News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Believe These Stimp Numbers?
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2013, 11:45:10 PM »
And of course 6' 4" greens seemed much faster when you were putting downhill and down grain.

I had this discussion with a very wise superintendent a few years ago, and he made the point that greensmowers of that generation simply weren't capable of cutting at the height needed to produce the speeds people remember.

At his two-course facility he'd been taking regular (at least weekly) Stimpmeter readings for about 40 years, and he said that they hadn't varied by more than half a foot in that time. He consistently kept them at 9 feet, but during his tenure, his courses had gone from one of the fastest anywhere around, to about average.

I agree with you however about the effect of slope and grain. My home course has a couple of greens that were fast enough downhill that a putt from below the hole might come back past you if it lipped out.

Those greens were no where near fast enough to produce that effect if it weren't for the fact that bent grass will lay down with the direction of water flow;

Where I play now in Kansas, the greens don't get mowed regularly in the winter, and the result is that they get slower uphill and much, much faster downhill.

That, IMHO, is why so many of us remember scary-fast putts from the 60s and 70s, even though greens weren't being cut short enough to produce them.

K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Believe These Stimp Numbers?
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2013, 04:17:16 AM »
Advances in mowing equipment has certainly had an impact on green speeds over the past forty years, but it’s only one of many factors.

To start with, mower reel grinding machines are a dream compared the the old days when mower reels had to be disassembled and ground by hand. Usually, because of the down time involve, this could be done only in the off-season. With modern equipment, the set up and operation are simple and automatic. We can tune up the blades as often as necessary even through the season. Without sharp and adjusted mower blades, nothing else you do will help green speeds.

Improved turfgrass varieties have played an important role. The close cutting mowing equipment would be useless on the old mixes of creeping, velvet, and colonial bentgrasses that you couldn’t mow below 3/16 inch. In the ‘70’s, Penncross bentgrass was state of the art, and even that won’t do well below 1/8 inch, and I don’t think anybody is sowing greens with that stuff anymore.  Today there are hundreds of varieties to choose from according to the particular situation. The “A” series bents, for example, are finer, denser, and tolerate close mowing.

The impact of improved turfgrass species is doubly true for warm season locales. In the ‘70’s, the best green surface we had was 328 bermudagrass, which might be okay for a tee today. First came Tifdwarf, then the ultra-dwarfs, and bermuda greens today are easily twice the speed of forty years ago. Seashore Paspalum, not available ten years ago, can also be mowed tight and speedy as anything.

As for equipment, besides the mowers there are new verticutting units, groomers, brushes, spikers, aerators, and topdressers, all of which help control thatch and keep the surface true, smooth, and fast. Certain cultural practices evolved with the new machines. For example, light frequent sand topdressing came into vogue in the ‘80’s, and has made a huge difference in firmness and putting quality. Up until then everybody pretty much topdressed twice a year after the aeration and that was it.

The development of lightweight greens rollers alone has added considerably to green speeds. No such thing existed until I think the ‘90’s.

Growth regulators also contribute. These have only appeared for turfgrass use in the past fifteen years, but now most greens are on some type of regulation. In the old days, greens might be noticeably slower as the day wore on. Products like Primo slow growth so there is less of a difference between morning and afternoon. If there isn’t much leaf growth, then daily mowing accumulates speed, like double cutting might in the past. Regulators can also help the turf tolerate a lower height of cut.

Fertilizer regimes have evolved. Back in the ‘70’s, conventional wisdom held that you fertilized bentgrass greens with one pound of nitrogen per thousand square feet per growing month, or 6-8 pounds per year in the northern U.S. Today, it’s more like 2 pounds per year. An overfed bentgrass leaf grows fat and lush, increasing resistance to the ball roll. Leaner greens roll faster, and lots of us are applying the absolute minimum of nitrogen. Bermudagrasses still need to be fed more, but the other factors listed here more than compensate for it.

I’m sure there are other practices I can’t think of right now, but the point is that green speed is a complex issue that has evolved in more ways than one.

The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Believe These Stimp Numbers?
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2013, 05:24:09 AM »
Steve,
Great post. Very detailed and informative.
All the best

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Believe These Stimp Numbers?
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2013, 08:19:57 AM »
Steve ,
Thanks for an informative post.
Interesting that the timeline you cite is pretty much the same as my timeline in golf.
1974--on.
Great to hear the technical reasons for my mostly anecdoatal personal observations at a variety of clubs with a variety of grasses.
I do specifically remember leaving my predominantly Bermuda greens and going to college an hour north and playing on bent and realizing I was actually a pretty good putter ;)

While probably better for you and I professionally,

Do you think all the advances, cost and overall BIGNESS make the game better?
I'm definitely not so sure.
It seems we've simply spent the last 4 decades responding to the squeakiest wheel and lowest common denominator, and I'd bet the amount of post round grumbling about "conditions"is the same. ;)
As always , I could be wrong ;D ;)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Believe These Stimp Numbers?
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2013, 02:39:16 PM »
Jeff, I don't understand what you mean by "Bigness".

Compared to the past, I think the courses are better for the majority of players. I remember playing high school golf cerca 1970, and even back then people spoke admiringly of fast greens (which would have probably been around 7 ft. back then), well before the advent of the Stimpmeter. It's just that now the bar has been raised.

The Stimpmeter and advances in greenkeeping are a response to the desires of the golfers, an industry meeting market demand. If the business is going to the clubs with faster greens, then it becomes a competition, which creates and upward spiral.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back