[jeffwarne]

As noted by several people above, good players will adjust their putting to green speeds pretty quickly. Whether slow or fast.

Recovery shots are where fast greens matter most, even for the pros. Short-siding yourself on a green rolling at 14+ is a much harder recovery than on a green rolling at 8 or 9.

Bob

Bob, I'm going to disagree here.
Greens that are stimping at 14 have either been recontoured to accomodate that speed, had no contour to begin with, or the pin is placed in the flattest area.
As a result of keeping the greens alive at that speed, they are usually softer as well.
Therefore I'm going to say a green at 8 will much more likely have more slope, be firmer, and that tight pin will often involve some significant slop away from the player.

The problem is many agree with your statement which would be true with all things being equal, but they never are.

I'm going to say the green with slope, with a tucked pin at 8, which is able to firmer, will be a tougher shot.
The speed of a green doesn't matter much when I hit a high flop to a level ,soft (yet fast) green.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

While I agree that greens at 14 will have less contour than those at 8 (necessarily so), I do think that putting outcomes for good players - with time to adjust - will not be very different. At least that's what my instincts tell me.

Recovery shots are a different beast. 

That's because whether the greens are at 14 or at 8, I have to hit the ball with a certain minimum speed to carry it to the green. That carry speed - sort of like the speed of light in physics - is fixed. I can't vary it much. I have to hit it that minimum speed just to get it to the putting surface. With the obvious consequences on slower vs. faster greens. 

Putting is different. A player doesn't have those constraints because he is already on the green. I can adjust my putting hits as needed. I don't need to carry fringes or bunkers or water. I'm already on the green.   

I agree that greens at 14 will need to be watered more and that will make them somewhat less firm. (Though you and I have both seen greens that are well watered and firm.) I also agree that slower greens will be more contoured. But my guess is that the requirement of having to hit a recovery shot a minimum speed just to get to the green ends up causing more problems than are overcome by more watering and slope.

Bob     

[Pete Lavallee]

Bob and Jeff both bring up good points, but to say that the USGA overwaters greens is simply ridiculous. Their preperation is a double cut, morning and evening followed by a rolling. They then lightly hand water; I'll bet prisioners on Devil's Island got more water per day than a US Open green gets. They then carefully stimp and use the "thum-o-meter" to check for firmness; so it is really hard for things to go terribly wrong. Shinnecoock was surely a unique incident when strong winds desicated the golf course very quickly.

I've heard three reasonable theories so far:

To eliminate unfairness; making conditions more consistant.

It makes three putting much more probable; really testing distance control.

It make recovery shots much harder; especially when you short side yourself.

Frankly, I doubt any of these are the real motivation.

[David Ober]

As noted by several people above, good players will adjust their putting to green speeds pretty quickly. Whether slow or fast.

Recovery shots are where fast greens matter most, even for the pros. Short-siding yourself on a green rolling at 14+ is a much harder recovery than on a green rolling at 8 or 9.

Bob

And short-siding yourself on greens that are quick, FIRM, and slope -- even every so slightly -- away from the golfer, means a 10-foot+ putt to save par unless one hits a great pitch. Quick, firm greens test golfers more than slow ones. Sure, the pros are capable of shooting great scores on quick, firm greens, but the range of scores is generally quite wide in those conditions. Players not striking the ball well and/or putting the ball well are punished in "firm/fast" conditions.

Slowing up greens would bunch the scores together, and few pros would play particularly poorly. Still, I would like to see more tournaments played on slower, more undulating greens -- if for no other reason than variety.

Honestly, though, the two main factors that contribute to high (average) scores are: Length and green FIRMNESS rather than speed. At least that's been my experience and observation over time.

[Lou_Duran]

Honestly, though, the two main factors that contribute to high (average) scores are: Length and green FIRMNESS rather than speed. At least that's been my experience and observation over time.

That might be true for amateur golf, but I don't think it is for the pros, particularly at the highest competitive levels (e.g. the U.S. Open).  Furyk is quoted in the morning paper as saying that distance (Congressional's 7400+ yards) is not the issue for the pros, and he is a relatively short hitter.  Tight fairways, gnarly rough, and the greens are what separates the field.

Though I never played to your level, David, at one time I did well on fast greens.  But fast during my time was much anything above 10'.  Only once did I put on 13' to 14'+.  It was at Muirfield Village in the Columbus District Golf Assoc. Open and I was a basket case.  I had plenty of company; only the head pro at MF managed to shoot par, and he was disqualified for sweeping bunker sand off the green with a towel.  A real bummer with super fast greens is the slow pace of play it causes- 6 hours+ at MV on that day, and a delay of well over an hour by the early afternoon tee times.

[BCrosby]

Obviously firmer greens will extract higher scores than softer greens. But I thought for this exercise we were holding that variable constant.

Imho, the ideal maintenance meld (TEP copyright) is one where a green rolls at a moderate speed (9 or so) and is kept very firm. The benefits of my ideal m/m are best exploited on greens with interesting, even dramatic, contouring. That is, the pay-off for an ideal m/m requires good green designs. Only well designed greens will make for interesting, challenging golf at such lower stimps.

Those stimps would be set slightly higher if the course is being set up for a major. 

Which leads to the question - what does the need to stimp greens at an astronomical 14.5 at Congo say about the the quality of its greens? Man.

Bob

 

[Terry Lavin]

First of all US Open greens don't stimp over 14. I've stimped greens at 2 U.S. Open's and both rolled around 13/13.5. If anyone tells you they have 14+ speeds, I wouldn't buy it. Once you get greens rolling that fast it's hard to get an accurate reading on a truly flat surface. We pushed green's to the max at last years Open and we only reached speeds of 13.5.

FYI, you can check with those "in the know" at Olympia and you'll learn that the greens at OFCC stimped at 14 plus on the weekend of the 2003 Open.  The greens were double cut and double rolled, and the speeds really picked up as the course got crunchier in the weekend wind.  It certainly helped the USGA defend par (along with hole locations) after the course was pummeled a bit during the soft conditions of the first two days.  I was there, I saw the stimping, they were 14 on Saturday and maybe even 15 on Sunday.  If a player was above the hole on a lot of greens, it was nigh impossible to keep the ball within ten feet of the cup if he missed the putt.  Only three players broke par for the championship and I believe one shot even par. 

[BCrosby]

I keep coming back to the idea that crazy stimps like this are an indictment of the course. Whether its Congo or Olympia. Something's lacking if you feel it necessary to set stimps that make it impossible to stop downhill putts with a 2 degree grade.

It's a bad way to try to make a problematical venue into a better venue. Set the greens at normal speeds, take your lumps with a low, low winning score, move on and don't go back.

Bob 

[jeffwarne]

 Set the greens at normal speeds, take your lumps with a low, low winning score, move on and don't go back.

Bob 

14's not normal?

It could be if we could just get rid of those unfair undulations.....

As long as there are people on this board desiring, celebrating and embracing fast green speeds (mind you I didn't say fast putts), there's little hope for an organization such as the USGA and for that matter the golf population as a whole.
and for those who think fast =s smooth, I present last year's plinko Pebble as exhibit A for not so.

[Carl Nichols]

Bob-
What were the stimp readings during the recent Opens at Shinny, Oakmont, and Pebble? What do those numbers tell us about those greens?

[BCrosby]

Carl -

I don't know other than to observe that Shinny's speeds got out of hand largely through a series of missteps. Pebble last year was, as I recall, around 12. I thought speeds at Pebble were about right.

Bob

[Terry Lavin]

I keep coming back to the idea that crazy stimps like this are an indictment of the course. Whether its Congo or Olympia. Something's lacking if you feel it necessary to set stimps that make it impossible to stop downhill putts with a 2 degree grade.

It's a bad way to try to make a problematical venue into a better venue. Set the greens at normal speeds, take your lumps with a low, low winning score, move on and don't go back.

Bob 

I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but it's the USGA's show, and they get to determine the setup.  Some years, it gets away from them (Shinny is a good example), some years it's on the border of unfair/ridiculous (Pebble last year got close) and some years it seems just right (the first go-round at Bethpage Black was awfully good). 

In my own personal experience at Olympia Fields in 2003, the USGA was in a bit of a transitional mode and it wanted to give the players more opportunities to hit shots out of the rough toward the greens, in the hope that it would reward some players and greatly punish others, who might go past the greens and wind up in a lot of trouble.  As a result, the Competition Committee decided to cut the rough to 4 inches, from the pre-championship height of nearly 8 inches, IIRC.  Unfortunately, this decision was accompanied by soggy conditions for the first two days of the championship and balls that would normally have bounded off the greens out of the rough simply stayed there and the "normal" shots into greens were extremely accurate because the greens were soft and the winds moderate.  When the field went low the first two days, including very low rounds by Singh and Tom Watson, there was considerable grousing in the media about how Open-worthy the course was.

By the weekend, the weather turned warmer and windier.  To my observation, the greens also got much quicker, getting to 14 plus.  The hole locations also got much more difficult.  Of course, this might have been part of the overall setup plan which the USGA kept to itself, but it did seem to me that there was a much more deliberate effort to protect par on the weekend, once it was apparent that Mother Nature foiled the USGA's earlier setup decision on the rough.

Last year, there were plenty of comments about the USGA not caring about the score, but we saw the course get way too crunchy and saw some wacky play at the 14th and 17th holes, just to name a few.  One could make the argument that they were trying to protect par again, despite protestations to the contrary.  One thing for sure, winning the US Open changes somebody's career arc.  It is a monumental achievement and the USGA is going to make sure that the winner earns the trophy.  Sometimes, the weather helps them and sometimes the weather hurts them.  Sometimes they have to speed up the greens and sometimes, they can get away with 12-13.

[Carl Nichols]

Bob:
I took a quick look and saw press reports stating that the USGA wanted stimps of 13.5 at Oakmont.  I've never played Oakmont, but I haven't heard anyone say that Oakmont has poor greens.  So unless you're willing to say that stimps of 13.5 at Oakmont says something about the quality of the greens there, I'm not sure that 14 at Congressional means the greens at Congressional are poor.  It may simply mean that the USGA has decided that it really, really wants to protect par and has concluded that the right way to do it is to make the greens impossibly fast.

[BCrosby]

Carl -

Two things. Oakmont keeps their greens extremely fast all the time. It is the club's m.o. Their greens are bult for those speeds. My understanding is that the USGA didn't do much to speed them up from the stimps used for everyday member play. So I don't read fast greens at Oakmont at a US Open as a sign of unhappiness the greens.

The other thing is that 14.5 plays a lot faster than 13.5. As far as I know, it's unprecedented, at least as a publiclly announced stimp goal. You would only dare go that fast on greens that were relatively benign.

Bob   

[Bill_McBride]

Carl -

Two things. Oakmont keeps their greens extremely fast all the time. It is the club's m.o. Their greens are bult for those speeds. My understanding is that the USGA didn't do much to speed them up from the stimps used for everyday member play. So I don't read fast greens at Oakmont at a US Open as a sign of unhappiness the greens.

The other thing is that 14.5 plays a lot faster than 13.5. As far as I know, it's unprecedented, at least as a publiclly announced stimp goal. You would only dare go that fast on greens that were relatively benign.

Bob   

Bob, the first time I played Oakmont, my member-host told me that the USGA usually has to slow down the greens from the set up the (masochistic?) members like.

This is probably what the members tell all guests, but it's a great story!

[BCrosby]

"This is probably what the members tell all guests, but it's a great story!"

That's what they told me too. I thought it must be an urban legend. Then I played the course.

Bob

[Bill_McBride]

"This is probably what the members tell all guests, but it's a great story!"

That's what they told me too. I thought it must be an urban legend. Then I played the course.

Bob

Fast, firm and fun!

Above the hole anywhere is death.  Behind #2 is worse.

[Doug Siebert]

Regarding recovery shots on fast greens, while its true that they become harder due to the speed, very fast greens also offer opportunities slower greens do not in terms of using what slopes there are on the green.  If you want a pin a green that stimps at 14 you can only use very flat areas, but the green itself need not be entirely flat.  If it has slopes that will not hold a ball you might be able to use those as backstops or sidestops to allow a chance to get closer to the hole than if you played the shot normally.

There's no reason you couldn't have the same interesting shots on slower greens but 1) most greens don't have the steep slopes required (sidestops OK, but less often a true backstop that rolls it back at you) to permit such stuff when stimping at only 9 or 10 and 2) you have less need to look for such options if you are able to (or think you are able to) get the ball close playing a standard pitch or flop.

[jeffwarne]

What's ironic is not so long ago, 10 was really fast, and was used at venues where great champions were determined and crowned,
then 12, now 14.5

So I guess I can look forward to 16 soon enough
or 20.........

Played a Raynor course yesterday in an event
awesome set of greens probably rolling 10 at most (certainly the slowest greens I've competed on this year-no actual idea of the stimp)
But you could certainly have an incredibly fast putt downhill or sidehill
The greens were perfect and fascinating and would be very challenging and thought provoking with the proper set up

Sadly the course was set up with all the pins quite benign and mostly in collection areas in the cnter of the greens
cause they wanted to "get the players around"
Why ignore the best feature at a course?
That's like deciding the bunkers at Pine valley are free drops in an event so you can "get the players around"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The progression is certainly alarming in that it causes greens with great character to be disfigured and/or destroyed.

At 17, a slope of 2 degrees would prevent a ball from ceasing to roll, and that's without wind, which does circulate on the golf course.

Mountain Ridge does keep their greens in the 11-13 range, which those greens, with two exceptions, can accomodate.

Any faster, would be disastrous, and would cause some to want to flatten those wonderful putting surfaces.

I think that one of the major threats to greens with character is high-tech and distance because it places an emphasis on defending par at the green end, and there's only one way to do that, with firmer and faster greens, and that is the first step to flattening them to robbing them of their character such that they can accomodate higher speeds

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

The progression is certainly alarming in that it causes greens with great character to be disfigured and/or destroyed.

At 17, a slope of 2 degrees would prevent a ball from ceasing to roll, and that's without wind, which does circulate on the golf course.

Mountain Ridge does keep their greens in the 11-13 range, which those greens, with two exceptions, can accomodate.

Any faster, would be disastrous, and would cause some to want to flatten those wonderful putting surfaces.

I think that one of the major threats to greens with character is high-tech and distance because it places an emphasis on defending par at the green end, and there's only one way to do that, with firmer and faster greens, and that is the first step to flattening them to robbing them of their character such that they can accomodate higher speeds

Pat,
 What disturbs me as I watch tour players hit 180 yard 8 irons routinely is when "otherwise intelligent people", often on this forum talk about how par must be defended at the green.(then cite the debacles at Shinnecock and Pebble as reasons to go to such absurdity)
and I love firm fast greens-but I love greens with character more and am unwilling to lose them for faster conditions.

If the ball goes too far or drivers are too hot, fix that rather than spending energy defending par elsewhere and ruining the game for the rest of us.
faster greens torture the average guy and simply play into the hands of better players.
Note-I 'm not against firm greens, particularly if the turf is healthy enough due to reduced emphasis on extreme mowing height.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I agree, those that are trying to offset the distance issue at the green end are misguided.

The problem is the ball and equipment, not wonderful greens with character.

[John Shimony]

Major concerns for condition of the greens voiced in the Washington Post.  The greens are too young to withstand the stress says Zontek, the USGA's Agronomist.  He says you will not see 14.5 speed in order to protect the greens.  Though the damage may have been already done (my opinion not Zontek's).

[Terry Lavin]

Major concerns for condition of the greens voiced in the Washington Post.  The greens are too young to withstand the stress says Zontek, the USGA's Agronomist.  He says you will not see 14.5 speed.  Though the damage may have been already done.

That's unfortunate.  The process of getting greens ready for a US Open have usually involved getting the greens progressively shorter, firmer and drier, almost to the point where the turf is near death, to promote fast greens that will be flooded and brought back to a healthier height after the championship.  Sometimes, they cross the line and you lose a green or two.  If this report proves correct, it would mean that they may have taken too many chances with turf that hadn't been around long enough to withstand the conditions.  Let's hope it works out, even if (horrors!), they're only putting greens at 12 feet on the Stimp!

[Pete Lavallee]

I think that Bob's comment that slower greens identified worthy champions in the past is proof enough that these outrageous speeds are truely to combat distance gains, despite the USGA's stance that they Aren't trying to protect par.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()