Has the demand for fast greens taken the fun out of greens?

[Anthony Gray]

  Mike Nuzzo post on a recent thread got me thinking . Didnt we see more roller coasters in the past?

  Anthony

[astavrides]

Disscuss ...

Antony

[Anthony Gray]

Disscuss ...

Antony

  Sure. You just don't see many courses with greens like The Castle Course. But look at those old photos and they're popular.

  Manthony

[Tim Bert]

Only at courses that have allowed the speed to take the fun out if the greens.

[JESII]

When the ball grinds to a halt going down a 4% slope because the greens 8 feet on the stimp you lose a hell of a lot of what makes the game great.

Why would anyone worry about missing right on 16 at Augusta if the greens are 8 feet?

[JNC Lyon]

I disagree.  Wild greens that are unaltered are at their most fun when they are fast.  I've complained about a lot of things on a lot of golf courses, but I've never complained about greens being too fast.

[Mark Steffey]

fast greens & fast fairways!!

watching people putt off greens is fun (as long as they are the 'them' and not part of 'us').

[archie_struthers]

 


I love lightning fast greens ....but the cost to maintain them is huge.   Stress increases and demands tremendous oversight.  Also, the scores reflect the difficulty speed brings.....fine for us purists but when our customers shoot high scores, they lose interest. So it is a slippery slope!

[Anthony Gray]

  I think we are getting a little goofy with fast greens. I think the course that does it best is Scranton CC.

  Anthony

[Ben Sims]

I played in a match at Wolf Point this past Saturday with the greens no faster than 7 feet.  A wet/mild winter leave the greens needing some filling in, as most everyone with bermuda in Texas is dealing with right now.  Don positioned the pins in some ridiculously aggressive areas due to the speed.  But one key aspect remained, the greens were very hard.  I struggled with speed all day, missing A LOT of really well struck putts (inside joke). 

I learned Saturday that really good players don't know how to handle slower, hard greens with lots of contour.  I wonder how much easier and less expensive it is to manage Wolf's greens at 8-10 ft and keep them very firm as compared to flat, fast, soft greens that must be stressed to keep at speed. 

[archie_struthers]

 

Love them firm and medium.    You got the right maintenance meld Ben!

[jeffwarne]

I played in a match at Wolf Point this past Saturday with the greens no faster than 7 feet.  A wet/mild winter leave the greens needing some filling in, as most everyone with bermuda in Texas is dealing with right now.  Don positioned the pins in some ridiculously aggressive areas due to the speed.  But one key aspect remained, the greens were very hard.  I struggled with speed all day, missing A LOT of really well struck putts (inside joke).  

I learned Saturday that really good players don't know how to handle slower, hard greens with lots of contour.  I wonder how much easier and less expensive it is to manage Wolf's greens at 8-10 ft and keep them very firm as compared to flat, fast, soft greens that must be stressed to keep at speed.  

You never see "ridiculous aggressive" areas used for pins on courses that stimp 11-12.
That's sad.
and Jim, I know we've discussed this before, (slow vs. fast) but does a ball really grind to a halt on a 4 % slope with the greens at 8?
(i have no idea what exactly a 4% slope is but from what I think I know that's a pretty good slope)
the reason someone would worry about missing right on 16 at Augusta would be if the green(still) had enough slope to make the speed used (in this case 8  ) relevant.
When i worked at Long Cove the greens routinely ran at 8 for everyday play--I had plenty of fast/ difficult/sloping putts.
My guess is they have to use less interesting pins now.

The other thing is, if greens are designed for everyday play at 8, and the super amps them up to 10 for an event, you get something exciting and different (albeit perhaps at the loss of certain really sloped pins)
But if the greens are routinely run at 12, how useful, or fun, or different,( or possible) is it to suddenly get them 25% faster? (as the jump from 8-10 is).
and are any good pins left?
food for thought .

as Ben says, if you want to identify the good putters, slow down the greens, and use the slopes.
Those who can't hit it solid and have imagination have no chance

[Jeff_Brauer]

I've always felt that flatter faster greens and slower sloping greens CAN BE about the same amount of fun.  Similar, just different.  

Whether I fear "de-greening" a putt due to slope or speed, or both, its all about the same.  

And no one has ever really been able to convince me that reading a 3" break is any easier or less fun than reading a 3 ft break.  Granted, the larger breaks, if misread, probably tend to make you miss by more left and right, and I doubt that missing short or long is terribly affected by green speed (at least it isn't in my experience.....)

I have always wondered, since working with Larry "accurate long shots but average putter" Nelson instructed me to build rolling greens to "level things out for guys like me."

Just my $0.02

[jeffwarne]

I've always felt that flatter faster greens and slower sloping greens CAN BE about the same amount of fun.  Similar, just different.  

Whether I fear "de-greening" a putt due to slope or speed, or both, its all about the same.  

And no one has ever really been able to convince me that reading a 3" break is any easier or less fun than reading a 3 ft break.  Granted, the larger breaks, if misread, probably tend to make you miss by more left and right, and I doubt that missing short or long is terribly affected by green speed (at least it isn't in my experience.....)

I have always wondered, since working with Larry "accurate long shots but average putter" Nelson instructed me to build rolling greens to "level things out for guys like me."

Jeff,


All of that may be true, or at least a matter of personal taste for the golfer-when putting.....

but, softer(because of the need to keep them alive at faster speeds), faster, and more level greens make angles for approach and recovery far less meaningful.
If I'm approaching from the right edge of the fairway a firm green with a right to left 4-7 degree slope, it's infinitely more difficult to hold that green than it is from the same distance/angle to a softer, faster green with a correspondingly less  slope.

I'm making the asumption that on average, most green could be made firmer at lower speeds due to the turf being healthier, but even if the same firmness, more slope influences bad angles more-speed of greens doesn't matter until the ball is rolling (and that could be either direction once the spin hits, esp. on a softer, flatter green)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I use the cross slope on greens to make one side more or less difficult to approach from, but have never studied that aspect of it.  With new USGA greens that I build (or similar) vs topsoil, I am not sure that there are softer and faster greens, are there?  It would seem the longer turf would cushion shots more, but I am not sure there is enough effect to make a difference, and as architect, its beyond my control anyway.

I have studied the front to back slope of greens and found that while I would think steeper slopes would stop shots more, in essence, for average players anything over 1.25% uphill seemingly stops shots about the same, whereas less than that to flat, to reverse doesn't.  For really good players, steeper slopes (over 2.25% maybe) run the risk of too much backspin, and I have seen them stop shots even on reverse slopes of 1.5% or so.  

Most of my studies were on medium speed greens.

I am guessing a slight side slope would work about the same, unless you happened to hit the backside of a tier or knob that was 5-9% and I have seen those kick balls off greens.  Of course, many would argue that such a back slope knob is "unfair" in how it treats a shot that hits the green, while others would consider it "rub of the green" that you wouldn't try to design out, as per other threads.....

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I use the cross slope on greens to make one side more or less difficult to approach from, but have never studied that aspect of it.  With new USGA greens that I build (or similar) vs topsoil, I am not sure that there are softer and faster greens, are there?  It would seem the longer turf would cushion shots more, but I am not sure there is enough effect to make a difference, and as architect, its beyond my control anyway.

I have studied the front to back slope of greens and found that while I would think steeper slopes would stop shots more, in essence, for average players anything over 1.25% uphill seemingly stops shots about the same, whereas less than that to flat, to reverse doesn't.  For really good players, steeper slopes (over 2.25% maybe) run the risk of too much backspin, and I have seen them stop shots even on reverse slopes of 1.5% or so.  

Most of my studies were on medium speed greens.

I am guessing a slight side slope would work about the same, unless you happened to hit the backside of a tier or knob that was 5-9% and I have seen those kick balls off greens.  Of course, many would argue that such a back slope knob is "unfair" in how it treats a shot that hits the green, while others would consider it "rub of the green" that you wouldn't try to design out, as per other threads.....

Jeff,
My experiences are merely anecdotal from observation of players at the facilities I've worked and my own play/travels.

I'm making 2 broad assumptions.
1. that all things equal, unless tremendoes budget differences are involved, faster greens tend to be kept softer/wetter as thinner turf/shorter cut demand a bit more water (there are of course noteable exceptions). I think this is especially true in lower budget markets where courses are competing with each other based on "fast" greens, yet limited funds-an increasingly common situation.
2. that a green approached from a poor angle is hitting a green such that the ball is in effect hitting a downslope(because of the poor angle of approach), or at best a level green.(the 5-7% right sideslope mitigates any slope toward the front that one would get from straight on)
example being well on the right side of the fairway (or rough) into a green sloped right to left. (obviously best approached from the left)
a green with 7% of right to left slope is going to repel the ball more than a green with 3-4% slope no? (even if the greens are the same firmness)

but I'm listening

[John Kavanaugh]

Paradox is always fun.  It takes longer for a 30 foot putt on a fast green to roll out than on a slow green.  The longer you watch a ball roll the more fun the shot. 

[Anthony Gray]

Paradox is always fun.  It takes longer for a 30 foot putt on a fast green to roll out than on a slow green.  The longer you watch a ball roll the more fun the shot. 

  Its more fun to be agressive.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

Anthony,

The opposite is true here in the Spokane area.  A lot of the local courses have slowed their greens down and its taken all the fun out of it.

The most prominent example being Indian Canyon which has been fairly well documented on this site.  When I first moved to Spokane, these greens stimped anywhere from 8 to 9 and they were so much fun, being old style greens with lots of break and movement.  You would have 15 foot putts that had 8-9 feet of break.  And you could hit low running approach shots into the green and watch the ball take crazy paths to its destination.

But this led to more 3 and 4 putts, and slower play, so they have intentionally slowed them way down to 6-7 on any given day and taken all the fun out of them. To boot, they are also bumpy, and in far worse shape than they used to be.  I still get out there a few times per year, because its such a fun course to play, but I remain disappointed as they've effectively neutered one of the courses best defenses,(being short as the tips are 6300), and taken all the fun out of the greens.

[Anthony Gray]

  It's difficult to have fun putting when you are decelerating with the putter all day. More fun to charge the hole.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

  It's difficult to have fun putting when you are decelerating with the putter all day. More fun to charge the hole.

  Anthony

Anthony, if you are decelerating in your forward putting stoke, then sounds like you need a putting lesson or two..   

P.S.  You can charge the hole on quick greens too, you just need to be prepared to face the consequences for missing.

[jeffwarne]

Paradox is always fun.  It takes longer for a 30 foot putt on a fast green to roll out than on a slow green.  The longer you watch a ball roll the more fun the shot. 

I'm in complete agreement.
but a green doesn't have to be "fast" to achieve that, it just needs enough slope.
I'm all for super fast putts, just not super fast greens-there is a difference
greens with a lot of slope,(not tiers but slope) at the proper speed for the slope highlight, approaches, recovery, AND make an uphill putt DRAMATICALLY different than a downhill putt- a pure test of skill that most fail, then bitch about(lack of) green speed.

[Sean_A]

I will admit that I see far more courses that should speed up their greens compared to courses that should slow them down, however, in most cases, there is a HUGE differential in maintenance costs.  I would also say that generally speaking, the faster the greens the wetter the greens and almost to a course the wet greens eliminate the need for positional play to gain optimal approach angles.  To me, perfect speed is 9 maybe 10 on firm greens with reasonable movement slopes and contours.  I am very pleased to see such a push in the UK for heathland and links to become drier and firmer surfaces - this to me is the key to the best green surfaces.  Speed is actually third on the list of importance behind firmness and interesting.  Indeed, speed of greens is one of the most over-rated aspects of golf.  I feel sorry for Supers who are on the never-ending treadmill of preparing faster and faster greens and then having to continuously fight for higher budgets.  We all talk about distance being the biggest problem in golf - it aint.  Maintenance costs are the biggest problem.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

I will admit that I see far more courses that should speed up their greens compared to courses that should slow them down, however, in most cases, there is a HUGE differential in maintenance costs.  I would also say that generally speaking, the faster the greens the wetter the greens and almost to a course the wet greens eliminate the need for positional play to gain optimal approach angles.  To me, perfect speed is 9 maybe 10 on firm greens with reasonable movement slopes and contours.  I am very pleased to see such a push in the UK for heathland and links to become drier and firmer surfaces - this to me is the key to the best green surfaces.  Speed is actually third on the list of importance behind firmness and interesting.  Indeed, speed of greens is one of the most over-rated aspects of golf.  I feel sorry for Supers who are on the never-ending treadmill of preparing faster and faster greens and then having to continuously fight for higher budgets.  We all talk about distance being the biggest problem in golf - it aint.  Maintenance costs are the biggest problem.

Ciao

ditto

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean and Jeff,

I am having trouble envisioning fast and wet greens.  Don't think I have ever seen one.  Firm and fast I understand. 

Aren't most fast greens at least a little bit dry, or more likely with USGA greens, watered precisecly to field capacity or just below?  An overwatered green is rarely fast.  I don't recall the USGA watering greens to speed them up, they dry them out, roll them, etc.