[Matthew Mollica]

I'm not talking about super soft greens either. Keep them firm, but on the slower side.

Would it be so bad?

Would you like to see it, and would the pros like it?

Would it bring more players into the frame? Perhaps placing less of a premium on putting?

Interested in your thoughts.

MM

[CJ Carder]

Would that be fast enough to really take advantage of them being reasonably firm?  By that I mean, if a player hits the ball in the rough, other than decreased contact possibilities, what penalty does he face in approaching the green?  Currently, as we saw today at Ridgewood, you miss a fairway, and you've got little chance of keeping the ball on the green. 

I think to make it a 'major' atmosphere, you'd have to compensate somehow with the challenges on the rest of the course.  Any ideas on how to do that?

[Matthew Mollica]

CJ, I think it would be.

Shouldn't there be some possibility of finding a green in reg despite missing the fairway?

I suppose a well designed course, with angled greens, and appropriately cut pins, rewards approaches from the correct side of the fairway, and to some extent, penalises them when played either from rough, or the wrong part of a fairway.

Reading the talk of Oakland Hills, and discussing today's propensity for big tournament set-ups to look upon green stimps of 13 as standard, I am curious as to how slower greens would be viewed.

MM

[Anthony Fowler]

I seem to remember that Hoylake's greens were under 10.  I personally don't think this was a selling point for the Open that year.

I do think this would remove the premium on putting, and I think this is a bad thing.  The other weeks can experiments with this, but the majors are supposed to be the stiffest test of a players full game, and fast greens that put their putting to the test are an important part.  So no, I personally would not like to see this.  The reason majors are special is that the conditions are the most challenging and all weaknesses are exposed.  Challenging, fast greens are almost essential for doing this well.

[John Moore II]

It depends on what the greens in general look like. At Pinehurst #2, you could run the greens at 10 and have them brick hard and it be real fun. If the course has more flat greens and you grow rough right up to the collar, they simply have to be fast, otherwise, players will shoot 25 under. But run semi-undulated greens at 10 and have the fringes cut at 1/4" or less so the ball will run off and into odd places, it would be very interesting.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Greens stimping sub 10 must happen quite a bit during wet week tounaments, I guess the stats will answer your  questions. If its a major I dont suppose the reasoning would change much.

[Sean_A]

I don't think there is much reason to go over 10 on the stimp for any event.  The result is to encourage building less interesting greens and altering good greens to accomodate speed.  Somewhere along the line, folks started to equate speed with good.  Good is creative greens that roll truly.  If you can keep them at 9-10 its a bonus.

Ciao

[Matthew Mollica]

Somewhere along the line, folks started to equate speed with good.  Good is creative greens that roll truly.  If you can keep them at 9-10 its a bonus.

Great statement Sean. I feel the same thing. I wonder if we were unable to make greens that fast these days, what our greens would look like. Something like the slower fescue greens at Barnbougle perhaps?

MM

[Mark_F]

Something like the slower fescue greens at Barnbougle perhaps?

Or better still the Himalayas?

Matt, do you really think Barnbougle's greens are that good overall?  Whilst no one can deny the excellence of several, I feel the whole lot of them gets boosted by a few good ones.

National Moonah has several that are excellent in their own right, albeit not one that is as good as Barnbougle 13, and I don't hear a chorus for National Moonah greens to be setting a new standard.

[Joe Hancock]

Didn't pretty much all majors stimp at less than 10 before, say, the '70's?

How did those old guys ever provide an interesting tournament for us, the spectators?

Joe

[Ronald Montesano]

The way I see it, the more putts they make equals less time spent on the course.  If they're banging them in from all over the place, what a great example to set for golf courses everywhere.

As a teacher, is it my goal to make tests so demanding that students stress more and take beyond the allowable time period to finish?  No.  Therefore, why should we exact the same toll from our golf greens.  I realize that we are speaking of the four most demanding tests in the world, but I still like the idea.

You'll need some Travis or MacKenzie greens to pull this off, I imagine.  Something with some teeth, too, so they're not hitting wedge after wedge into the greens.

[Chris Cupit]

According to "Golf at Merion" for the 1981 U.S. Open, "When the Open started, the greens were measured with the Stimpmeter device...They measured 8.6 feet."

The book does describe heartache at the greens being under a 10 and many predicted very low scores for the week.  Instead it was a fine championship with David Graham shooting a near flawless 67 on the final day for a 273 total and the championship.

[Bill_McBride]

I seem to remember that Hoylake's greens were under 10.  I personally don't think this was a selling point for the Open that year.

The fairways were faster than the greens!

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Could actually happen at Chambers Bay in 2015.  As the Amateur ends today, we look forward to the AM Cahmbers Bay in 2010.  That should be a big test for the slow fescue!

[Chris Kane]

The fairways were faster than the greens!

Had the greens been as fast as the fairways, the course would have been unplayable!

[jeffwarne]

FIRM greens stimping under 10 would be easier to acheive agronomically as it would be lesss stressful on the grass.
More interesting pin placements could be used instead of the near flat ones demanded by greens above 12.
Firmer greens would make approaching from the rough more difficult as it's not the speed of the green that repels shots from the rough, but rather the firmness. The speed of a green would only save ball from rolling say six feet less on a 36 foot roll, but the firmness could make the ball bounce over without any roll so the speed wouldn't matter.

In the long run, if green speeds were found to be appropriate again under 10, more interesting greens and contours could be built again, forcing the player to actually seek an angle with his tee shots.
Also, with MORE slope and slower greens, there is more variance in speed between an uphill and a downhill putt, requiring MORE skill, so I think better putters would actually benefit or at worst , see no change.

[Mike_Clayton]

Matt,

I would guess the Open Championship greens are rarely more than 10. Certainly they are never fast - if the measure of fast is Kingston Heath or Royal Melbourne

[JESII]

I think 10 feet can be fine so long as the greens are firm.

In my opinion, 10 feet stimp will impact chipping more than putting.

Scores would likely be lower, but not dramaticly.

[Mark Chaplin]

It is my understanding the R&A look for greens running at 10.5 for the first day of their championships. Certainly on links greens there is a favoured policy of less water and chemicals producing finer fescues which need to be cut no less than around 4.5mm. The fine blades of grass will produce a fast and true surface without stressing the grass.

A smooth, true roll is as important as pace on a natural links green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()