[Ted Sturges]

I visited Crystal Downs last Friday for the first time in 7 or 8 years.  The midwest drought has the native grasses pretty tame there, which should have made the course easier (I don't think CD is ever easy).  The other feature of the course that immediately caught my attention was the speed of the greens.  I remembered them being fast, I just didn't remember them being THAT fast.  It would be hard to get an accurate stimp meter reading on most of the greens due to the undulation and slopes, but my guess is they were 13ish (maybe even faster).  I hit a short iron that landed on the left fringe of 10, that ended up rolling off the green on the right.  I hit a shot reasonably close to the hole on 11 (hole was set back/center) that settled on the front fringe.  After putting my birdie putt up to a spot about 3 feet below the hole (well...the ball was there for a moment), the ball finally stopped rolling 50 yards down the hill, leaving me a blind pitch for "par".

After thinking about it, and considering how fast the greens play at ANGC, my question is...what would Dr. Mackenzie say if he played those two courses today, at those green speeds?  How would he react to it?  Would he dumb down the undulations in the greens at those 2 courses and keep the green speeds the same?  Would he suggest to a "members club" like CD that they slow them down to 9 or 10 and keep the undulations the same?  Any thoughts?

What should the Green Committee at CD do (and I would say they have to do something because there are very few usable hole locations on 10, and zero hole locations on 11...and due to stimping at 13+, they have lost countless other usable hole locations on the other 16 greens).

Thoughts?

TS

[Jim Sherma]

Green speed fetish is a curse that should, but probably won't be eradicated. Too many members think that seeing their guests beaten up with silly fast greens is a way to show off how great their course is.

Ted - Situations like you describe at the 11th really annoy me and I blame the staff for using pin placements that can't be putted up to at the green speeds they are mowing to. It's way too "clown's mouth" for me and really disrepectful to the course and the design. If there are insufficient reasonable pin places then slow down the greens to what the design can handle. If the members demand greens maintained at speeds faster than that which best reveals the architecture, that is a sad statement on the club's membership and their motivations for maintaining their course.

[Tyler Kearns]

Ted,

The scenario you describe doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Is it a case of not playing the course enough to know where not to hit it, or are those greens you mention virtually unplayable at current speeds? Either way, the decision between raising the height of cut or softening contours to accommodate 13' green speeds seems obvious, from a fiscal point of view, not to mention, maintaining the architectural integrity of the design. Generally speaking, it is a vocal minority of good players that advocate for fast greens, with little consideration for the enjoyment of the remaining 90-95% of the membership. I'm sure those greens would present a stern putting examination while running at 9-10' on the stimpmeter.

At my home club, where I am the chairman of the green committee, we keep our greens running to a maximum of approximately 10.5' due to the severity of our 16th green. Thompson's design for this green now dictates the high end green speed that we can maintain.

TK

[Jud_T]

Ted,

Interesting point.  Had the pleasure of playing the Downs for the first time last month.  On 11 I hit what I thought was a good tee shot pin high to a front flag just off the right side.  It was essentially dead, and this was after the greens had been lightly punched and were not up to normal summer ramming speed according to our host.

[David Stewart]

Ted,

The scenario you describe doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Is it a case of not playing the course enough to know where not to hit it, or are those greens you mention virtually unplayable at current speeds?

As a firsthand witness to Ted's roller-coaster 11th, I can assure you we were all informed on the tee where and where not to hit it, and Ted's tee ball (25-30 feet directly below the hole), was what we all considered a great shot. It did roll back a touch, but stayed up by the green. Another playing partner was behind the hole and we knew he had little chance of staying on the green (and we were right). But with Ted putting straight uphill we all thought he was in a great position to make a run at birdie and at least save a par. It was probably 30 seconds from when he hit his putt until it stopped, travelling to a few feet short of the hole then back down by his feet then off the green then 50 yards down the hill.

To answer Ted's original question, I think those greens would be plenty fun if they stimped at 10. I felt I had to be careful even with uphill putts, which made it very difficult to be aggressive and led to lots of mediocre strokes.

[TEPaul]

Ted:

I don't get this at Crystal Downs. Last time I was there and sort of communicating with them on green speed (is the super still Mr. Morris?) it was my understanding they were using that interesting green speed testing procedure developed at U of Michigan or Michigan State in which a club presents a number of different green speeds to the membership without a stimp number and just polls them on which they like the best.

I called it the "blind taste test." If they are still using that procedure could it be a majority of the membership actually picked a speed that high? If so, then in my opinion, they just deserve what they get with playability.

[Mac Plumart]

Ted...

You are spot on.  Crystal  Downs greens are WAY too fast for the greens undulations.  It is a truly great course that, in my opinion, would only be further enhanced if they slowed those things down.  They are so fast that some of the greatness and interest of the greens is totally lost due to the green speeds.

What would Dr. Mackenzie do?  Perhaps make the greens bigger, so the slopes could be made more gradual.  If not that, certainly slow them down.

 

[Nigel Islam]

Ted I played there for the first time in late May and had the same thing happen. Throw in some 30 mph wind and it was an interesting day to say the least. Course is amazing though. 11 is the only hole I considered borderline. My friend hit left of the green and hit a flop to the very back of the green and it trickled to tap in distance in the middle. Even though the bunkering is not right, I considered this hole to have some eden characteristics.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, that is the last time I bring a guest from this board to Crystal Downs.  Even an old friend!

A few caveats to Ted's report:

1.  The greens were NOT rolling at 13 on the Stimpmeter.  Maybe 11, possibly 11 1/2.  That's still too fast for Crystal Downs, if you ask me, but that's what they go for in the summertime if the course isn't too stressed out.  [Aside to Tom Paul:  they aren't just using the MSU green speed study, Mike Morris is the one who DID the study.  But the members ask for fast greens and he is happy to oblige, even though it makes a couple of holes borderline unplayable.]

2.  The greens were fun when they were stimping at 8 1/2 or 9 in April, before the club opened for the year.  What happened on #11 would happen at any speed above that.

3.  Ted on #11 did the one thing you can never do there ... he failed to get his first putt up to the second tier.  He came up +/- 8 feet short, just short of the crest, and the ball rolled back past him and off the green and down the hill.  Now, I think it's never "fair" when your ball rolls back past you off a green -- I think the same thing about #16 at Pasatiempo.  But his description of it leaves out the most important part -- his ball would have stopped if he'd gotten it up around the hole somewhere.  He just didn't get close to that, and that was a cardinal sin from where he was.

4.  Mac:  make the greens bigger?  How would that help?  The eleventh green is benched into a very steep slope ... indeed, what Ted is complaining about is that once his putt went down off the first tier it rolled 25-30 yards back down the slope AT FAIRWAY HEIGHT.  Cutting it to green height isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is that there is a lot of slope there! 

5.  What would MacKenzie say?  I don't think he would say "change the greens".  And anybody who comes up to make alterations to the greens at Crystal Downs will have to do so over my dead body.  But only if I don't kill you first. 

Okay, you can go back to discussing the golf course now.

P.S. to Ted:  That shot you hit that landed on the left fringe on #10 was from about forty yards to the left of where I suggested you hit your tee shot.  Sometimes, you pay the price for being out of position.

[Nigel Islam]

5.  What would MacKenzie say?  I don't think he would say "change the greens".  And anybody who comes up to make alterations to the greens at Crystal Downs will have to do so over my dead body.  But only if I don't kill you first. 

Mr. Doak if anyone ever changes Crystal Downs then something is wrong. I haven't played a lot of top notch courses, but the word "perfect" comes to mind when I think of Crystal Downs.

[Ted Sturges]

Well, that is the last time I bring a guest from this board to Crystal Downs.  Even an old friend!

A few caveats to Ted's report:

1.  The greens were NOT rolling at 13 on the Stimpmeter.  Maybe 11, possibly 11 1/2.  That's still too fast for Crystal Downs, if you ask me, but that's what they go for in the summertime if the course isn't too stressed out.  [Aside to Tom Paul:  they aren't just using the MSU green speed study, Mike Morris is the one who DID the study.  But the members ask for fast greens and he is happy to oblige, even though it makes a couple of holes borderline unplayable.]

2.  The greens were fun when they were stimping at 8 1/2 or 9 in April, before the club opened for the year.  What happened on #11 would happen at any speed above that.

3.  Ted on #11 did the one thing you can never do there ... he failed to get his first putt up to the second tier.  He came up +/- 8 feet short, just short of the crest, and the ball rolled back past him and off the green and down the hill.  Now, I think it's never "fair" when your ball rolls back past you off a green -- I think the same thing about #16 at Pasatiempo.  But his description of it leaves out the most important part -- his ball would have stopped if he'd gotten it up around the hole somewhere.  He just didn't get close to that, and that was a cardinal sin from where he was.

4.  Mac:  make the greens bigger?  How would that help?  The eleventh green is benched into a very steep slope ... indeed, what Ted is complaining about is that once his putt went down off the first tier it rolled 25-30 yards back down the slope AT FAIRWAY HEIGHT.  Cutting it to green height isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem is that there is a lot of slope there! 

5.  What would MacKenzie say?  I don't think he would say "change the greens".  And anybody who comes up to make alterations to the greens at Crystal Downs will have to do so over my dead body.  But only if I don't kill you first. 

Okay, you can go back to discussing the golf course now.

P.S. to Ted:  That shot you hit that landed on the left fringe on #10 was from about forty yards to the left of where I suggested you hit your tee shot.  Sometimes, you pay the price for being out of position.

Tom,

I thought my putt got to within less than 4 feet of the hole (below the hole) on 11.  I definitely believe I got it to the middle tier (hell, my ball mark I fixed from my approach shot was in the middle tier).  David and Jon both monitor this site, so maybe they can chime in here and offer their opinion on how close to the hole my 1st putt got.  You were definitely standing closer to the hole than I was, so I might not have seen it as clearly as you did. 

It would be hard to stimp most of the greens at CD, but my guess is (if you could find a reasonably flat spot to stimp in both directions) they were faster than 11 last Friday.  I would set the over and under at 11.5 and definitely take the over.

My original question was:  What would Dr. Mackenzie say about those greens at last Friday's pace, and I agree with your comments to that question.  I don't think he would want the greens changed...I just think he would like to see them stimping at 8 or 9.  I think the course would be much more fun to play if that were the case.

Also, agree that I was approaching #10 from a spot well left of where you told me to hit it (my tee shot was so poor, I was hitting my 3rd shot! from that spot).  But, I hit a wedge, with plenty of check, and it landed near the left fringe.  It "creeped" all the way across to the right fringe.  I agree that driving it in the wrong spot should cost you something...just think that penalty was pretty severe (when a 120 yard approach shot can't be kept on the putting green).

If Dr. Mackenzie were alive today, do you think he would build less severe greens than the ones at CD due to modern mowing technology, or would he convince green committees to keep them slower?

I for one would vote for greens like those, but played at lower speeds.  That can be really fun golf!

TS

[JC Jones]

I've been very fortunate to play Crystal Downs a handful of times.  I've never had a problem with the speed of the greens.  To me, the issue is the rough and the native areas.  If the entire place was at fairway height or maybe with some light rough, it would much better.

[David Stewart]

Tom and Ted,

I think you are both right, I just remember the hole being cut very close to the edge of the tier. I remember worrying that my putt from the middle tier (about hole high) might go all the way down the hill and off the green if I missed it low, so I know it was close to the edge. I think Ted's ball got within 5 feet of the hole, but that was still not all the way up the crest of the hill to the middle tier. Tom had a right to left putt from hole high on that middle tier. It just missed the hole and was moving to the left (down the hill) but stayed on that tier. So, if Ted's ball had gotten all the way up to that tier and its momemtum was moving it forward, I think it would have stayed there as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Ted:

I don't remember just how close the hole was cut to the point of no return on the green.  Probably somewhere between our two estimates.  But your putt didn't get up on the "flat" [up onto the second tier] and then roll back off ... that doesn't happen there, even when the green is fast.

You are right that it's hard to get a good Stimpmeter reading on greens that severe.  But, I know they are aiming for 11 or 11.5 on the Stimpmeter most days, and the greens were not way faster than I've seen them on other occasions.  I've seen them much faster, in the fall.

I think that if Dr. MacKenzie were alive today, he'd build greens about like we build them -- still with loads of contour, but with less pitch than what he built at Crystal Downs.  We architects all have to be realists, in understanding that clients and superintendents and golf committees are all caught up in the numbers instead of what makes for the most fun.  We can keep telling them to stop, but we'd be crazy to really count on it.

The sad part is that it's impossible to build a hole like the 11th at Crystal Downs if you are going to keep the maximum slope in the hole location areas to 3% [or 2.25% as the PGA Tour would insist].  It's not the same kind of hole at all, under those parameters ... it would be reduced to two flat tiers with a steep bank in between, instead of a contoured surface on the face of a slope.  That's why I don't want to see it changed ... because the character of the hole cannot be preserved any other way.

[Ted Sturges]

Lots of greens have fans installed to "help" the green.  Maybe we could install a "push broom rack" for the 11th at CD.   

[ward peyronnin]

Ted

I am delighted to see you back circulating amongst the great courses again.

You also fail to mention that this putting it off the green seems to be a chronic problem: remember when your second putt at the first at Portrush sped past the hole and into the fearsome left front gaping bunker? Sounds like you are up to your old tricks again!

My question is I think players demand fast green these days principally because they feel putts roll more "true" and roll out. How does one present greens with that character at slower stimps as this means the grass is longer? Rolling techniques or practices perhaps?

[Nigel Islam]

Ted I think your pin was very similar to the one I played. It was cut in the middle tier about 2 feet from the fall line. I hit the crest but did not get over it. I was more surprised they cut the pin that close to the ridge, than upset at the green speed.

[jeffwarne]

The same thing he'd say about the appearance of the new bunkers at Cork (which I played today).
What a lovely course.
What a great set of greens.
Pity about the new bunkers...........
why fight such a great landscape?

[David Kelly]

While I would like to see the green speeds rolled back at Crystal Downs the only greens that I have played there that have been borderline unfair are #10 and #11.  Being above the hole on #1 or to the right (north) of the pin on #3 can be screaming fast but two putting is doable.

[Tom_Doak]

While I would like to see the green speeds rolled back at Crystal Downs the only greens that I have played there that have been borderline unfair are #10 and #11.  Being above the hole on #1 or to the right (north) of the pin on #3 can be screaming fast but two putting is doable.

David:

The other green that has gotten pretty borderline now is #13.  It's a combination of the faster speeds and the years of topdressing, which have made the fall-offs to the right (both at the front and the back) more severe.  The same effect is apparent on the back hole location at #9.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()