to be fast."

TomD:

Obviously golfers don't exactly agree what "fast" or "too fast" is----even as it relates to some stimpmeter reading. So, it's obviously a subjective thing that's a function of playablilty.

I like fast greens on a course like that because I just think a faster speed requires a lot more imagination.

Last time I was out there maybe two summers ago in the end of June (or was it July?) I played in a two day member/guest and since I was staying in a house right next to the clubhouse I went out there early in the morning and talked some with Morris and then I watched one of the asst supers stimp #5 at just a little less than 11.

I thought that speed was really fun and challenging and I don't remember anything goofy happening playability-wise in and around any greens.

In the evening I went out and putted around a few of the greens again and was sort of amazed how much slower they were at the end of the day----probably a good foot and a half slower.

I asked Morris about that and he just said it was due to the poa growth through the day.

[Joe Hancock]

Putting on fast greens isn't any harder for good players than putting on slow greens. They adjust to both.

I always thought the historical reason for fast greens was that they made chipping and pitching much more difficult.

Which I think is true.

Bob   

Not so much more difficult as more interesting.  If you ever get the chance to play a horseshoe chip you will look forward to the next opportunity.  Who ever looks forward to a chip?

John,

I do, all day long at Kingsley. Sometimes chipping to the complete opposite fringe and watching the ball come back to the hole is a not so simple pleasure.

Conditioning as well, of course.....

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

John:

By far the most interesting shots I had yesterday at Crystal Downs were chips ... from well below the greens on 8 and 11 where I rolled a 3-iron and a 7-iron up close, among others.  There are tons of interesting short game shots out there, BECAUSE the greens have a lot of contour, BECAUSE they weren't designed to be fast.

[Tim Gavrich]

Wouldn't softer contours on faster greens allow gravity to move the ball around in the same way as would bolder contours on slower greens?  It would appear that the case for slower, more undulating greens is aesthetically (not practically) driven, since you can ramp up softer greens (provided they're well-designed) in pursuit of the same results.

Also, I'd argue that faster greens require a better putting stroke.  It takes a lot worse touch to hit a putt four feet too far on greens that stimp at 8 as opposed to greens that stimp at 11.  This also means that more break needs to be played on the faster greens, relatively.

Is this all about going back to the "roots" of the game?  Is it the prevailing sentiment that just because there wasn't technology to maintain faster greens 100 years ago, we shouldn't try to capitalize on that ability now?  I'm not sure I agree with that.

The W&L golf team practices at two courses, primarily: Lexington G&CC and Vista Links--one older, one much newer.  Many of the greens at Lexington have a lot of contour--so much, at times, that they can't be maintained terribly fast.  The more undulating greens are fun to putt on, but on days like Thursday, when they seemed too slow, it was just tedious.  At Vista Links the greens have less contour, but they're typically faster.  Becase it's a town-owned course, they don't ever get really fast, but when they're at they're peak, the blend of speed and contouring is at least as enjoyable (probably moreso) than at Lexington, IMO.

[Wayne Freeman]

 Tom-  I have often wondered about this myself.  I played Pinehurst #2 last month and it was so much more fun to be able to play it with greens running about 9 where the ball would stay on the green and you could putt it reasonably rather that be swearing all day long about putts bouncing off concrete hard surfaces back and forth and back and forth. 
   I played many wonderful courses this year  where greens were consistently running 10- 101/2  which I think is ideal speed in most cases.  But on some courses even that speed can be too much.  And I never understand why in all these member/member events they want to get the green speeds up into the 13 range.  When I played Myopia Hunt the speed was up over that level and it just made it impossible. And absolutely no fun at all.  That course certainly never saw anything close to that when it was the great U.S. Open venue hosting 4 championships.

[Mike McGuire]

    I think Lawsonia could play fine up to about 10, but more and it might be into over-the-top for the design (rolling off high platform greens) 

Seems like every time i go to Lawsonia the greens run about 7-8. We have the same greens at my home club (West Bend) that run around 10.

Given this scenario I would play West Bend 10 out of 10 times. The greens are alive at that speed. Leaving puts short all day and NOT having to care about being above the hole at Lawsonia is much less interesting.

[Mike Bowline]

Like several before have stated, consistency from green to green is very important. Also, a smooth surface is very important, regardless of speed.

I prefer large undulations at a sane green speed vs. more subtle undulation at a fast green speed. having said that, I find it very, very difficult to play slower greens (even when smooth) after playing faster greens. It is just plain harder to hit the putts hard enough without putting a full hip turn on it.

No one has mentioned the fact that slow greens are usually easier to hold when hitting approach shots. Fast greens are more unforgiving when approached from the rough, or a shot hit with less-than-exact impact.

Regarding the initial post, I often hear my friends mention fast greens as an attribute of a course we are considering playing for the first time. Next time I will ask them what they like about fast. I imagine they will mention the increased challenge fo fast vs. slow.

[jeffwarne]

Slower greens deems the sweet spot on the putter relevant....which makes the stroke of the putter relevant...which is a direct reflection of skill.

No wonder so many people like fast greens!....

Joe

Joe,
You're spot on.
Slower greens allow more undulation on greens which can make downhill putts as fast as the fastest greens out there and uphill putts very slow and demanding, requiring MUCH GREATER SKILL and variety in the length and force in one's stroke.
Most people don't like their deficiencies exposed.
Commenting on green speed is a bit of an idiot test as the more ignorant agolfer is, the more likely he is to comment on the green speed (or lack of).
The most difficult /fun greens in my area (and there are six top 100 courses in my area) are at a public course and stimp about 5-6.

[Michael Powers]

It's just too easy for the uninformed golfer to glaum on to the idea that faster is better.  The higher the stimpmeter reading the better.  Also, "fast" is so relative.  I enjoy playing greens that have a faster pace, however, the amount of slope is the principle consideration.  I play in about 3 or 4 events a year that are regional events and the members of influence at the club want everyone to rave about how fast the greens are.  So the entire field is faced with a situation where you have absolutely no chance if the ball finishes above the hole.  You spend your day aiming at the short side of pins or trying to miss in areas that will leave an uphill chip to avoid putting the ball off the green from 5 feet above the hole. 

About 5 or 6 years ago I was playing in a tournament and there was one brutal hole location.  We went through in the am when it was fairly soft and our 3-ball had 2 four putts and a three putt.  The sun and wind got up about an hour later and players were unable to stop the ball near the hole from any direction.  Guys were 7 and 8 putting.  So the association which was running the event closed the hole.  I get to the scorer's tent and an official tells the group that our scores on that hole will be ignored, my first and only 17 hole tournament round.  A new low for fast greens.

[paul cowley]

I think that generally the design of a green, or the pinable area of a green, should allow for a player to be able to 'hit' his stroke...as oppossed to having to 'brake' his stroke.

I think that is key....regardless of the design contours, cut height or stimp.

It's a good rule of thumb that suits new design and is adaptable to most existing greens.

When 'braking' becomes the main issue on too many a putt, the green speeds have become too fast.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

“Why do people need fast greens?”  or maybe “Why do people want fast greens?”

Either because they are a Championship Course (a real one that holds International and National Championships as well as possibly Regional) and as such are put under pressure from the Tournament Organisers to have “fast greens”. As a result it is “seen to be” that the Championship Courses and their “fast greens” are the standard to be achieved. A sort of "Peer Pressure".

The fact is the green speed should be adjusted to the green contours and not just made to a standard speed because of all the reasons Tom Doak pointed out.

[Adrian_Stiff]

“Why do people need fast greens?”  or maybe “Why do people want fast greens?”

Either because they are a Championship Course (a real one that holds International and National Championships as well as possibly Regional) and as such are put under pressure from the Tournament Organisers to have “fast greens”. As a result it is “seen to be” that the Championship Courses and their “fast greens” are the standard to be achieved. A sort of "Peer Pressure".

The fact is the green speed should be adjusted to the green contours and not just made to a standard speed because of all the reasons Tom Doak pointed out.

I think its gone crazy when you have to have greens cut at different heights to account for the slopes. You can marry a downhill putt by a higher cut but the uphill one is quite a tap. Greens are pretty fast for most at a 9 stimp, at 10+ you start to see accelerated ball movement at 4% grade and that really grows with every extra foot of stimp. I am pretty sure you cant have a green at 14+ unless it is flat (around 1%). There is no rule but I think its very hard to design interesting greens that roll at more than 10, in basic terms you end up with some much unpinnable area. People like fast but fast IMO is 9.
Somewhere there will be a formula but I reckon a 10 stimp would run maybe 30 feet on a 3% slope, whilst against the same slope it might run 8 feet.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Adrian,

I think you misunderstood my text.

I wasn’t implying that within the green contours there should be different cutting heights. But that the required speed of the greens and thus the cutting height ( of all 18 greens and the complete surface areas) should not be standardised by tournament organisers but should be determined by the characteristics of the greens.

An interesting observation of the divergence on a 3% slope at a supposed Stimpmeter of 10 feet.

This Stimpmeter High and Low measurement illustrates well how the statement - “the Green Speed is Stimpmeter 10” provides only part of the information and how knowing the high and low readings can provide more information of the characteristics of the speed of greens.

[Adrian_Stiff]

John- I was kinda saying I dont like it when you have to cut 15 greens at say 3mm but the 6th needs 3.5mm and the 8th and 16th need 4mm.... because of slopes.

[Adam Clayman]

What's not been mentioned is why, when greens speeds get to fast on undulating greens, people whine like crazy. It's the reason they soften them and is IMO not a good enough reason. The "Unfair" cry is the sweetest sound to a trained ear.

[Michael Powers]

"Also, I'd argue that faster greens require a better putting stroke.  It takes a lot worse touch to hit a putt four feet too far on greens that stimp at 8 as opposed to greens that stimp at 11.  This also means that more break needs to be played on the faster greens, relatively."

The only skill that faster greens demand is the ability to read more break.  It takes just as much touch to roll the ball the desired distance on slow greens as it does fast greens.  It is equally important.  Actually, slower greens require a more sound stroke becuase slower greens require solid contact.

[David Ober]

There are many reasons I prefer fast greens. Two of them:

1) In Southern California, the vast majority of greens are, as I'm sure you are aware, poa annua. When poa is not cut short and rolled (which results in a relatively to extremely fast surface), poa greens become very bumpy. Bumpy greens move the "luck/skill balance" too far toward the "luck" end of the scale.

2) Fast, true greens are very difficult to putt because both speed and line must be precisely calibrated to make putts, or, should a putt not be made, to leave a makeable second putt. As a result, fast greens tend to reward the better putter to a greater extent.

[David Ober]

Really?  None of you guys like fast greens?

I do.

[David Ober]

"Also, I'd argue that faster greens require a better putting stroke.  It takes a lot worse touch to hit a putt four feet too far on greens that stimp at 8 as opposed to greens that stimp at 11.  This also means that more break needs to be played on the faster greens, relatively."

The only skill that faster greens demand is the ability to read more break.  It takes just as much touch to roll the ball the desired distance on slow greens as it does fast greens.  It is equally important.  Actually, slower greens require a more sound stroke becuase slower greens require solid contact.

I disagree with you here. The faster the greens, the more precise a touch is needed. I'm sure there's a mathematical way to prove it, but it's not necessary. Just putt for a few months on slowish (8 - 9 stimp greens) and record your average miss and then go putt on similar greens in the 11 to 12 stimp range. The standard deviation of your misses will increase significantly. I absolutely promise you.

[jeffwarne]

"Also, I'd argue that faster greens require a better putting stroke.  It takes a lot worse touch to hit a putt four feet too far on greens that stimp at 8 as opposed to greens that stimp at 11.  This also means that more break needs to be played on the faster greens, relatively."

The only skill that faster greens demand is the ability to read more break.  It takes just as much touch to roll the ball the desired distance on slow greens as it does fast greens.  It is equally important.  Actually, slower greens require a more sound stroke becuase slower greens require solid contact.

I disagree with you here. The faster the greens, the more precise a touch is needed. I'm sure there's a mathematical way to prove it, but it's not necessary. Just putt for a few months on slowish (8 - 9 stimp greens) and record your average miss and then go putt on similar greens in the 11 to 12 stimp range. The standard deviation of your misses will increase significantly. I absolutely promise you.

David,
Given greens of equal slope , and pin placements ,I would agree.
However, slower green speeds allow more contours to be built into a green, so an uphill putt requires vastly more stroke than a downhill putt, thus requiring touch for the downhill putt and solid contact on the uphiller.
 Many modern greens are dumbed down because of the anticipated high speed that modern agronomy will allow. Compared to an undulating, slower green, an uphill putt does not require all that much more than a downhill putt.
Additionally, slower greens allow more interesting areas of the greens to be used for hole placement creating the same breaks present in faster greens and creating much more variety in power, solidness, and touch of the stroke.

[Eric_Terhorst]

The faster the greens, the more precise a touch is needed. I'm *sure* there's a mathematical way to prove it, but it's not necessary. Just putt for a few months on slowish (8 - 9 stimp greens) and record your average miss and then go putt on similar greens in the 11 to 12 stimp range. The standard deviation of your misses will increase significantly. I *absolutely* promise you.

(emphasis added)

David,

since you are *absolutely sure* about experimental statistics you haven't yet collected, please tell us what will happen when you turn it around-- putt for a few months on 11-12 greens and then measure the standard deviation of your misses on the 8-9 greens. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()