[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat and John,

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.

Jonathan,

I don't think you understand the process necessary to achieve firm and fast.

It's NOT simply turning down the water.

It's a long and expensive transition.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Carl,

Could you cite just FIVE courses that have all of the above conditions for everyday play ?

I can't think of one

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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.

How can you compare oceanside sand based courses to inland clay based 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..

What do you consider modest speeds and what do you consider fast speeds ?

Water is getting expensive, especially in the South

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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?

David,

We played in the rain, as a sixsome, on wild greens putting at 12 or higher and we did it in a little less than 4 hours.

Fast Greens don't slow down golfers, golfers slow down golfers

DT   

[John Moore II]

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)?

Tim-I think a lot might be left out of that video. If that putt was fairly downhill then all bets are off. I mean, if the green is running 13 or so, and then add in a 2 or 3 degree slope, you're talking about pool table speeds, if not faster. The thing is, with faster greens the approach shot is better tested as well because you really need to be below the hole, much more so than with slow greens where it doesn't matter if you are above the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

David,

I can answer that question for Mountain Ridge.

At the mid or latter part of August, when the ongoing weather pattern was very hot, Cliff Moore our Superintendent wrote a letter to the membership indicating that he was dialing them back, probably to 10.  The membership accepted the change in speeds due to the conditions and supports Cliff, because he's our EXPERT when it comes to agronomy and maintaining the golf course.

When the weather changed, the greens went back to their normal high speeds.

It's a COMMON SENSE approach.  Mother Nature dictates terms and Cliff takes advantage of what Mother Nature gives him

[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?

David,

We played in the rain, as a sixsome, on wild greens putting at 12 or higher and we did it in a little less than 4 hours.

Fast Greens don't slow down golfers, golfers slow down golfers

DT   

I have to take exception to this, a little bit. If guys who are used to putting on flattish greens that roll a 9 go to highly undulate greens that roll 13, they will take longer, because they are putting more often, 3 and 4 times a hole in many cases. If you are used to really high speeds, no big deal, but if you are not, you'll take longer, not because it takes more time to hit an individual putt, but because you have to putt 10+ times per round more than usual.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greg Boring,

I'm familiar with both Preakness and Mountain Ridge.

Preakness, along with Suburban and a few other courses, always had fairly fast greens, but, not quite to the speeds maintained by Mountain Ridge.

I agree, it's a process of adaptation.

I think you hit on a key ingredient, SIZE of the greens.
Mountain Ridge's greens are quite large with rare exception, and as such, can accomodate higher speeds.

In fact, on very large greens, such as # 6, # 2, # 3 and # 12, you need high speeds in order to putt from one end of a green to another.

If those greens were moderate to slow, you'd need a wedge.

Members adapt to higher speeds, and once they're attained, they welcome them, provided the greens can accomodate higher speeds and not all greens can.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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?

JKM,

We played in the rain, as a sixsome, on wild greens putting at 12 or higher and we did it in a little less than 4 hours.

Fast Greens don't slow down golfers, golfers slow down golfers
 

I have to take exception to this, a little bit. If guys who are used to putting on flattish greens that roll a 9 go to highly undulate greens that roll 13, they will take longer, because they are putting more often, 3 and 4 times a hole in many cases. If you are used to really high speeds, no big deal, but if you are not, you'll take longer, not because it takes more time to hit an individual putt, but because you have to putt 10+ times per round more than usual.

JKM, then why did Brad Klein who indicatedd that he's played very little in the last 4 weeks, Ran Morrissett who's not used to high green speeds, David Madison who's not used to high green speeds, Alan Fuente who's not used to high green speeds, my self and Cliff who doesn't play much, as a sixsome, take less than 4 hours to play.

One of the reasons was that we knew we were a sixsome and had a threesome behind us, so we had to play at a reasonable pace.
Not rushing mind you.
In fact, on many greens some of us practiced putting after we holed out.

I can assure you that NOONE in the MONDAY event was prepared for those green speeds and challenging hole locations, YET, everyone played in 4 hours

Why.

Because I told them to play in 4 hours so that we could have cocktails and hors d oeuvres and listen to Cliff

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

In your opinon, can Mountain Ridge's greens accommodate the speeds they are generally running now? How about #18? Did you hear what Cliff Moore said about the pinnabable area of #18 now with the speeds they regularly run when we were all on it on Monday?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

In your opinon, can Mountain Ridge's greens accommodate the speeds they are generally running now?

TEPaul,

They run at Monday's speed and faster, weather permitting.

How about #18?

# 18 has about a 5 degree slope, as does # 7.
Both are problem greens that will probably be softened (# 18, rotated on axis) to allow for the speeds of the other greens.

Did you hear what Cliff Moore said about the pinnabable area of #18 now with the speeds they regularly run when we were all on it on Monday?

I was well aware of the issues with # 18 long before Monday

[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?

David,

We played in the rain, as a sixsome, on wild greens putting at 12 or higher and we did it in a little less than 4 hours.

Fast Greens don't slow down golfers, golfers slow down golfers
 

I have to take exception to this, a little bit. If guys who are used to putting on flattish greens that roll a 9 go to highly undulate greens that roll 13, they will take longer, because they are putting more often, 3 and 4 times a hole in many cases. If you are used to really high speeds, no big deal, but if you are not, you'll take longer, not because it takes more time to hit an individual putt, but because you have to putt 10+ times per round more than usual.

David, then why did Brad Klein who indicatedd that he's played very little in the last 4 weeks, Ran Morrissett who's not used to high green speeds, David Madison who's not used to high green speeds, Alan Fuente who's not used to high green speeds, my self and Cliff who doesn't play much, as a sixsome, take less than 4 hours to play.

One of the reasons was that we knew we were a sixsome and had a threesome behind us, so we had to play at a reasonable pace.
Not rushing mind you.
In fact, on many greens some of us practiced putting after we holed out.

I can assure you that NOONE in the MONDAY event was prepared for those green speeds and challenging hole locations, YET, everyone played in 4 hours

Why.

Because I told them to play in 4 hours so that we could have cocktails and hors d oeuvres and listen to Cliff

You know full well that more than putting goes into taking longer to play a round, however, additional putts do obviously add up more time. The time I played greens running 13, I probably took 6-8 more putts than normal. It happens. I am sure your situation is not normal to courses, at least none of the ones I play. Faster greens, among those not used to them, will lead to longer rounds, generally.

Oh, and pay attention to who you respond to...I'm not David.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Are you in favor of softening #7 and #18 greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Are you in favor of softening #7 and #18 greens?

TEPaul,

# 7 isn't the original green.

I'm in favor of restoring # 7 to Ross's drawings, which have it as a triple tiered green angled at about 30-45 degrees.
Probably not disimilar from Hollywood's # 7.

As to # 18, Yes, I'm in favor of rotating the green on its axis to reduce the amount of slope while retaining the greens contouring and playing  qualities

[Patrick_Mucci]

You know full well that more than putting goes into taking longer to play a round, however, additional putts do obviously add up more time. The time I played greens running 13, I probably took 6-8 more putts than normal. It happens. I am sure your situation is not normal to courses, at least none of the ones I play. Faster greens, among those not used to them, will lead to longer rounds, generally.

I think Greg Boring addressed that issue and indicated that golfers adapt rather quickly to a change in conditions.

Mountain Ridge's greens weren't always very fast, but, the membership adapted to the increased speeds rather well, and now enjoy and crave them.

Oh, and pay attention to who you respond to...I'm not David.

I corrected that earlier, sorry 
[/quote]

[Wade Schueneman]

I cannot speak for 'most people" but I would kill to have Oakmont's greens at my home course.
 

What I find really interesting about Oakmont is that unlike Augusta National (and several other courses that are now known for having greens that are BOTH boldly contoured and lightning fast) it appears that Mr. Fownes (and his son) went to great lengths to keep Oakmont's greens super fast from the get go.  Didn't he roll them with a 1,200-1,500 pound roller?  In contrast, I do not know how fast the greens at Augusta National intiially ran, but my guess is that they did not get really fast until they shifted from bermuda to bent (sometime around 1981 or so I think, but that may be quite wrong). 

[John Moore II]

You know full well that more than putting goes into taking longer to play a round, however, additional putts do obviously add up more time. The time I played greens running 13, I probably took 6-8 more putts than normal. It happens. I am sure your situation is not normal to courses, at least none of the ones I play. Faster greens, among those not used to them, will lead to longer rounds, generally.

I think Greg Boring addressed that issue and indicated that golfers adapt rather quickly to a change in conditions.

Mountain Ridge's greens weren't always very fast, but, the membership adapted to the increased speeds rather well, and now enjoy and crave them.

Indeed a membership can adjust to fast greens over the period of a week or so. However, I, as I always do, speak from the point of view of a public course golfer. And I strongly feel that most of those types would not like very fast greens and that for the 'one-time' players of a course, those really fast greens would be detrimental to pace of play on that particular course. At my home course, I honestly think you would have a near riot at the course if they made those greens exceptionally hard and 12+ fast.
Oh, and pay attention to who you respond to...I'm not David.

I corrected that earlier, sorry 

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I wonder about that.

I wonder, if during "The Masters" week if you told all of the golfers that the course was going to have greens that were the identical speed as the greens at Augusta, if they wouldn't revel in the news.

Then, during the U.S. Open week, you did the same thing.

And, again, during PGA week.

I think you also have to differentiate between someone who comes out occassionally and plays golf, versus a GOLFER

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I wonder about that.

I wonder, if during "The Masters" week if you told all of the golfers that the course was going to have greens that were the identical speed as the greens at Augusta, if they wouldn't revel in the news.

Then, during the U.S. Open week, you did the same thing.

And, again, during PGA week.

I think you also have to differentiate between someone who comes out occassionally and plays golf, versus a GOLFER

I think you could do that, but it would only work as a short-term thing, I think. Lets just assume we are talking about a golfer who plays maybe twice per month and is not a member anywhere. I think that person would complain mightily if he played greens that were running 12+ normally and not just as a one-off thing on Master's weekend or whatever. And, you also have to wonder if more than about 1% of all golfers at a given public access course on a daily basis have any clue as to how fast Master's greens really are? Like I say, I've played greens that ran 13, it was not a terribly pleasant experience given that I was coming from greens that ran about 8, at most. I think the average public player would think the greens were way too fast and 'unfair' and simply wouldn't stand for it. They would play elsewhere in many cases.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I don't know if there is an "average" public player.

Is he the golfer that plays Bethpage Black ?   Red ?    Green ?

When golfers, private and public see fast greens on TV every week, don't they come to expect or desire a similar product ?

I can't imagine public golfers being thrilled with greens that putt at 8.

We all know that 13 is on the upper end of the spectrum, but surely 10 and 11 can be enjoyable for golfers if the greens can reasonably accomodate those speeds

[TEPaul]

"As to # 18, Yes, I'm in favor of rotating the green on its axis to reduce the amount of slope while retaining the greens contouring and playing  qualities>


Patrick:

I see. Would you also be in favor of rotating Merion East's #12 and #15 on their axises to reduce the amount of slope?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"As to # 18, Yes, I'm in favor of rotating the green on its axis to reduce the amount of slope while retaining the greens contouring and playing  qualities>


Patrick:

I see. Would you also be in favor of rotating Merion East's #12 and #15 on their axises to reduce the amount of slope?

TEPaul,

I'd have to observe and study # 12 and # 15 at Merion a good deal more before providing an answer.

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I don't know if there is an "average" public player.

Is he the golfer that plays Bethpage Black ?   Red ?    Green ?

When golfers, private and public see fast greens on TV every week, don't they come to expect or desire a similar product ?

I can't imagine public golfers being thrilled with greens that putt at 8.

We all know that 13 is on the upper end of the spectrum, but surely 10 and 11 can be enjoyable for golfers if the greens can reasonably accomodate those speeds

Yeah, the average golfer is probably the guy who plays the Black and takes 6 hours to do so. I believe that golfers THINK they want a similar product to what they see on TV, but the don't understand what exactly that is. Tell you what, go pick someone from a public course at randon, tell them you'll take them to play a very good golf course, but they have to ride in the car blindfolded. Then take them to a course like Oakmont and see what they think. I'd wager a fair amount of money that they would say the course is overly difficult and nearly unfair, until you told them where they played. Public golfers literally have no clue how hard tour courses are. Pat, you and I, sure we have a clue, I'm sure we've both played tour courses within a week of the event being staged (I have) or played courses with brick hard greens rolling 12+ (Again, I have and in competition) or played courses that had the rough grown up ankle deep or higher. Public course golfers have no idea how diffiult tour courses are; they think they want those conditions, but in reality, they simply do not, no way.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()