[Mike Hendren]

I grew up on slow bermuda greens and didn't mind the modest pace at Chambers Bay one bit.  Are we really golfing our balls on today's quick greens?  I love it when a player actually "hits" the ball with his putter on Shell's WWOG.

Bogey

[Bill_McBride]

My son and I played the old muni in Austin Saturday, Lions Golf Club, because there's a big effort to shut it down and build more Hook 'em Horns University of Texas buildings.

It's a nice old course, some interesting holes including the 16th that was allegedly a favorite of Hogan.

The greens had been punched a week earlier and were slow beyond belief, not to mention bumpy.  I expect slow is typical.

There is a happy medium. 

[Scott_Burroughs]

And all this time I thought it was "Hit it, Alliss"  (from Peter Alliss talking to himself after leaving a big putt short in the Open many moons ago).

I guess somewhere along the way, the original meaning morphed into a backhanded slap at women golfers.



Oh, and I don't have a problem with 'slow' greens, it's just that many of us aren't used to it, with today's modern speed race.  My old club had 'slow' greens by today's standards.

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

I believe your take on the origin of the term is correct -- it derives from when Peter Alliss had the yips.

[Dan Kelly]

Scott:

I believe your take on the origin of the term is correct -- it derives from when Peter Alliss had the yips.

Next time I know I've left one short, I'll cry out: "Hit it, you Peter!"

Or some other man's name.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike it all depends on the greens design and size to me. Chambers greens are too slow to me for their design and size. When Champions slows them down I feel the same way. However small and or undulating greens are great and mid pace speeds. How about that Vol staff D coaching down the strech against a basketball school the other night.

[Joe Hancock]

Dan Kelly, you've done it again!

[Anthony Fowler]

Michael, I do not agree with you and many others on this site who criticize high standards for green speeds. 

Most importantly, I think fast greens are fun to putt on.  The ball rolls truer, and good putts are rewarded and bad putts are penalized more often.  Fast, true greens better differentiate the good putter from the bad putter and offer excitement and challenge to every level of golfer.

A lot of people will say that I don't understand my history of classic courses, when the greens were running at about 4 on the non-existent stimp.  Oakmont, Winged Foot, Merion, etc. were not designed with modern speeds in mind, but aren't those greens a hell of a lot of fun to putt on?  Yes, they are challenging, and yes you cannot leave yourself in the wrong position on some of those greens, but that's all part of the fun, interest, and strategy.  Isn't this exactly what we're looking for?

Moreover, people on this site criticize Winged Foot, Merion, Oakmont, Augusta, Pine Valley etc. for fast greens when they fail to realize that this may be exactly what the members want.  If they like it and are willing to pay for it, then it's their business.  Some clubs may want a smooth 8 on their greens and that's fine too if that's what they want, but why criticize a course for having incredible green conditions?

So no, I do not like slow greens as much as fast greens (even very undulating greens like Ballyneal could handle a little speed) and no I don't think people playing fast greens are missing out on "golfing their ball."  If anything, people putting on slow greens are missing out on an entire level of skill and fun involved in putting on fast, challenging greens.

[Michael Dugger]

I think it's all about maintenance meld.

If you want balls to "dance about" the undulations; funnel towards pins or possibly be deflected from 'em, the turf speeds need to match the size and slope of the contours.

In regards to Chambers, I think they need to be quicker.  In comparison, they are A LOT slower than the freaking fairways, even, at Bandon Dunes, let alone greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

When Merion has to consider rebuilding two or three of their greens, because the slopes are too much for the speeds of today, do you STILL think they are right to keep making the greens faster?

The problem is that there is a relationship between slope and speed, and if members always want the greens a bit faster, they'll always reach the breaking point.

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, luckily the maintenance standard at Pasatiempo is now 9 or so for the green speed.  It's playing great at that speed.

[Steve Burrows]

I still remember my grandfathers putting stroke, which consisted of a pronounced wrist flip and a "pop" at the ball.  Like many professionals from early on, and even into the 1970's, this method was the best way to combat the slower speeds on those courses years ago.  Today's smoother, one-piece putting stroke was simply not going to force the ball on a proper line through the taller, "slower" grass. 

Interestingly, he kept that "pop," even after his modest club transitioned to a truer, faster, bent grass, and he was still a pretty good putter!

[Anthony Fowler]

Anthony:

When Merion has to consider rebuilding two or three of their greens, because the slopes are too much for the speeds of today, do you STILL think they are right to keep making the greens faster?

The problem is that there is a relationship between slope and speed, and if members always want the greens a bit faster, they'll always reach the breaking point.

Tom, this is a good point.  If I were a member at Merion (not that I would have any clout or say in the matter) I would strongly lobby against such actions.  With fast green speeds, those greens really are tricky.  If the pin is up front on 15 or if the pin is on the right side on 12 you absolutely cannot be above the hole.  On 12, you're better off in the bunker than putting at the cup from the middle of the green.  Is this ridiculous?  I don't think so.  The members know the challenges of those greens, which make those 2 holes so interesting and strategic.  Part of playing those holes is knowing where you can leave your second shot, and I think they are great and fair holes, even (especially) with fast greens.

I do think it is sad and a mistake if and when courses are dumbing down their greens to accommodate greater speeds.  If it was up to me I would keep the great greens they have AND run them at good (not ridiculous) speeds.  In the end, it is their course and they can do what they wish with it, but it would be a shame if they are substituting interesting greens for fast greens.  I think you can have both.

[Mike Hendren]

A playing partner commented the other day that the slick greens we were playing required the touch of a hair-dresser.   I find such putting effiminate.  There's nothing athletic about the endeavor at all. 

Perhaps Oakmont, not Augusta National  is the bane of golf course maintenance.

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Slow greens would:

Reduce maintenance costs
Reduce wear and tear
Permit smaller greens
Eliminate belly and long putters
Better defend par
Promote the ground game

Sure the ship has sailed, but it's off course.

Mike

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Greens at excessive speed are not fun to putt.

I like to make birdies and when the speeds go off the charts then a defensive stroke prevents me from trying to hit it to the back of the cup.   

We go at 10.5 at my home course.  Many complain they are too slow!  Never mind that they putt off the green at least once a round and the pinable areas shrink to nothing if the speeds get out of hand. 

One more point, slow doesn't need to mean bumpy. Good practices will still result in a nice smooth surface. 

[Rich Goodale]

The short soft putt in golf is like the drop shot in tennis or the sacrifice bunt in baseball, or the gentle forward kick in rugby.  True practitioners of any sport or game have both strength and finesse in their repertoire.

[Mike Hendren]

Farnsworth,

Nice point, but those are all tactical issues, none of which is dictated by the maintenance of the respective playing surfaces.

Bogey

[Anthony Fowler]

A playing partner commented the other day that the slick greens we were playing required the touch of a hair-dresser.   I find such putting effiminate.  There's nothing athletic about the endeavor at all. 

Perhaps Oakmont, not Augusta National  is the bane of golf course maintenance.

Mike

It's interesting that you have offered a gender connotation to a particular skill.  Is the goal of every golf shot to feel masculine and burn some calories?  Is there no place for touch?  I contend that there is much less skill involved in putting on slow greens.  It is much easier for everyone to get the speed right.  Is bowling with bumpers more athletic because you can just roll away and not think about whether it will go in the gutter?  I personally don't get any enjoyment from really whacking a putt, but I do get enjoyment when I judge a tricky downhill slider correctly.

Slow greens would:

Eliminate belly and long putters
Better defend par
Promote the ground game

Can you explain these 3?  I can't see how slower greens would accomplish any of these.  They might eliminate long putters by making putting easier for everyone, but is that a good thing?  They might defend par if the greens are bumpier or less consistent, but that is certainly not a good thing.  I'm totally lost on the ground game.

Greens at excessive speed are not fun to putt.

I like to make birdies and when the speeds go off the charts then a defensive stroke prevents me from trying to hit it to the back of the cup.   

We go at 10.5 at my home course.  Many complain they are too slow!  Never mind that they putt off the green at least once a round and the pinable areas shrink to nothing if the speeds get out of hand. 

One more point, slow doesn't need to mean bumpy. Good practices will still result in a nice smooth surface. 

Why does easy = fun for you? Isn't it fun to take on a new challenge, work on your putting stroke, develop better touch, have to really think you way around the greens, etc. ?

[Jordan Caron]

I love fast greens because I like to "stroke" putts and not "hit" them.  We had our Men's Pro-AM last week and the greens were rolling 11.5 in the morning and I don't think I had seen the greens here this good.  Truly a joy to putt on and I didn't hear one negative peep from any of our members regarding the speed.

With that being said I didn't mind the speed at Chambers but I don't think I could play on greens that slow more then a dozen times a year.  Hence why I don't play winter golf!

[Michael]

I think this just falls under the "play the course as you find it"...fast greens ...slow greens...that is the attraction of playing different courses to me at least

[Rich Goodale]

Farnsworth,

Nice point, but those are all tactical issues, none of which is dictated by the maintenance of the respective playing surfaces.

Bogey

R. M. Jethro Clampett H.(I assume those are your two middle names)

The point is how the maintenance of the surface relates to how game is played.  If you have grounds that stimp low, you make the drop shot a no brainer, the suicide squeeze impossible and the little up and under in rugby trivial to defend.  Slow greens are just a slog which eliminate finesse and technique, no matter how how interesting you design them.

RFG

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()