[Dean Stokes]

I just returned from playing a member guest at a private club in Jacksonville.The course was in great shape. The greens were pretty much perfect, plenty of grass on them if maybe just a little grainy; stimping at 9 on Friday and 10 on Saturday.

Everybody seemed to have a good time and the only complaints I heard all weekend were about the speed of the greens. "Too slow" was the cry and I heard it regularly.

Now did I think they were too slow? Maybe. I do prefer fast greens. I have to wonder if this is becoming too much of an issue especially at private clubs? The pressure to have 'tour' speed greens everyday has to weigh heavily on the Supers. and without massive budgets has to be almost unattainable.

Any thoughts?

[Brent Hutto]

My number one preference in any golf course is firm and dry fairways. I don't care what shape the bunkers are or what color sand they use and I don't care how well-groomed the rough or how vivid the color of the grasses. But number two behind that is smooth, fast greens. So yes, I think if you're paying a bunch of money to enter a member-guest thingy at a high-end club which is presumably in the best conditions possible then slow and grainy greens are a reasonable expectation. Unless the contours of the greens are too great to support fast green speeds (which is fun in its own right, I love swoopy greens) then the game is more fun on fast greens. What were the green contours like on this course you're describing?

[Phil McDade]

Dean:

Maybe it's just this year, when Wisconsin has seen a pretty wet spring, but I just can't get over how slow greens have become nearly every place I play, and I get around alot (admittedly, not to too many privates, the point of your post). I played a course recently that could've been pretty darn good, but was held back soley because of green speeds (the greens were in terrific shape, by the way -- some of the best-conditioned greens I've seen in several years). Greens seem to be slow at the daily-fees I play, the munis I frequent often, and even places with solid reputations like Lawsonia, where I'd argue green speeds have slowed noticeably in recent years. I'm not sure what the reason is -- maintenance budgets (I'm guessing that's a pretty big factor these days), complaints from regulars, fear of being labeled "too fast" and thus turning away potential customers.

[Dean Stokes]

The greens at the course we played does have considerable undulations but would certainly be puttable at 11 or 12 on the stimp.

I guess one of my thoughts on this subject is that maybe we have all become perhaps a little spoiled with our expectations of course conditioning due to the tour and the 'high end' privates.

There was nothing at all wrong with the greens this weekend and they were definitely the same for everyone. Should we not just show up, shut up and play the course as we find it

[Joe Hancock]

The bigger the greens, the bigger the issue?

Joe

[Dean Stokes]

The bigger the greens, the bigger the issue?

Joe

Any particular reason Joe? I don't really understand your question. Thanks.

[Joe Hancock]

Dean,

I'm just thinking on very large greens, it's almost a necessity to have a decent speed on the greens to keep some of the interest and intent on the radar.

Joe

[Scott Henderson]

While fast greens are great, I think that it is much more important that the greens be consistant.  If one green is quick and the next green is slow, or (even more frustrating) if one part of a green is fast and another slow, that is when I get upset with the conditions.

[Dean Stokes]

Do you not think it is harder though to putt on big greens when they are slower? I certainly found it tough this weekend on slower greens to judge the pace and line. I almost felt like I had to 'hit' it rather than stroke it. There was obviously players stryggling more than myself judging by the mumblings.

[Ben Sims]

I will try to add some "big picture" outlook to the thread.  Over the past 45 days or so, I've been fortunate enough to play some great courses and some really bad courses.  Lets just say they run the range from Pac Dunes and Pasatiempo to "pick your muni".  

Pasa was fast and still fun, the course here on base at Randolph AFB has slow and grainy greens.  But I liked putting on the greens at Randolph better than at Pasa.  Why?  It's undulation matched its speed.  I really think Pasatiempo's greens were too fast for their contouring.  I say this knowing full well that Pasa is one of my top three courses I've ever played.

My point is that--no matter what the stimp is rolling--fast greens should be in line with their contouring.  Nothing is worse than slow, flat greens. But "Shinnecock in 2004" fast greens with big contours is almost as bad.  

[Matt Day]

my home course (Joondalup CC) is a Trent Jones JR design that has massive greens with some failry bold contouring. The largest is nearly 1400 square metres so speed of greens is important.

Played yesterday in perfect weather with the greens probably 2 feet quicker than normal and interstingly the course rating was three shots harder than a normal Sunday competition. I dont know if this was green speed alone, but a lot of guys struggled.

Would hazard a guess that it was around 10-11 feet, any faster and putting would have become a tad tricky

[Sean_A]

To me, firm greens stimping 9ish are about as good a setup as one could wish for.  Speed of greens isn't so different from which tees to play.  Meaning, very few folks have any business stepping back beyond 6600ish yards and very few folks have any business wanting greens in double digits.  Not that many guys are good enough for either of these rules to be broken on anything like a daily basis.  In other words, if the course is good, its a waste of money to keep greens in double digits or tees beyond 6600ish except for special events.  But, so long as the Pro V is one of the top selling balls, I guess we can expect golfers to want 7000 yard courses with greens stimping 12.  Afterall, its what they are told is ideal.

Ciao

[Pat Burke]

my home course (Joondalup CC) is a Trent Jones JR design that has massive greens with some failry bold contouring. The largest is nearly 1400 square metres so speed of greens is important.

Played yesterday in perfect weather with the greens probably 2 feet quicker than normal and interstingly the course rating was three shots harder than a normal Sunday competition. I dont know if this was green speed alone, but a lot of guys struggled.

Would hazard a guess that it was around 10-11 feet, any faster and putting would have become a tad tricky

Greens as severe as Joondalup  certainly can border on unplayable if too quick.  I set a personal high there in a 4 round tournament with something like 11 or 13, 3 putts    Had to "lay up on the quarry green when I hit it back left with a front right pin.  Never had to lay up on a putt before that!
But to the point of this thread, the art is to find the speed that makes the greens reasonably fair while still challenging the golfing brain.
Have many of the architects in GCA recommended a green speed range, but had it somewhat ignored?

[Matt Day]

my home course (Joondalup CC) is a Trent Jones JR design that has massive greens with some failry bold contouring. The largest is nearly 1400 square metres so speed of greens is important.

Played yesterday in perfect weather with the greens probably 2 feet quicker than normal and interstingly the course rating was three shots harder than a normal Sunday competition. I dont know if this was green speed alone, but a lot of guys struggled.

Would hazard a guess that it was around 10-11 feet, any faster and putting would have become a tad tricky

Greens as severe as Joondalup  certainly can border on unplayable if too quick.  I set a personal high there in a 4 round tournament with something like 11 or 13, 3 putts    Had to "lay up on the quarry green when I hit it back left with a front right pin.  Never had to lay up on a putt before that!
But to the point of this thread, the art is to find the speed that makes the greens reasonably fair while still challenging the golfing brain.
Have many of the architects in GCA recommended a green speed range, but had it somewhat ignored?

Pat
they changed at least two greens after that tournament, based on your putting experiences alone 

specifying a green speed range is an interesting concept...how many supers would use a stipmeter on a regular basis?

[Tom_Doak]

Dean:

If the greens on the weekend were really 10 on the Stimpmeter, and everyone thought they were too slow ... then golf is in big trouble.

[Mark Luckhardt]

I would seem that most comments on favourable conditions are coming from clubs with newer sand greens, and have fantastic green speeds for this time of year, while other comments are coming in on the side of cold, wet springs. This is most impactful on clubs with soil greens designed, built in the early 1900's, and are in the more northern zones.

Older, soil greens were initially designed to be wet, and hold water, so as to trap moisture for retainage later in dryer periods of the growing season.

If it really is all about consistency on the putting surface, then the consistency should begin in the foundation, and or subsoils with moisture control.

[Rick Sides]

I agree with Ben.  I think the green speeds have to match the undulations.  If you have a course with a lot of undulations, then 10 is a good speed.  If you take the same course with a lot of undulations and make the greens an 11 or 12, then you are in for a long day putting.  I think in recent years, too much emphasis is placed on the stimpmeter.  The same course can have different greens stimping at different speeds  on the same day.  A courses' greens can also change during the day based on variable things like wind, moisture, humidity, etc.

[Pat Burke]

[
Pat
they changed at least two greens after that tournament, based on your putting experiences alone 

specifying a green speed range is an interesting concept...how many supers would use a stipmeter on a regular basis?
[/quote]

I f I hadn't run out of money at that tournament, I may have paid for som "modifications"!

[Damon Groves]

I definitely prefer firm and fast conditions and greens on the quicker side but green speed depends a lot on the contours of the greens. At Ballyneal the greens are not exceedingly fast but given the contours of the greens they do not need to be fast and are a ton of fun. As a cost issue clearly it seems easier to keep greens on the slower side which is what they were until recently. It seems to make sense to design a course with firm and fast fairways (meaning they do not have to be so super green) and with greens with a lot of contours that can be kept at a slower speed. Makes for fun and cost effective golf and much more in the spirit of golfs origins.

[PCCraig]

I could honestly care less how fast a green is, I do care if they are rolling smooth.

[Carl Rogers]

At Riverfront the green slopes are severe and pronounced and thus the speed issue is one of too fast.  The maintenance crew from the prodding of management periodically gets them too fast and basically unplayable, probably a 9 (yes the slopes are that severe).  I would like to see an effort to make them consistent throughout the year, so the player can develop a better feel and read for green speeds on very difficult greens.

[Randy Thompson]

Keep the grain out and keep them true and smooth and 9 is great for day to day play and 10 for tournaments and maybe 11 for the club championship. Generally speaking of course.

[C. Squier]

Dean:

If the greens on the weekend were really 10 on the Stimpmeter, and everyone thought they were too slow ... then golf is in big trouble.

A 10 on the Stimpmeter is like a 300 yard drive.  Everyone thinks they can do it, but they're much rarer than we think.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()