[Phil Benedict]

I don't know how many times I've heard someone complain about greens being too slow or praise a course because the greens are fast.  On the other hand, I almost never hear someone criticize a course for being overly soft unless it's because of heavy rainfall.  Nobody blames the super for over-watering.  There doesn't seem to be a connection in golfers' minds between fast and firm:  they want fast when it comes to green speed but are mostly indifferent to firm conditions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
If they started seeing those 10' bounces like we heard about on another thread, their indifference would become a thing of the past. Most superintendents would have to go into hiding.

[TEPaul]

"Re: Can Greens be Fast but Not Necessarily Firm?"

Of course.

[John Moore II]

Yes, certainly greens can be fast but not firm. Pinehurst #7 was like that just yesterday. Unless you're talking about fairways, there really isn't a corelation between firm and fast.

I also agree with Jim, at a certain point of firmness or softness, the indifference will go away and people will complain.

[Tim Taylor]

No doubt about it. At last year's member/guest at my club the greens were very fast and very firm. As in land it short and bounce it on, even for middle of the green hole locations. Most people enjoyed it. Some bitched about it being tricked up.

This year's m/g they were just as fast but a lot of softer due to all the spring rain here in Virginia. Cut and double rolled every day. Within days after the m/g, the greens were back to normal speed.

And this is on largely poa greens. Our super has really learned just how hard and how long he can push it before he has to dial it back. He does a great job.

Tim

[Adam Kamm]

I think greens can most definitely be both fast & not necessarily firm...played Oakmont last fall and they were obviously lightning fast, but they were not necessarily all that firm.  The most impressive feature of the greens (outside of the amazing speed) was that the greens were very receptive without leaving substantial ballmarks. 

And I do think there are cases where a super is criticized for greens being too soft...that was a pronounced criticism at the host of the 2006 PGA Championship for a number of years.  Whether right or wrong...

[Sean Leary]

Fast and soft can make for really zipping the ball back, ala Greg Norman in the 80's with the Tour edition ball he used to play.

[Art Roselle]

Shoudn't the goal be the opposite - firm but not terribly fast?  I think most greens are too soft, which makes all the angles and strategy (which is supposed to be important) irrelevant.  Meanwhile, if they get too fast, then you start to lose pin positions and few architects will design the bold contours that used to be prevalent. 

I know a lot of courses that are soft and fast, but from a design perspective, I would much prefer firm and a little slower.

[Phil Benedict]

The UK links courses have firm conditions but not especially fast greens, which don't work because of high winds (witness Birkdale on Saturday).  It seems that in the US the maintenance values are reversed:  fast greens are revered while firm conditions much less so, with supers risking their jobs if they don't produce verdant green throughout the playing area.  The one excuse that members will (grudgingly) accept for slow greens is to protect the grass during high summer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shoudn't the goal be the opposite - firm but not terribly fast?  I think most greens are too soft, which makes all the angles and strategy (which is supposed to be important) irrelevant.  Meanwhile, if they get too fast, then you start to lose pin positions and few architects will design the bold contours that used to be prevalent. 

I know a lot of courses that are soft and fast, but from a design perspective, I would much prefer firm and a little slower.

Art,

TEPaul had a practical theory about that.

Now I know that's a contradiction of major proportions, but, essentially his theory was that the superintendent should determine the maximum speed for the greens based on the most severe green, and then use that speed universally.

I like the concept as it's the perfect blend of speed as it relates to contour and slope.

Too many wonderful green contours/slopes have been lost to speed.
Greens are THE unique feature which can most affect play.
Therefore, preservation of wonderfully contoured/sloped greens should be the ultimate goal with speed as the icing on the cake.

As to soft but fast greens, I recall that German Bent or Velvet Bent putted extremely fast even though the greens were fairly soft.

[Dan Herrmann]

Pat, we had about 4 inches of rain in about 10 days.  It softened up the greens a bit, but they were probably a 10.5 last Sunday.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Have we had 4 inches of rain in the last 10 days in Philly? I wasn't here but that would explain why my course is so soft----I hope. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

The Renaissance Club in June - some of the slowest greens i've played on - also some of the truest... and some of the firmest...

[Steve Curry]

Phil,

There are a number of golfers who feel greens should be soft.  I hear it often how perfect the greens are when they are soft and receiving a shot.  It saddens me to think that a golfer would prefer this.  To me there is nothing more enjoyable than watching a ball bounce and run out to the intended target.  As I've said before too many golfers are so driven to score better that they would have the character of the course denigrated to do so.

Pat,

The practicality of Tom's measure stems from the source.

Best,
Steve

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
It was raining like a Merion shower.  A lot of rain in a couple of heavy downpours.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()