[Patrick_Mucci]

the club.

Yesterday's event at Mountain Ridge resulted in discussions about greens, green speeds, rough, wide fairways and other factors affecting play.

Mountain Ridge's greens have more than ample contouring and slope and are maintained as very fast greens for every day play.
The members enjoy and/or crave those conditions.

It was mentioned that the members of Oakmont also enjoy and crave those same conditions.

Yet, if you took Oakmont's and Mountain Ridge's greens and imported them to other clubs, I doubt their high speeds would be embraced, let alone tolerated.  And, I doubt their difficult roughs would be allowed to survive.

I know of clubs where the membership would scream to the point of revolt if their greens were maintained as fast and firm as Oakmont's and Mountain Ridge's

Why is that ?

Is it because fast to very fast greens are a departure from what they're used to ?
Because people naturally resist change ?

How do golfing cultures evolve and sustain themselves ?

As water becomes more expensive, will cultures evovle to the point where they reject green and lush and embrace fast and firm  in their greens and fairways.

What forces serve to shape and form club cultures, in their golf courses and clubhouses ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

your first two questions are the same one really. People do naturally resist change, prefering to stick with what they know. Is fast better would be a good question. Does it require more skill to play fast greens that are flatter due to the need to create pin positions or greens that are slower but with more movement?

How do golfing cultures evolve and sustain themselves ? Don't know. Who cares?

Fast and firm are usually slower than you can achieve with water, low height of cuts, etc. but I think those that can afford it will stay as they are and the rest will have to go with the flow.

Leading figures and committee members shape and form club cultures, in their golf courses and clubhouses.

I am sure the questions you raise require/deserve fuller answers but I will leave that to others.

Jon

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

You are right, clubs with really fast greens have accepted fast greens as part of their culture, especially OLD clubs like Oakmont and Mountain Ridge with a very large number of sons and grandsons...they grew up in that culture. They take pride in being able to putt the greens and smirk when their guests can't

But let's not try to say that MR's maintenance practices were developed to save money...I doubt any expense is spared to maintain those conditions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You are right, clubs with really fast greens have accepted fast greens as part of their culture, especially OLD clubs like Oakmont and Mountain Ridge with a very large number of sons and grandsons...they grew up in that culture. They take pride in being able to putt the greens and smirk when their guests can't

Sadly, with costs increasing dramatically, many clubs see fewer and fewer young derivitives joining, which is unfortunate.

But let's not try to say that MR's maintenance practices were developed to save money...I doubt any expense is spared to maintain those conditions.

Bill, I never said that MR"s maintainance practices were developed to save money.
Where did you get that wild idea from ?

[Bill Brightly]

You suggested that as water gets more expensive, clubs might accept fast and firm. I am not convinced that the two are related in the northeast...and I suspect you cant have GOOD fast and firm conditions, without a large budget.

[JNC Lyon]

You suggested that as water gets more expensive, clubs might accept fast and firm. I am not convinced that the two are related in the northeast...and I suspect you cant have GOOD fast and firm conditions, without a large budget.

It depends on the definition of "Good."  If good means greens stimping at 13, then you will need a large budget.  If you raise mowing heights a bit but keep greens putting true, then things might change.

Also, I think firm and fast implies some sort of imperfection.  The courses that are perfectly manicured usually are not firm and fast.  Part of getting the good firm conditions that you see overseas means accepting that there will be bare patches here and there.  For me, that does not take away from the fun.

I don't know enough about golf course maintenance to comment specifically on the costs of firm and fast conditions.  However, there has to be to keep things firm and fast without breaking the bank.  After all, courses were without sprinkler systems until the 1930s.

[Phil_the_Author]

In my opinion, the first thing it takes is a membership that is golf oriented and who love the game. The San Francisco Golf Club is also another like the two mentioned. They want their greens very fast for day-to-day member play and the members love the challenge it presents to them.

[Tim Gavrich]

In the tournament my team just played in, one of my groupmates mentioned playing in the PA Open a couple of years ago when the Oakmont greens were, as he said, "Rolling 16.5 on the stimp."  Now, I don't know how true that is, but supposing it was, does that seem a bit unreasonable?  Oakmont, I know, is legendary for the amount of slope in their greens, so wouldn't 16.5-stimp greens eliminate a lot of interesting pin positions and just make for such difficult putting as to pose a pace of play issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LDhbyZPl9M
Is the green speed depicted in the above video reasonable?  Do greens need to be that fast, regardless of what the membership wants (or thinks it wants)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You suggested that as water gets more expensive, clubs might accept fast and firm.


That's in the FUTURE, not in the past.

Clubs might HAVE to accept fast and firm if the cost and regulations become prohibitive.

I don't think they'll have a choice, especially as clubs find themselves in financial distress.

I've already noticed many clubs letting the "off areas" revert to natural conditions, without benefit of irrigation.
This will occur more and more as the financial squeeze continues.

I am not convinced that the two are related in the northeast...and I suspect you cant have GOOD fast and firm conditions, without a large budget.

I would disagree with that.
Certainly the transition might require additional budget expense, but, with the cost of water increasing dramatically, it's only a matter of time where Fast & Firm will be cheaper to maintain than lush and green.

Clubs in areas where water is becoming more precious are finding out that water is becoming and will continue to become more expensive.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the tournament my team just played in, one of my groupmates mentioned playing in the PA Open a couple of years ago when the Oakmont greens were, as he said, "Rolling 16.5 on the stimp."  

Tim, your groupmate was incorrect.  Greenspeeds of 16.5 would be impossible at Oakmont.

See Arthur Weber's study on slope and greenspeeds.
At at stimp speed of 13, on a 4 degree slope, a ball will NOT stop rolling.
At 16.5, that occurs on a slope of 2 degrees or less.
But, it makes for nice folklore.


Now, I don't know how true that is, but supposing it was, does that seem a bit unreasonable?  Oakmont, I know, is legendary for the amount of slope in their greens, so wouldn't 16.5-stimp greens eliminate a lot of interesting pin positions and just make for such difficult putting as to pose a pace of play issue?

It would require hole locations in the bunkers or fronting fairways.
It's FICTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LDhbyZPl9M
Is the green speed depicted in the above video reasonable?  Do greens need to be that fast, regardless of what the membership wants (or thinks it wants)?

[Bill Brightly]

Jon,

I know you just got back from th UK where you probably saw fast and firm conditions on courses that were not perfectly manicured... Mountain Ridge and Oakmont have BOTH, including state of the art irrigation systems and plenty of budget for hand watering and chemicals.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon & Bill,

I think, as Brad Klein, Ron Prichard and Mike Davis pointed out, soil, grass and climatic conditions are dramatically different from those in the US, thus comparisons can't reasonably be made.

[Tim Gavrich]

In the tournament my team just played in, one of my groupmates mentioned playing in the PA Open a couple of years ago when the Oakmont greens were, as he said, "Rolling 16.5 on the stimp."  

Tim, your groupmate was incorrect.  Greenspeeds of 16.5 would be impossible at Oakmont.

See Arthur Weber's study on slope and greenspeeds.
At at stimp speed of 13, on a 4 degree slope, a ball will NOT stop rolling.
At 16.5, that occurs on a slope of 2 degrees or less.
But, it makes for nice folklore.


Now, I don't know how true that is, but supposing it was, does that seem a bit unreasonable?  Oakmont, I know, is legendary for the amount of slope in their greens, so wouldn't 16.5-stimp greens eliminate a lot of interesting pin positions and just make for such difficult putting as to pose a pace of play issue?

It would require hole locations in the bunkers or fronting fairways.
It's FICTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LDhbyZPl9M
Is the green speed depicted in the above video reasonable?  Do greens need to be that fast, regardless of what the membership wants (or thinks it wants)?

Patrick--

Thank you for the reply; I had a feeling this guy was exaggerating.

Now, this raises some more interesting issues.  I have never played Oakmont or Mountain Ridge, your two exemplar courses for this discussion.  If the maintenance staffs at both courses ratcheted back the greens by two feet on the stimpmeter, would...

A: ...there be blood in the streets and calls for the sacking of the Superintendent?
B: ...a bunch of previously unreasonable pin positions open up for use and the membership embrace them?
C: ...a bunch of previously unreasonable pin positions open up for use and the membership not care and wish to go back to the old, faster speeds?
D: ...the potential variety of pin positions wouldn't really change and the club would go back to the faster speeds?

If [C], does this imply a flaw in the membership's perspective on the preparation of the putting surfaces?

Would Mountain Ridge and/or Oakmont become less interesting if the green speeds were to decrease by about two feet on the stimpmeter?

Also, what do you (and anyone else who's interested in this thread, and the same goes for all the questions I'm asking) make of the situation that plays out in the Youtube video whose link I posted?

I would hazard a guess that I have played more than 95% of my lifetime rounds of golf on greens that would roll less than 10 on the stimpmeter, so I am definitely a luddite when it comes to higher-speed greens.  I relish every opportunity I have to putt on faster greens, but there have been a couple times in tournaments where those who set the pin positions have gotten a little overzealous.

Cheers.

--Tim

[JNC Lyon]

Pat and Bill,

Yes, but can't you see conditions that are less meticulous than Mountain Ridge that are still considered good conditions?  Mountain Ridge seems to be the ultimate conditioning that clubs outside of the NYC area don't have the budget to reach.  However, they can still get to firm and fast on a budget while being imperfect.

My point is: maintenance will be less expensive if it is less meticulous, firm and fast or not.  Why not make it firm and fast and less meticulous to cut costs?  You don't need state of the art irrigation to do that.

Pat, the UK courses are a model for that.  Yes, the soil and grass conditions are not comparable.  However, the general feel and attitude of those places--that the courses are still fun if some blades of grass are out of play--is still applicable in the States.

I guess this is about changing PERCEPTION in the United States.  Ron Prichard said that we have maintain classic architecture while allowing for modern maintenance practices. Why not roll back the maintenance practices as well if they can save costs?  Shut off the sprinklers every few days, raise mowing heights, let the roughs grow as native grass.  If this approach was sold correctly as "a return to the Golden Age style of golf," then some clubs would buy it.  Courses would be less expensive and would be just as, if not more, fun to play.

[David_Tepper]

"As water becomes more expensive, will cultures evovle to the point where they reject green and lush and embrace fast and firm  in their greens and fairways."

Pat -

I do not believe that the concept of "fast & firm," in regards to the overall condition of a golf course, necessarily implies or leads to fast green speeds. Based on the sizable amount of links golf I have played, greens on links courses can be very firm with regards to accepting or holding an aerial shot but still putt at modest speeds. That is usually the case on British Open courses.

Conversely, I have played U.S. courses where the greens are much softer in regards to accepting a lofted shot, yet those greens putt at much faster speeds. In certainly seems like many U.S. courses, as presented in PGA Tour events, fall into this category.

My guess is that maintaining fast green speeds is much more labor intensive (i.e. expensive) than maintaining greens at modest speeds. The cost of water is likely a lesser expense..

DT   

[John Moore II]

i think the simple answer here is that the vast majority of golfers want courses set up easy. they say they want the greens running fast and such but when you really give it to them they complain. golfers in general don't like hard courses because it causes them to shoot too high a score and their ego takes a hit. turf conditions and the rest are just secondary to the fact that, outside of a few select clubs, most golfers simply don't enjoy playing a difficult golf course all the time (heck anytime for that matter)

[David_Tepper]

"i think the simple answer here is that the vast majority of golfers want courses set up easy."

John Moore -

I am not sure if I can agree with you on that. If that really was the case, why do so many golfers play from the black or blue tees when they really should be playing from the whites?

It seems to me that one way to add another 15-20 minutes to a round of golf is to increase green speeds to stimps well above 10. Do you really want to create conditions that will induce more 3- and 4-putt greens?

DT   

[Carl Rogers]

What is meant by a difficult golf course? an unplayable golf course?

10 yard wide fairways w/ no bale out areas between water hazards and 6 foot deep bunkers?

260 yard carries off the tees?

8" deep rough?

These represent the borerline of unplayability and that contribute to the 6 hour round.

I am coming to agree with part of the golfing public that does not want to make the game a torture.  There are reasons why the number of rounds are down and number of people playing are down.

[William_G]

Interesting topic...

I like fast greens and I think most at our club do as well.

The fun of watching your putt trickle and turn like Augusta is magical.

The speed and smothness of our greens has massively improved since the advent of soft spikes as we are a poa club.

Everybody has a different opinion on difficulty and speed of play.

 Of course no one is in favor of a unplayable course, but as much of our recreational golf is match play, an occcasional tough hole location is fun too. 

Thanks

[GBoring]

Pat,

You bring up a good point.  When I arrived at my club three years ago the membership was used to seeing speeds increased for tournaments but on a day to day basis speeds were very conservative.   We have changed our phillosphy on trying in increase our green speeds for everyday play and our membership has embraced it.  We try to maintain greens between 11-11.5 on a daily basis.  For tournaments we exceed 12-13.  Our membership has accepted this as our standard of maintenance.  We had a Local Golf Association Event here on Saturday with greens rolling at 13.5.  Our members who played in the event had no problems dealing with the speeds.  However, the participants from the other local clubs struggled on the greens and many voiced that they didnt care for the set-up of the golf course.  Our greens are extremely contoured but are large enough to give us an ample amount of hole locations.  I even here comments from our higher handicap members when greens are 10.5-11 that the greens are a little slow today.  I believe that members adjust to the conditions that they are presented on a day to day basis.  Members at Oakmont have putted those greens for years and don't even give a second thought about how fast those greens are.  That is what is normal for them. 

Good to hear you had a great day at Mountain Ridge.  I had the chance to play there a few times when I worked at Preakness.  I always felt the course was underrated.

[David_Tepper]

Greg Boring -

I am curious as to whether there has been any increased expense (in terms of man hours, equipment, etc.) incurred in maintaining the greens at your club at higher green speeds on a regular basis.

It would also be interesting to know how you managed your greens during the hostile weather conditions you likely experienced this summer.

DT

[GBoring]

David,

The increase in green speeds have definatly had an impact on our budget.  The Board at my club knew this before they hired me.  I informed them of this during the interview process.  We double cut green 6 days a week.  Roll 5 days a week.  And strictly handwater the putting surfaces.  This all takes a significant amount of labor and our club has embraced these standards.  This summer was even more stressful for the golf course and the budget.  We were one of the lucky ones that didnt get a lot of rain, which allowed us to control the water.  We installed drainage in all of our greens last Fall.  All trees that have any negative impact on the growing environments around the greens have been removed in the last 6 years.  We had a very stressful week in early July where we had to back off our normal maintenance practices.  We communicated this to the membership and I never heard a complaint.  Once the stress subsided a little we went back to our normal standards.  One thing we did when I came here was developed a Golf Course Standards Document.  This documents was adopted by the Board and states our goals for the golf course on a day to day basis.  Basically the budget cannot be changed without lowering our standards.

[David_Tepper]

Greg B. -

Thanks for your candid and thorough response.

I guess my (rhetorical) question at this point is, how many golf clubs are in a position to afford the more intensive (& more expensive) grooming regimen that faster green speeds require?

DT

[John Moore II]

"i think the simple answer here is that the vast majority of golfers want courses set up easy."

John Moore -

I am not sure if I can agree with you on that. If that really was the case, why do so many golfers play from the black or blue tees when they really should be playing from the whites?

It seems to me that one way to add another 15-20 minutes to a round of golf is to increase green speeds to stimps well above 10. Do you really want to create conditions that will induce more 3- and 4-putt greens?

DT   

That is different. People don't get yardage all that well. I rarely hear people complain that the golf course is too long or whatever. I do hear quite often that the greens are too fast, or too hard, or fairways are too hard, etc. One time, I really thought that I liked super fast greens, then I played a US Am qualifier where they had the greens running 13+ and I got a real shock. People simply don't realize what kind of speeds and firmness they are asking for. You give me Hoylake fairways with Oakmont greens (both contour and speed) here in America and the people playing there would revolt, in about 95% of all cases. Yardage is about ego, people can brag that they shot XX on a 7300 yard course. They can't brag that they shot XX+10 on a 6300 yard course with brick hard greens running 13 feet.

Even is super fast, super firm green conditions could be had for a low cost, 95% of all golfers (when not playing a 'top 100' course) would simply not stand for those conditions at their courses for daily play, either public or private courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thank you for the reply; I had a feeling this guy was exaggerating.

Now, this raises some more interesting issues.  I have never played Oakmont or Mountain Ridge, your two exemplar courses for this discussion.  If the maintenance staffs at both courses ratcheted back the greens by two feet on the stimpmeter, would...

A: ...there be blood in the streets and calls for the sacking of the Superintendent?

That wouldn't happen because the culture of the club, what the members want and the superintendent provides, is fast greens and fairways.  And in that regard, they're in perfect harmony.

B: ...a bunch of previously unreasonable pin positions open up for use and the membership embrace them?

I don't think that's the case at either club.
You might acquire some hole locations on some mild slopes, but, nothing of note

C: ...a bunch of previously unreasonable pin positions open up for use and the membership not care and wish to go back to the old, faster speeds?

I don't see that happening.
There aren't that many hole locations not available for pinning today
You have to understand that the greens at Mountain Ridge are very large.
And as such, other than on steeper slopes, there aren't that many cupping locations lost due to increased speeds.
Just ask the guys that played there.
I'd say the greens were at least at 12.

D: ...the potential variety of pin positions wouldn't really change and the club would go back to the faster speeds?

Neither Mountain Ridge or Oakmont are going to dial down their green speeds.
The green speeds work exceptionally well.
And, what you and others forget is that those green speeds allow the golfer to roll his ball on the fairway, up onto the green and back to the hole locations for the day.

With slow greens, that's harder to do

If [C], does this imply a flaw in the membership's perspective on the preparation of the putting surfaces?

NO

Would Mountain Ridge and/or Oakmont become less interesting if the green speeds were to decrease by about two feet on the stimpmeter?

Yes

Also, what do you (and anyone else who's interested in this thread, and the same goes for all the questions I'm asking) make of the situation that plays out in the Youtube video whose link I posted?

I would hazard a guess that I have played more than 95% of my lifetime rounds of golf on greens that would roll less than 10 on the stimpmeter, so I am definitely a luddite when it comes to higher-speed greens.  I relish every opportunity I have to putt on faster greens, but there have been a couple times in tournaments where those who set the pin positions have gotten a little overzealous.
I think most of us have experienced that, but, it's usually at courses not used to those speeds.
At MRCC and Oakmont, those are typical speeds



-

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()