[ChipOat]

I played Merion's West Course (1914) for the first time in about 10 years yesterday.  While I was delighted with a number of things, what really struck me was:

The greens were still very much a challenge even though they are maintained at a Stimp around 8!

In order to give the basic member a less difficult place to enjoy the game, Merion maintains the West Course in a more user friendly way - including green speeds that are more akin to what was normal in the 1920's (or so I've been told by a couple of "experts").

Therefore, it's been at least 10 years since I played a "famous" course where downhill/sidehill putts could be stroked with confidence and where putting off the green was rarely an issue (although not entirely).

I rediscovered the following - on Golden Era greens that have (formerly) "normal" speed:

1) Downhill putts from above the hole are still fast and need to be treated as such even though a 30 foot come-backer is usually not to be feared.

2) 20 foot sidehill putts still have 2-4 feet of break and need to be read and stroked with skill and nerve.

3) 2 foot putts can still break across the hole and miss on the low side if they're not read with care and assumed to be miss-able.

4) Pitching and chipping to contoured greens that Stimp around 8 is still a challenge to convert an "up and down".

5) By far, keeping the ball underneath the hole is still the preferred strategy.

Will a good player putt better on slower greens?  Of course.

Putts can be stroked with more confidence and high side lip-outs aren't a disaster waiting to happen.  "Touch it and pray" isn't a factor.  There are no windmills or clown's noses.

But if you aren't a good putter with a good stroke, you can't be successful on the greens at Merion West, either.

After playing Easthampton for the first time, I was told (and Tom Paul confirmed) that C & C agreed to do the work there subject to the club's promise never to Stimp the greens higher than a certain level (10, maybe?).

I appreciated that then, and even more so now.

It used to be that only Oakmont had lightening fast greens - maybe too fast in places.  Then, for a long time, only U.S. Open greens were scary fast.  Then Augusta went to bent grass.  Now the new mowers and strains of grass mean every course with a good super and a sufficient budget can make the original architects wonder what happened to the game that they designed and built their green complexes to embrace.

I hope it's not another 10 years before I get back to greens like the West Course at Merion.

 

[Jim Nugent]

It's probably been answered here before, but I didn't see it:  why did so many courses change, and speed up their greens?  Also, do some of the minimalist designs bring back 'slower' greens? 

[Dan Boerger]

Chip - Having played the west course this past Friday, I concur with your observation on green speed and complexity there.   8 and 18 come to mind as two greens that had pin positions that day which, if the speed were east course fast, would have been treacherous (and perhaps silly).

BTW, I still haven't figured out what sort of tee shot you hit on #5!

I find the east course as physically and mentally taxing as any course I've ever played. It's no surprise the members there enjoy the relative experience on the west course.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim N:

Yours is the key question.

Here are a few of the possible suspects:

1.  Courses with inferior architecture (and flatter greens) can only compete with their superior neighbors by trying to get their courses in better shape, and people have bought into the idea that faster greens = better condition.

2.  The courses with superior architecture (and more sloped greens) don't like hearing that the greens are better across the street, so they bump up their green speeds in response, even if it doesn't play as well with the extra contours.

3.  Superintendents increase their stature (and eventually their salary) by getting greens fast.

4.  All the turf equipment companies keep making "better" machines that can cut the greens lower and keep them faster, and they want to sell that stuff.

5.  Everybody hears on TV every week how fast the greens are, particularly at the major championships.


The answer to your last question is no.  Once I leave the property, I can't control what the superintendent does.  At a recent project, the superintendent promised that he would never try to get the greens over 11 1/2 on the Stimpmeter -- and lately, with the owner's urging, he's been getting them well over that.

[Michael Powers]

Could it be that the Golden Era players posessed a skill lost on many of todays players?  That of striking the ball solidly while making a longer stroke to hit the ball the required distance on greens that stimp at 7 or 8?

[Jim Nugent]

The answer to your last question is no.  Once I leave the property, I can't control what the superintendent does.  At a recent project, the superintendent promised that he would never try to get the greens over 11 1/2 on the Stimpmeter -- and lately, with the owner's urging, he's been getting them well over that.

Does that affect how you design/build the greens?  If you know they will stimp them real fast, seems like that might limit the way you contour the greens. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

Have you seen my greens?   

Yes, it is somewhat limiting, knowing that some superintendent can make our designs look stupid.  But, I've come to the conclusion that unless we make the greens flat and boring, the superintendent can always make them too fast for the contours, if he really wants to.  So I'm not going to be held hostage to that.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm pretty sure I heard Gil Hanse say that the greens at French Creek (2003) really shouldn't really stimp over 10-10.5 due to some of the contours.   

And they don't, and the greens play wonderfully.

Obviously, we don't fall prey to the goofy practice of posting the stimpmeter numbers.  Yes, they stimp them, but that's info for the staff.  The members couldn't care less - just keep them in decent shape and everybody's happy.

[David_Elvins]

Jim N:

Yours is the key question.

Here are a few of the possible suspects:

1.  Courses with inferior architecture (and flatter greens) can only compete with their superior neighbors by trying to get their courses in better shape, and people have bought into the idea that faster greens = better condition.

2.  The courses with superior architecture (and more sloped greens) don't like hearing that the greens are better across the street, so they bump up their green speeds in response, even if it doesn't play as well with the extra contours.

3.  Superintendents increase their stature (and eventually their salary) by getting greens fast.

4.  All the turf equipment companies keep making "better" machines that can cut the greens lower and keep them faster, and they want to sell that stuff.

5.  Everybody hears on TV every week how fast the greens are, particularly at the major championships.


The answer to your last question is no.  Once I leave the property, I can't control what the superintendent does.  At a recent project, the superintendent promised that he would never try to get the greens over 11 1/2 on the Stimpmeter -- and lately, with the owner's urging, he's been getting them well over that.

Tom,

You don't think that putter technology that makes it easier to control the speed of a putt is a valid reason for greens to be faster these days?

[Dan Herrmann]

David - how would putter technology help?  Hitting a putt of the toe of my ancient Anser sure kept the speed down if needed.  (in the interest of full disclosure, I've played with a Yes putter for the last 2 years)

[David_Elvins]

David - how would putter technology help?  Hitting a putt of the toe of my ancient Anser sure kept the speed down if needed.  (in the interest of full disclosure, I've played with a Yes putter for the last 2 years)

Dan, 
Distance control gets more difficult, the faster the green.  ie the difference between how hard you hit the ball for a 10 footer and 20 footer is much smaller on a fast green so the player needs more skill in hitting the ball at the right pace (or a putter that is better at hitting the ball at a consistent pace).  Compare the sweet spot on a putter from today with one from the golden age.  It is a lot easier to get consistent distance control with todays putters and as I said earlier, distance control is a skill accentuated by faster greens. 

[ChipOat]

Dan Boerger:

Alas, the best tee ball on the West Course's #5 is better off in the left rough than in the right 2/3 of the fairway.

So you have to figure out how to hit a hook around that big tree at the top of the hill.

Unlike many people that think #5 may be the best hole on either course, I disagree because I think the strategy of the tee shot is bass- akwards.  Why should the rough ever be a better place to be than the fairway?

Even if that big tree wasn't there, the left rough would still be the preferred place from which to hit the approach to the green.  Removing the tree would just make it easier to drive it there, in the first place.

[Anthony Fowler]

I understand the general sentiment here that classic era greens were designed for slower green speeds. (I think you would have been lucky to find greens stimping at 8 at the opening of Merion West.  I would guess they were more like 4's.)  Additionally, I understand that the desire for fast greens limits the architect in ways that he/she does not prefer.  However, I have to disagree with the majority on this site on this issue for 2 reasons.

1. Fast greens are fun to putt on.  This may sound simple minded, but is there a more important metric?  The members at Winged Foot (or Merion, Oakmont, Olympic, etc.) probably don't care that their greens weren't designed to run at 13.  They do however have a lot of fun putting and watching their guests struggle on their greens.  If that's what the members like and they are willing to pay for it, then that's what they should do.  The decision of green speed at these places should have nothing to do with what the architects want.

2. Fast, well-maintained greens are fairer and truer than slow, well-maintained greens.  Good putts stay on line and go in more often, and bad putts are penalized more often.  Fast greens generally reward good putters just like good golf holes generally reward good players.  On slow greens the margin for error is much larger and well struck putts go in the hole less often, normalizing good and bad putters.

The greens at Ballyneal are fun to putt on because of the wild contours, but they would be more fun if they were a little faster and rolled truer.  I mean no offense to Mr. Doak here (although he did open himself up to it by mentioning his own greens).

We have (hopefully) seen that playing countoured greens at fast speeds can be fun without becoming mini golf.  At Merion East there are certain hole locations where you just must leave yourself below the hole.  You simply have to know that and strategize accordingly.  There is nothing wrong with this IMO.

Some of the best greens have great contours but can still accommodate lightning speeds if that's what the members want, i.e. Prairie Dunes.

[Dan Boerger]

Chip - That's great advice. Since I made that initial post another member told me to just hit to the top of the hill (again, pretty perilous since the top of the hill slopes left to right). Count me as one who really loved this hole (particularly for the green site and the blind tee shot) but the more I think about the near impossible landing area the more think the fairway should extend further left and flatter. - Dan

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()