Relatively speaking, were the greens on great Golden Age courses fast?

[Peter Pallotta]

I know that there is no comparison to today's green speeds, especially at places like Augusta and Oakmont, but back in the 20s and 30s, were the speeds at courses like Pine Valley and Oakmont and Merion and Augusta and NGLA "fast" in comparison to the average course of the day? In other words, relatively speaking, would golfers of the 20s and 30s have experienced what they considered fast greens at some of the great old courses? Or, conversely, was speed of the greens just not a issue/question that was even in the discussion?

Thanks
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

We know from contemporary accounts that the greens were considered scary fast at Oakmont and at Royal Melbourne, for tournament play, going back 50 years or more.  But those courses seemed to stand apart from others of that era.

Still, I think it's always been true (in the U.S., anyway) that the wealthier clubs had faster greens, because they could afford to.

[Andy Stamm]

In the original Shell series (early to mid 60s) the announcers (notably Gene Sarazen) would comment about how fast the greens were in the UK (basically on links and heathland) versus American greens, which is obviously quite different today. And they made a few comments about Royal Melbourne's being even faster than those in UK suggesting that they were basically as fast as greens got.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Andy - thanks. Would you know whether or not the golden age architects of those wealthier/elite U.S. clubs consciously designed their green contours with these "higher" speeds in mind?  I just don't remember ever reading the concept/concern being addressed back then.

Peter

[Tony Ristola]

On those notorious courses, weren't the greens scary fast above the hole and slow uphill into the grain?

I get a kick watching majors from the 70's and before, especially the Open... the ball would come to an abrupt halt. Didn't look too fast.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom, Andy - thanks. Would you know whether or not the golden age architects of those wealthier/elite U.S. clubs consciously designed their green contours with these "higher" speeds in mind?  I just don't remember ever reading the concept/concern being addressed back then.

Peter

They had less to worry about as the median speed was 6 1/2' even into the '70s. "Putting Green Angle" in the graph represents feet of slope in a one hundred foot run of ground, i.e.  "5" on the P.G.A. is a green that is 5' higher at one end of a 100' run.   
 

[Adam Clayman]

After having seen the nature of the sand, in the sandhills of north carolina, I would guess that those sand greens at Pinehurst, pre-1936, were inimitably faster than grass greens, for say 40 years.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that Mr. Ross was so excited about his grass greens, because now, he could create character in his greens.

Looking at the old pictures of those sand greens, they look rather uninspired and flattish. Just like modern greens at these ridiculous speeds.

[Jason Topp]

I've gotten to go back in time a bit this spring.  We have babied our greens to allow them to recover from a rough season the year before.  The height of cut has increased and we are mowing every other day.  I would guess they have slowed down a foot or so.

I thought it would be a necessary evil type of experience but it has yielded some unexpected benefits.  The staff has cut a number of holes in spots that are not usable when the greens are at their normal speed. 

[Anthony Butler]

In the original Shell series (early to mid 60s) the announcers (notably Gene Sarazen) would comment about how fast the greens were in the UK (basically on links and heathland) versus American greens, which is obviously quite different today. And they made a few comments about Royal Melbourne's being even faster than those in UK suggesting that they were basically as fast as greens got.

My grandfather used to go to Melbourne twice a year from the 50s through the early 80s with a group from New South Wales. In can remember from the late 60s onwards he  often came back ftalking about how fast the greens at RM and Victoria were, esp. in the early summer months.... 

I was gifted a match in the Australian Universities Championship at Royal Melbourne in the early 80s by a University of Queensland student who 4 putted about 6 times in 15 holes. I would estimate the greens at RMW were running at 13.5 on the stimpmeter that day.

Can anyone remember the name of the event or the membership group at Oakmont who stages an event once a year where they get the greens running at 14-15? How long has that event been running for?

[Tony Ristola]

In the original Shell series (early to mid 60s) the announcers (notably Gene Sarazen) would comment about how fast the greens were in the UK (basically on links and heathland) versus American greens, which is obviously quite different today. And they made a few comments about Royal Melbourne's being even faster than those in UK suggesting that they were basically as fast as greens got.

My grandfather used to go to Melbourne twice a year from the 50s through the early 80s with a group from New South Wales. In can remember from the late 60s onwards he  often came back ftalking about how fast the greens at RM and Victoria were, esp. in the early summer months.... 

I was gifted a match in the Australian Universities Championship at Royal Melbourne in the early 80s by a University of Queensland student who 4 putted about 6 times in 15 holes. I would estimate the greens at RMW were running at 13.5 on the stimpmeter that day.

Can anyone remember the name of the event or the membership group at Oakmont who stages an event once a year where they get the greens running at 14-15? How long has that event been running for?

Your comment about RM reminds me of when Greg Norman and Terry Price walked off the course during a windy Aussie Open round. Before they had, a buddy of mine who played the event said pro's were laughing at the treachery on the greens. Must have been 1986 or so. Terry Price... if he could have rolled the ball as pure as he struck it, he would have been one of the finest of his generation.

[Peter Pallotta]

JK - thanks for the graph (you're a man of many talents  ) I understand that golden age designers weren't all that concerned about green speeds (since even 'fast' greens wouldn't have limited too much the contours they designed); I was just curious whether they ever even thought about/discussed the issue.

Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

PP,

Ted Ray called the greens at Oakmont "Lightning" fast and compared their speed to the browned out summer version of the ones in his country. He wasn't able to adjust to the fact that Oakmont's could be that fast while still being green.

Sherrill Sherman, a man who was largely responsible for making Yahnundasis (in Utica, NY) into a great course, said this about the 'perfect' green speed:
"We believe that the greens should be cut closely enough so that a ball rolled from your hand should roll freely up to the hole. If it will roll freely, yet slowly, into the hole, the surface of the green is in proper condition for good putting. If it tends to stop with a jerk, the grass on the green is too long and should be cut closer".

And if Sherman wasn't satisifed with how the ball rolled he'd have a green(s) "cut as many as five times in a day, by different diagonal cuttings, to bring it down to a proper level and surface".

[JSlonis]

If I recall correctly, the greens didn't appear fast at all at Pine Valley for the Shell's match between Nelson and Littler. That was filmed in 1962 so I'd assume they weren't any quicker at earlier dates. Whether they were fast compared to other local Philly clubs...I have no idea.

[Peter Pallotta]

JK - thanks for that.  Not sure it is coincidental that Oakmont gets mentioned on a thread like this; perhaps Mr. Fownes - designer, owner, accomplished golfer -- contoured his greens (or didn't) with the foreknowedge that they'd be 'fast'. 

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, Andy - thanks. Would you know whether or not the golden age architects of those wealthier/elite U.S. clubs consciously designed their green contours with these "higher" speeds in mind?  I just don't remember ever reading the concept/concern being addressed back then.

Peter

They had less to worry about as the median speed was 6 1/2' even into the '70s. "Putting Green Angle" in the graph represents feet of slope in a one hundred foot run of ground, i.e.  "5" on the P.G.A. is a green that is 5' higher at one end of a 100' run.   
 

Peter:

There are several interesting things about this chart, and another one which I'll try to find after I make this post.

The first is that we can try to back into what green speeds must have been, by looking at the slopes on the greens.  I know that the greens at Crystal Downs, which have never been changed, were designed to have holes cut in areas of up to 4 1/2 % or 5% slopes.  Likewise, I know that there were places on certain greens at Merion and Oakmont and Pine Valley that were 5% or even 6%.  So, if those architects made those decisions consciously, we can deduce by referring to the chart above that an architect who designed a green with a 6% slope was not envisioning a speed greater than 8 on the Stimpmeter, and that an architect who used 4 1/2 % slopes was assuming that the greens would never get above 11.

There is also another chart which shows how far the ball can be expected to roll out from the Stimpmeter at different speeds, with different percentages of slope.  That one is really interesting in terms of visualizing putting ... for example, it shows that at if the green is rolling at 10 on the Stimpmeter, a ball on a 0% slope will roll 10 feet, on a 2% slope it will roll 13 or 14 feet, and on a 4% slope it may roll 32 feet!  [I don't have the numbers in front of me now, but the difference is exponential.]  Note, too, this literally means that if you are putting downhill on a 4% grade with the greens running at 10, the effective speed of your putt is 32!

Last but not least, note that the chart above indicates that you could still have a slope of 3 1/2 % at a Stimpmeter speed of 13 without the ball rolling infinitely ... but that most architects today stop at 3% slope [or less], and the PGA Tour insists that the hole locations on new courses have no more than 2.25% slope.  Which makes you wonder how fast they anticipate getting their greens someday.

[BCrosby]

Good stuff.

The story has been repeated a couple of times here at GCA, but Nicklaus' comment about the greens at Oakmont in '62 was that they were the fastest he had ever seen at the time.

Someone then asked him what they would have stimped. He said he would guess somewhere between 6.5 and 7.

That would also be my guess about the PVGC green speeds for the '62 Littler/Nelson match on SWWofG.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - thanks much for that. I really appreciate you breaking that down/analyziing that chart.  One of the interesting things is indeed whether architects back then made these decisions consciously; they could well have, even if it happened more through intution, experience and a great eye than with charts such as this in mind (or established rules and guidelines).  Also, you wrote that: "...this literally means that if you are putting downhill on a 4% grade with the greens running at 10, the effective speed of your putt is 32!". Thanks for that -- it explains and excuses why I putted at least one ball off the green and into a bunker at Crystal Downs!!  (I say at least one because my ego has made me forget the others).

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Good stuff.

The story has been repeated a couple of times here at GCA, but Nicklaus' comment about the greens at Oakmont in '62 was that they were the fastest he had ever seen at the time.

Someone then asked him what they would have stimped. He said he would guess somewhere between 6.5 and 7.

That would also be my guess about the PVGC green speeds for the '62 Littler/Nelson match on SWWofG.

Bob

Bob:

Jack had a putting stroke that was great for fast greens, whereas Palmer [and other golfers of the previous era] did not.  I've never really thought about it before, but was Jack's stroke better-adapted because he developed it as greens were starting to get faster, in the late 50's and early 60's?  I guess it could have just been a lucky coincidence, but I suspect that the others were faced with trying to adjust their styles to the new reality, whereas Jack had built his stroke with those conditions in mind. 

The fact that he broke through at places like Oakmont and Augusta National would tend to reinforce that idea.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I think the chart you're looking for is in this article, the same one from which I gleaned the speed scale:

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1997/970312.pdf

[Andy Stamm]

Jack had a putting stroke that was great for fast greens, whereas Palmer [and other golfers of the previous era] did not.  I've never really thought about it before, but was Jack's stroke better-adapted because he developed it as greens were starting to get faster, in the late 50's and early 60's?  I guess it could have just been a lucky coincidence, but I suspect that the others were faced with trying to adjust their styles to the new reality, whereas Jack had built his stroke with those conditions in mind. 

The fact that he broke through at places like Oakmont and Augusta National would tend to reinforce that idea.

I think Jack's sky high ball flight helped here, too. Arnie hit it plenty long, but with his ball flight he could never stop a ball like Jack on hard fast greens. Jack's game was built for the modern era and that was probably partially because he came of age in it. When Arnie was learning the game, there probably wasn't the same advantage to the high ball, his boring trajectory was probably just fine.

[BCrosby]

Jack had a putting stroke that was great for fast greens, whereas Palmer [and other golfers of the previous era] did not.  I've never really thought about it before, but was Jack's stroke better-adapted because he developed it as greens were starting to get faster, in the late 50's and early 60's?  I guess it could have just been a lucky coincidence, but I suspect that the others were faced with trying to adjust their styles to the new reality, whereas Jack had built his stroke with those conditions in mind. 

The fact that he broke through at places like Oakmont and Augusta National would tend to reinforce that idea.

Tom -

Another way to think about the same thing is the sudden decline of the pure wrist putter. Until the mid-60's most pros were very wristy. By the mid-70's, very few were. By the mid-80's, nobody was.


Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

This is the totally unscientific method of guessing what green speeds the Tour could go to using 2.25 degrees of slope.
'Safely', 18 on a stimpmeter.  

 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sherrill Sherman, a man who was largely responsible for making Yahnundasis (in Utica, NY) into a great course, said this about the 'perfect' green speed:
"We believe that the greens should be cut closely enough so that a ball rolled from your hand should roll freely up to the hole. If it will roll freely, yet slowly, into the hole, the surface of the green is in proper condition for good putting. If it tends to stop with a jerk, the grass on the green is too long and should be cut closer".

Jim that’s a great quote what year is it from?


I underlined the sentence above because I think there’s a bit of a misconception common to many similar threads.   IN recent years I’ve played a few P&P courses in Ireland where is suspect the conditions today are the closest you’ll see  to those of 75 and more years ago.  I think they tend to  stimp about 5 or 6 and yet they play surprisingly true. They are kept long by today’s standards because the ’greenkeeper’ gets the mower out once a week, and sharpens the blades once a year.
Because you have to deliver a real hit you need either a wristy stroke like Palmers, or a really heavy putter like the one I keep in Ireland.

Misconception. 
Many of these green feature extreme slope and  sometimes huge contour.  Because the ball sets off so fast all the contour has MINIMAL sidewards effect on the directing the direction the ball travels.  It’s only as the ball skreetches to a halt that you see sideways effect on the ball.  Sometimes a putt will travel dead straignth for 90% of its travel and then do a 180 degree turn in the last 16”.  Slope on the green had most effect on the weight you needed to hit the ball with.  The idea of a huge breaking lag putt is a modern thing. Distance control is far, far more important than line – no need to read a putt 3x.  You have uphill, downhill and level putts.
Hence even on contoured greens, once it is that slow calling it ‘more interesting’ is barely true and much less so than often assumed on here.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony,

1921

[David_Tepper]

Shouldn't the question be, "how low were mowers in the "Golden Age" able to cut grass?" Were mowers in the 1920's & 30's able to cut grass any where near as low as today's mowers can?