[jeffwarne]

Built a strategic golf course, at a reasonable cost, on a good piece of land.
in an otherwise demographically positive area (a big assumption today but humor me )
and built greens with considerable slope and variety in direction and amount of tilt-not all of them, but with the freedom to build 4.5 % slopes when appropriate and mix  tilts, slopes and contours-and of course the occasional subtle green.
i.e. downhillers and sidehillers were scary, uphillers slow

and ran the greens on peak season weekend days at 9.5,but firm as possible, with a max of 10.5 or 11 for really special events, which would be absolutely on the edge.

Would they come?
Would they stay?

I'm not asking if whether your super or your owner would object and try to intervene, or if there would be naysayers

Would the public/members accept it?
would greens at 9.5 be the death knell of an otherwise worthy project?
If resistance was met, what could management do to educate the public/prospective members?

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff, how many of what Mike Keiser calls "retail golfers" do you think can tell the difference between 9 and 11 stimp?

4.5% slopes at more than 9 are a runaway train wreck for retail golfers.

The front half of the 8th green at Pasatiempo is over 6%, I saw Neal Meagher measure it with his slope tool.  Has any one ever seen a hole cut in that area?

[Steve Lapper]

Jeff,

   Just look down the road to Baiting Hollow and you'll have your answer.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I think they'd stay.  Don Mahaffey has written on the same topic a couple of times lately, and had some experience building similar stuff.  Wild Horse is another good example -- the greens there are certainly not flat.  

I think if High Pointe had been in a demographically positive area, and professionally managed, it would have done just fine.

But, you would have to have a client who was very understanding.  From the day High Pointe opened -- even before it opened -- the client was besieged by naysayers from all over the golf business, telling him how wrong we were to build what we did.  [Fescue won't work.  Greens too severe.  Not long enough.  Who would ever enjoy a putting course like that wild thing?  etc.]  It had a lot of effect, because the client wasn't secure enough in his own knowledge of golf to dismiss most of it.

Golfers just want to have fun.  It's the experts who are the problem.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, how many of what Mike Keiser calls "retail golfers" do you think can tell the difference between 9 and 11 stimp?

4.5% slopes at more than 9 are a runaway train wreck for retail golfers.

The front half of the 8th green at Pasatiempo is over 6%, I saw Neal Meagher measure it with his slope tool.  Has any one ever seen a hole cut in that area?

I'd say all of them could tell the difference, but perhaps not quantify it.
You may've answered my question though as the public certainly has embraced Bandon.
But I might add they've embraced it due to a far superior product, perhaps despite the green speeds (which is the ONLY) criticism I've ever heard.

Nice post Tom.
By the way, I wouldn't suggest the greens be wild, just the freedom to build a Palmettolike set of greens without having to rebuild 5 and 6 (not yet) but also with thoughtful fairway placement/width to complement such greens

[Charlie Gallagher]

If the holes have width and strategic options, the greens have variety including smart backstops and collection areas, and the possibility of losing balls-searching for balls is reduced, I say the course should be a smashing success. This would be especially likely if it was well maintained and if that consideration was taken into account at the time of construction, and it was properly marketed and managed.

I would suggest that Rustic Canyon is such a course. Wild Horse comes to mind. Fossil Trace is another that fits this model, at least to some extent.

[Jason Thurman]

Is 9.5 really that slow for a public course?

[jeffwarne]

Is 9.5 really that slow for a public course?

Not at all
I would've liked to have typed 8 but I didn't want to freak anyone out.

[David Ober]

Jeff:

I think they'd stay.  Don Mahaffey has written on the same topic a couple of times lately, and had some experience building similar stuff.  Wild Horse is another good example -- the greens there are certainly not flat.  

I think if High Pointe had been in a demographically positive area, and professionally managed, it would have done just fine.

But, you would have to have a client who was very understanding.  From the day High Pointe opened -- even before it opened -- the client was besieged by naysayers from all over the golf business, telling him how wrong we were to build what we did.  [Fescue won't work.  Greens too severe.  Not long enough.  Who would ever enjoy a putting course like that wild thing?  etc.]  It had a lot of effect, because the client wasn't secure enough in his own knowledge of golf to dismiss most of it.

Golfers just want to have fun.  It's the experts who are the problem.

I'm not an expert, but I'll chime in:

Some would stay, some would not -- like anything that's "different."

Here's the problem with slow greens: For many players, they actually require a different stroke. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a fact. Going back and forth between slow greens and fast greens can be detrimental to maintaining a consistent stroke, and some serious players would be wary of playing on greens that were so different from greens that they normally play.

And when I say "serious" golfers, I mean anyone who likes to compete -- be it at the club net level or the local, regional, or national scratch level.

So I believe that you would have quite a few players who would not want to play at a course like that consistently due to that fact alone....

Not sure of that, though, just a possibility....

[David Ober]

Is 9.5 really that slow for a public course?

Not at all
I would've liked to have typed 8 but I didn't want to freak anyone out.

You would REALLY have to educate the public if you wanted greens at 8. 

I do think it could be done, though, with the right signage in the clubhouse and on your website. You would need to explain that slow greens allow for more contour and more pin placements and more imagination and more FUN.

I think it's possible....

[Tom_Doak]

Here's the problem with slow greens: For many players, they actually require a different stroke. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a fact. Going back and forth between slow greens and fast greens can be detrimental to maintaining a consistent stroke, and some serious players would be wary of playing on greens that were so different from greens that they normally play.

And when I say "serious" golfers, I mean anyone who likes to compete -- be it at the club net level or the local, regional, or national scratch level.

So I believe that you would have quite a few players who would not want to play at a course like that consistently due to that fact alone....

Not sure of that, though, just a possibility....

Agreed. 

One of the factors that troubled High Pointe was that it wasn't just a public course with a regular clientele ... a lot of the customers had just played The Bear at Grand Traverse Resort the day before, and they couldn't adjust to the different speed of the greens.  So that was the greens' fault, or the designer's fault.  Anything but the players' fault.

One of the reasons Wolf Point works is that the owner plays it every day, and doesn't alternate with another course that has faster greens.  It only really has to work for one player.  You can do a lot more creative things when you only have to please one guy!

[RJ_Daley]

I also agree that it is in large part a challenge to 'educate' the customer.  Communication with golfers that celebrates the 'fun factor' of playing more contour with more imagination, and forgoing speed to get to that point, is the task at-hand, IMHO.  One can promote firm, with appropriate speed to match putting green and surrounds slopes.  One can have firm and comparable HOC on FWs and reasonably playable rough, that promotes bounce tee to green, and celebrate the features that make tee shots that run, and green surrounds that bound and require shot making on the approaches, and publicize those fun factors, and succeed as a commercial enterprise, IMHO. 

[jeffwarne]

Is 9.5 really that slow for a public course?

Not at all
I would've liked to have typed 8 but I didn't want to freak anyone out.

You would REALLY have to educate the public if you wanted greens at 8. 

I do think it could be done, though, with the right signage in the clubhouse and on your website. You would need to explain that slow greens allow for more contour and more pin placements and more imagination and more FUN.

I think it's possible....

David,
When I worked at Long Cove in the late 80's, early 90's the greens ran at 8 and seemed fast as anything on Hilton Head  and certainly challenging.
Never occurred to me that was slow.

Tom,
I play Goat Hill regularly where the greens "run" 6, I then, sometimes in the same day,
 play at The Bridge where they run 11-12 depending on day of the week.
It talkes one putt and some observation to make an adjustment.

The stroke is the same. The mistake people make is that on slower greens the stroke needs to be longer.
I'm always amazed watching people putt 40 footers and 10 footers with the same length backswing.
faster greens allow players to do that, or should I say, get away with that, but they're never going to have great touch, Hittiing the ball harder or softer, or changing their rythym, as opposed to simply varying the length of their stroke and keeping a constant rythym.

Variety is the spice of life. I remember when courses were known for their fast greens.
Now everyone thinks they should have them, even at the expense of interest.

Putting slower slopier greens is FAR more difficult than faster greens built with slopes to accomodate that speed, as a far wider range of judgement, skill, and experience is needed-as well as a much more versatile stroke

[David Ober]

Is 9.5 really that slow for a public course?

Not at all
I would've liked to have typed 8 but I didn't want to freak anyone out.

You would REALLY have to educate the public if you wanted greens at 8. 

I do think it could be done, though, with the right signage in the clubhouse and on your website. You would need to explain that slow greens allow for more contour and more pin placements and more imagination and more FUN.

I think it's possible....

David,
When I worked at Long Cove in the late 80's, early 90's the greens ran at 8 and seemed fast as anything on Hilton Head  and certainly challenging.
Never occurred to me that was slow.

Tom,
I play Goat Hill regularly where the greens "run" 6, I then, sometimes in the same day,
 play at The Bridge where they run 11-12 depending on day of the week.
It talkes one putt and some observation to make an adjustment.

The stroke is the same. The mistake people make is that on slower greens the stroke needs to be longer.
I'm always amazed watching people putt 40 footers and 10 footers with the same length backswing.
faster greens allow players to do that, or should I say, get away with that, but they're never going to have great touch, Hittiing the ball harder or softer, or changing their rythym, as opposed to simply varying the length of their stroke and keeping a constant rythym.

Variety is the spice of life. I remember when courses were known for their fast greens.
Now everyone thinks they should have them, even at the expense of interest.

Putting slower slopier greens is FAR more difficult than faster greens built with slopes to accomodate that speed, as a far wider range of judgement, skill, and experience is needed-as well as a much more versatile stroke

LOL!

I didn't even want to go there but, you're right: greens at 6 are and have been a reality. There was a course in Riveride called "Quail Ranch" back in the 80's and 90's, and for a while there greens were 6 to 7 on the stimp. It was a fun course with severely undulating greens, but it just couldn't make it. Not sure how much the super, super slow greens contributed to that....

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I play Goat Hill regularly where the greens "run" 6, I then, sometimes in the same day,
 play at The Bridge where they run 11-12 depending on day of the week.
It talkes one putt and some observation to make an adjustment.

Putting slower slopier greens is FAR more difficult than faster greens built with slopes to accomodate that speed, as a far wider range of judgement, skill, and experience is needed-as well as a much more versatile stroke

Jeff:

Believe me, I understand.  That's probably the one thing I generally do very well, adjust to different green speeds, because I rarely play the same course more than a couple of times in a row.

But most golfers I've watched just suck at it.

[David Ober]

Tom,
I play Goat Hill regularly where the greens "run" 6, I then, sometimes in the same day,
 play at The Bridge where they run 11-12 depending on day of the week.
It talkes one putt and some observation to make an adjustment.

Putting slower slopier greens is FAR more difficult than faster greens built with slopes to accomodate that speed, as a far wider range of judgement, skill, and experience is needed-as well as a much more versatile stroke

Jeff:

Believe me, I understand.  That's probably the one thing I generally do very well, adjust to different green speeds, because I rarely play the same course more than a couple of times in a row.

But most golfers I've watched just suck at it.

I would LOVE to see the tour play severely different greens from week to week. That would be absolutely fantastic.

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
I play Goat Hill regularly where the greens "run" 6, I then, sometimes in the same day,
 play at The Bridge where they run 11-12 depending on day of the week.
It talkes one putt and some observation to make an adjustment.

Putting slower slopier greens is FAR more difficult than faster greens built with slopes to accomodate that speed, as a far wider range of judgement, skill, and experience is needed-as well as a much more versatile stroke

Jeff:

Believe me, I understand.  That's probably the one thing I generally do very well, adjust to different green speeds, because I rarely play the same course more than a couple of times in a row.

But most golfers I've watched just suck at it.

yes they do (which is why I can make a living)
and yes most courses suck (which is why you can as well )
a

[Frank Pont]

Guys, come to Europe, most greens of the top courses stimp between 7.5-9.0 and peak at 10.

[RJ_Daley]

A question for you very good players, putting gurus, including any high ranking ams or pros like Mike Clayton and David Eger who look in here.  When one considers the controversy of the anchored long putters, would the preceived advantage to anchoring be mitigated by greens of more slope, but slower speeds? As noted, competitors that would have to adjust more often to varied slope and putting green speed thoughout the competitive rota, might not like the inconsistency.  But, would inconsistancy bring out a different set of skills that would identify a more well rounded player?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Guys, come to Europe, most greens of the top courses stimp between 7.5-9.0 and peak at 10.

Bingo.

[jeffwarne]

A question for you very good players, putting gurus, including any high ranking ams or pros like Mike Clayton and David Eger who look in here.  When one considers the controversy of the anchored long putters, would the preceived advantage to anchoring be mitigated by greens of more slope, but slower speeds? As noted, competitors that would have to adjust more often to varied slope and putting green speed thoughout the competitive rota, might not like the inconsistency.  But, would inconsistancy bring out a different set of skills that would identify a more well rounded player?

Not sure I meet your criteria for answering but
yes definitely, because putting is much more than a good stroke.
Flattish superfast greens allow a smaller stroke and less judgement of break-the hole gets in the way.
Slopier greens require more break, judgement, and speed control

[Morgan Clawson]

I think retail golfers probably get more annoyed by faster than slower greens.

Being above the hole, missing the putt, and having your ball end-up 12 feet past the hole bums-out most retail golfers.

Retail golfer's opinions of greens probably have more to do with how healthy the grass looks and how smooth the ball rolls.

I agree with others in that the retail golfer has trouble adjusting to different green speeds on 2 consecutive days. But really, the contours of the greens have as much to do with speed as the height of the grass.

[Matthew Petersen]

I think retail golfers probably get more annoyed by faster than slower greens.

Being above the hole, missing the putt, and having your ball end-up 12 feet past the hole bums-out most retail golfers.

Retail golfer's opinions of greens probably have more to do with how healthy the grass looks and how smooth the ball rolls.

I agree with others in that the retail golfer has trouble adjusting to different green speeds on 2 consecutive days. But really, the contours of the greens have as much to do with speed as the height of the grass.

I tend to agree with this. Most golfers I get paired with have no concept of what green speeds are. They can't, at least in part, because they're such bad putters.

I had a round at a local public track last year and was paired with three guys in AZ on vacation. The greens were smooth and nice. Probably around 9, maybe 9.5. Not fast, but smooth. By about the 16th tee one of these guys was going on about how fast the greens were--did I think they were 12? or even faster? I didn't even know what to tell the poor man.

That experience has not been uncommon for me. Uless you have some experience actually playing on 10+ greens (or 11-12 even), then you have no real concept of just what that's like. Most retail golfers have never had that experience.

[Brad Wilbur]

I would agree with what Matthew just wrote, but would add that having more slope would make the green speed seem faster to most golfers.  After the round, they would talk about how fast the downhill slider was, and not as much about how level or uphill putts were slow. 

[Matthew Petersen]

I would agree with what Matthew just wrote, but would add that having more slope would make the green speed seem faster to most golfers.  After the round, they would talk about how fast the downhill slider was, and not as much about how level or uphill putts were slow. 

I think that's right, too. Most of the casual golfers I see can get the speed more or less right on relatively flat putts, but struggle a lot more when there's serious tilt. Either it goes racing by, "Wow! I didn't think it was that fast!" Or they don't get it there on an uphill putt and are muttering and calling themselves Alice.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()