[Patrick_Mucci]

character.

With increased distance, which allows the golfer to thwart the architect's challenge and defenses, more and more people are claiming that you have to defend the hole/par/course at the green end, with faster and firmer greens.

But, in order to get greens really fast, you have to eliminate contour and slope, two of the primary factors for establishing the character of the greens.

By putting pressure on the greens to defend the hole/par/course, you're creating the seeds of their destruction, as you can only do that by making them firmer and faster and the only way you can make them really fast is to flatten them.

So, don't look at the distance problem solely from the tee end.

[JMEvensky]

I probably agree with your premise--that,ultimately,the desire for faster and faster greens will result in flatter and flatter greens.

But,I wonder just how many clubs are candidates for greens rebuilding these days.Maybe those at the upper end with hopes of landing a national tournament.Other than the wealthiest ~ 5% of clubs,where do you see the threat of contoured greens being replaced/rebuilt with flatter greens?

[Dan Herrmann]

Ironically, I think that SLOWER greens would be a bigger challenge. 

[David_Tepper]

Firmer greens does not always imply or lead to faster greens.  

(Thanks Jeff W. )

[jeffwarne]

Firmer greens does always imply or lead to faster greens.   

I'm not sure what that means -Did you leave out the word "not"

On a related note, I'm sick of clubs going for tighter approach areas which are so tight and short they have to be (or are) overly watered.
Soft. tight "chipping areas" lead to no chipping and a lot of putting.

Instead, why not maintain the grass at fairway height (no hand mowing) and reduce the water.
Then players might actually chip from chipping areas.

[SL_Solow]

Dan raises the real question; is it a greater test when the greens are ultra fast and flat or are reductions in green speeds to allow greater contours more challenging.  From my perspective the latter is both more challenging and more fun.  I suspect the pros would rather face a 6 footer at speeds of 14 with minimal break than the same distace at 10 with more than a foot of borrow.  The first tests nerves and stroke.  the latter adds a significant element of judgment which can impact nerves and stroke.  I believe the pros feel that it is too "unfair" to have nmajor differences in difficulty between shots that land equidiatant fron the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

Clubs don't embark on this process systemically, rather, it's on a green by green basis.

Just look at WFW and Merion.

Often a green is deemed too contoured/sloped and proposals are put forth to modify/flatten it.

One by one, the greens with the most character suffer the scalpel first.

[michael damico]

I agree with almost all that is said thus far...but what can we do to build new greens that have character while knowing they will be cut short?

They will be cut shorter with new technology in the future, how do designers not only design for today's technology, but for tomorrow's as well?

Are larger greens the answer? How does this effect costs in terms of maintenance with the added attention spent on a larger green surface?

This leads me to the question that is waaaay OT with a cost analysis of wider fairways as opposed to rough.

[David_Tepper]

With all the changes AGNC has made to "toughen" the course, have any of the green contours changed?

[Jim Eder]

I agree as well. It is totally more interesting, fun and challenging to play greens with more contour and character than have flat, fast surfaces. Slower surfaces bring in more pin placements as well. I actually enjoy the 18 inch putt that breaks 6 inches. Though putting fast greens is not that difficult chipping from the short side is more difficult than on slower greens but a good player tends to short side themselves maybe once or twice a round. Also, on fast greens one can aim away from trouble and use contours to get close much more easily than on slower surfaces so the second shot to get close must be more precise on slower greens.

[jeffwarne]

With all the changes AGNC has made to "toughen" the course, have any of the green contours changed?

David,
areas have been flattened to creat tiers that have less slope within them.
Has been done subtley as speeds have increased so not much talk about it, but definitely less slope in many pinnable areas

[Tommy Williamsen]

Pat, I belong to Four Streams outside of DC.  I love the course, but have long thought that many of the greens lack the slope and undulation that would make it more interesting.  Initially the greens were very fast, somewhere in the 12 range.  In the past few years the greens have gotten firmer, but slower.  It has made the shots into the greens more interesting but putting on some of the greens less exciting.  I have not heard anything for sure, but summer in DC is a tough time to grow grass and greens that allow for some growth are easier to maintain. I'd rather have the greens run at 10 and have more slope, than 12 on flatish greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()