[Chris Johnston]

Pat -

How fast is "Fast"?

Seems to me too fast is a pain for everybody, and may also negate the good player wrt to chipping.

How slow is too "Slow"

Agree on too slow, takes a bit of the sport out of the game.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think there are other reasons dictating quality play in The Open...don't you guys?

Jim,

what other reasons?

IMO The Open Championship has been played in many different conditions from soft to firm, Calm to strong winds, thick rough to wide open but although the conditions have an effect on the scoring especially the rough and wind there has not been any sign of easier scoring than at many tour events despite slower greens. This leads me to the conclusion that faster or slower green speeds do not make a difference for the tour players in making the course easier or harder.

Jon

[JESII]

Jon,

You came to the wrong conclusion.

During the rare instance when an Open round is played on a soft course with light wind the scores are really low. Green speeds are a big part of this. To be clear, this is a good thing because the game is best when the ground is hard and the wind blows.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

by your own statement scores were not low because of the speed of the greens but because of how soft the course was and little wind. I bet there were results at the tours normal events where the scoring was even lower despite the greens being much faster. Think about it

Jon

[JESII]

Jon,

Are you equating the tee-to-green challenge at Muirfield/Carnoustie etc...to that of a run of the mill US Tour event? Think about it!

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

they are different but not necessarily easier or harder tee to green. Yes it might be higher but not always of uniform density, not irrigated, not cut with a rotary mower. No trees in lay on most links to get behind and fewer water hazards. IMO Carnoustie was really difficult but then again the result was not that low and Muirfield this year played tough around the greens but not excessively tee to green.

Jon

[Tim Lewis]

One question that I have regarding green speeds is whether relatively slow greens can still play firm. I understand that on links courses greens can play firm yet still roll on the slower side, but is this possible on other types of golf courses? I remember reading in the feature interview about askernish that they have to keep their greens running at about 7 because if they cut them any closer the slopes will scalp. That sounds like alot of fun to me.

[Brent Hutto]

At its extreme, the combination of really rock-hard firm greens that are very slow is infuriating. You have to play for the bounce but then at some point the bounce stop and that slow grass just grabs the ball, stopping it dead. If you're unlucky you end up with a 50+ foot putt on a green stimping 5.5 or something.

But that particular combination is very rare. Usually by the time they get rock hard the greens are rolling at least in the 7's or 8's, assuming cool climate grasses. The rock-hard and dead slow combination is usually on a poorly maintained set of Bermuda greens in my experience. Very annoying.

[JESII]

Jon,

Maybe I'm lost, but what do you think the scores would look like in an Open Championship with 12.5 stimp meter greens? How about a Masters with 9 foot greens?

Yes, a straight 6 foot putt is easier on a fast green than a slow one...but nothing else is.

The fear of where your ball ends up is gone at the lower speeds.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Winning scores at the Masters by decade thru 2009:
I would say that the green started stimping over 9' on a regular basis at the Masters in the 80's



1930s
The very first Masters was held in 1934. At the time, not even Bobby Jones and Clifford Roberts knew that it would become such an important and vital element of professional golf. It is interesting to note that the winning scores of the very first Masters are not particularly higher than most of the tournament's recent winners.

1934 Horton Smith 284
1935 Gene Sarazen 282
1936 Horton Smith 285
1937 Byron Nelson 283
1938 Henry Picard 285
1939 Ralph Guldahl 279

1940s
The 1940s is an important decade in the history of the Masters for two reasons. This was the only decade in which the tournament was canceled. From 1943-1945, the Masters was suspended due to World War II. The other reason the 1940s is an important decade is because 1949 marked the first time that the winner received the coveted green jacket.

1940 Jimmy Demaret 280
1941 Craig Wood 280
1942 Byron Nelson 280
1946 Herman Keiser 282
1947 Jimmy Demaret 281
1948 Claude Harmon 279
1949 Sam Snead 282

1950s
The 1950s was notable for the Masters due to a four-year run in which the winner was either one of two legends, Ben Hogan and Sam Snead. The decade drew to a close with the crowning of a legend-to-be named Arnold Palmer.

1950 Jimmy Demaret 283
1951 Ben Hogan 280
1952 Sam Snead 286
1953 Ben Hogan 274
1954 Sam Snead 289
1955 Cary Middlecoff 279
1956 Jack Burke 289
1957 Doug Ford 283
1958 Arnold Palmer 284
1959 Art Wall Jr. 284

1960s
The 1960s was a golfer's dream for the Masters. The two biggest names in golf for the next two decades, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus, each battled for supremacy by slipping on the green jacket more than half the decade.

1960 Arnold Palmer 282
1961 Gary Player 280
1962 Arnold Palmer 280
1963 Jack Nicklaus 286
1964 Arnold Palmer 276
1965 Jack Nicklaus 271
1966 Jack Nicklaus 288
1967 Gay Brewer Jr. 280
1968 Bob Goalby 277
1969 George Archer 281

1970s
The Masters in the 1970s was mainly a battle between Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus against a host of one-time winners.

1970 Billy Casper 279
1971 Charles Coody 279
1972 Jack Nicklaus 286
1973 Tommy Aaron 283
1974 Gary Player 278
1975 Jack Nicklaus 276
1976 Ray Floyd 271
1977 Tom Watson 276
1978 Gary Player 277
1979 Fuzzy Zoeller 280

1980s
The 1980s was big news for the Masters as Jack Nicklaus won his last of a record six tournaments.

1980 Severiano Ballesteros 275
1981 Tom Watson 280
1982 Craig Stadler 284
1983 Severiano Ballesteros 280
1984 Ben Crenshaw 277
1985 Bernhard Langer 282
1986 Jack Nicklaus 279
1987 Larry Mize 285
1988 Sandy Lyle 281
1989 Nick Faldo 283

1990s
The 1990s will most likely be remembered mainly as the decade in which Tiger Woods won his first Masters.

1990 Nick Faldo 278
1991 Ian Woosnam 277
1992 Fred Couples 275
1993 Bernard Langer 277
1994 Jose M.Olazabal 279
1995 Ben Crenshaw 274
1996 Nick Faldo 276
1997 Tiger Woods 270
1998 Mark O'Meara 279
1999 Jose M. Olazabal 280

2000s
Tiger Woods cemented his place in history as one of the greatest golfers to ever play the game and a large part of his legacy will be his domination of the Masters in the early part of the decade. The Masters of the 2000s will also be remembered as the tournament in which Phil Mickelson established himself as a majors player.

2000 Vijay Singh 278
2001 Tiger Woods 272
2002 Tiger Woods 276
2003 Mike Weir 281
2004 Phil Mickelson 279
2005 Tiger Woods 276
2006 Phil Mickelson 281
2007 Zach Johnson 289
2008 Trevor Immelman 280
2009 Angel Cabrera 276



Golf Tips: List of Winners of the Masters Golf Tournament | GolfLink.com http://www.golflink.com/list_5175_list-winners-masters-golf-tournament.html#ixzz2iUvxSQVI

[jeffwarne]

At its extreme, the combination of really rock-hard firm greens that are very slow is infuriating. You have to play for the bounce but then at some point the bounce stop and that slow grass just grabs the ball, stopping it dead. If you're unlucky you end up with a 50+ foot putt on a green stimping 5.5 or something.

But that particular combination is very rare. Usually by the time they get rock hard the greens are rolling at least in the 7's or 8's, assuming cool climate grasses. The rock-hard and dead slow combination is usually on a poorly maintained set of Bermuda greens in my experience. Very annoying.

Brent,
I'll take rock hard and slow, over soft and fast any day.
At least firm makes approach and recovery angles matter.

Some very good posts on this thread.
I'd have to side with Jon and Mark on this one.

In general, fast greens are great and do require imagination.
The problem begins when they become so fast they have to have the slope reduced, thus rendering appoach and recovery angles less important, and in turn killing imagination.

I'm a big fan of greens with a LOT of tilt.
When that is lost due to speed, I am disappointed.
Some of  my favorite greens are at a course where the greens run 5-6, with a ton of tilt.
Super fast putts, and super slow-----that takes skill.
Super fast? don't even have to hit a putt solid


The bottom line is, the better the green's design, the less speed required to make them interesting.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

I'm in total agreement. I've often wondered if the putting stroke itself is less important on todays greens. Greens of yesteryear had less irrigation, less grooming, and more grain. In the post by SBR, he guesses stimp readings at The Masters were above 9 sometime in the 80's. I would wager that they were much higher, much earlier....with the caveat that the speeds were higher on downhill/ downgrain putts, and much slower on the uphill/ into the grain putts.

Consider what happens on slow greens when you mishit the putt a little....you could easily be left with a putt half the distance of what you started with. Also agree with you considering the need for firmness on slow greens to keep the challenge in the approach/ recovery shots.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Most of you gents probably play some very good courses, and are probably very good golfers. From the lower end public side of golf and from an average golfer's perspective, I find that the rare fast* greens I play are almost always the best greens I play -- the best designed and maintained, with the healthiest turf -- and thus the EASIEST for me to putt on and to make putts on, with less of a stroke needed (and so less room for twitches) and with the ball running truer and holding the line better, and indeed, usually with fewer subtle breaks and grain issues to deal with than on old public course greens that have been inadvertently and/or haphazardly top-dressed for 4 or 5 decades. In short, give me "fast greens" any day of the week...please.

Peter
* Fast being a relative term

[Patrick_Mucci]

SBR,

In 1981 ANGC converted all greens from Bermuda to bent and for the next ten years the scores are higher than the previous ten years.

One could make the case that from the 90's improvements in the I&B (hi-tech) were responsible for lower scoring

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Maybe I'm lost, but what do you think the scores would look like in an Open Championship with 12.5 stimp meter greens? How about a Masters with 9 foot greens?

Yes, a straight 6 foot putt is easier on a fast green than a slow one...but nothing else is.

The fear of where your ball ends up is gone at the lower speeds.

Jim,

I think we are looking at this from two completely different angles. I believe that you think that when a green becomes so fast that its slopes become unplayable it is the speed that has made the difficulty and therefore is decisive but I think it is the opposite. To me the speed of the greens should suit the contours not the other way round.

If they had greens at the Open Championship that stimped at 12.5 then the greens at courses such as Muirfield would quickly become way too difficult and due to their often exposed nature the ball would not hold in anything like a strong wind.

The answer flatten the greens which is what so many courses have done is however the wrong one IMO as it is not the speed but the slope that makes it hard. That is the illogical thought process going on at many clubs. Greens must be stimping at a certain speed because they think it makes them a challenge for the top players but the greens become unplayable and often maintainable due to the slopes so said greens are flattened out leaving the club with greens that are no harder to play than before but less interesting.

Even on greens stimping at 12+ that I have played it is not any harder to get a 30 foot putt with in few feet than on slower greens if the green is flat. Hence for low handicapper or good putters, speed without slope is no more difficult than slower speeds without slope ergo it is slope that makes the difference.

Jon

[Brent Hutto]

As usual my experience comports with Peter's. As shorthand I always say that I prefer "fast" greens to "slow" ones because down here in the land of Bermuda, a "slow" green generally means one that is shaggy and/or thatchy with huge amounts of grain and inconsistent speeds from hole to hole. In other words, not very well maintained.

But on my UK trips I do encountered perfectly fine, healthy fescue/poa/bent/whatever greens that just happen to stimp at 7.5 or 8. Those are great to putt on and as Jim Sullivan mentions, one can be fearless at those speeds.

Back home I'd have a hard time ever pointing out a green stimping 7-8 that's worth a damn to putt on.

To Joe H's point, I would also agree that slow greens punish poor stroke mechanics more than fast greens. Conversely, fast greens punish poor nerves and tentative or yippy strokes more than slow ones due to the fear factor.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

SBR,

In 1981 ANGC converted all greens from Bermuda to bent and for the next ten years the scores are higher than the previous ten years.

One could make the case that from the 90's improvements in the I&B (hi-tech) were responsible for lower scoring

Pat - Good point about the conversion.  I am not sure how the greens played during the bermuda era so I am guessing a bit at green speeds.  The scores did go up after bent but only .5 strokes over the 60's.  

Winning Score Ave:
1960's   280.1
1970's   278.5
1980's   280.6
1990's   276.5

Keep in mind that once Augusta converted to bent they did not stand still.  I know that in the early 90's they were changing several greens each year to newer varieties that were being developed.   While adding these new bents to the greens I believe they have made some changes to the green slopes due to the anticipated faster speeds.   Augusta is probably one of the best places to use to try and answer your original question as it has probably had the best conditioned greens for a long time.  The other place to look at would be Oakmont of course.

[Jeffrey Prest]

The critical point for me is where greens have become so fast that traditional pin positions become off-limits. We're losing enough architectural nuance to technology at the game's upper frontier as it is without egging on the decline.

Another key crux is when green speeds are cranked up purely to pander to the misguided desire of the mediocre player for that just-like-the-pros experience.

A friend of mine is a useful golfer. On a recent visit to St Andrews, he hit every Old Course green in regulation, only for his card to be butchered by marble greens. I was very careful not to ask a leading question when he told me about it.

What did the green speed do for the overall experience, I asked?

He lowered his voice as if conscious of being on the verge of blasphemy.

"Spoilt it..." he mumbled.

[archie_struthers]

 


It appears we have some agreement whilst appearing to be on opposite sides.  Jon is so right that there can be a "dumbing down" of architecture in the quest for FAIRNESS. It's not unusual in this day and age to see golf courses flattening greens to accommodate higher speeds. This is true at some of the greatest courses ever built and at some that aren't so good.

As Brent suggested green speed and firm and fast conditions typically run hand in hand in the states . So unless we have some changes in the weather or the grasses used its hard to imagine tastes will change dramatically . Experiments with Buffalo Grass and the like just haven't panned out despite some initial promise . So , we probably need to accept the fact that architects will weigh the benefits of slope vs speed and do their best to build the courses that reflect the times .

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

This has been an excellent thread with both points of view being argued cogently and in a civilised manner.

I felt very much at home with Jon Wiggett's initial reply #4. After reading and  thinking about the different responses I still come down on the side of slower greens with greater undulations being more interesting and challenging.

These types of greens fire my imagination more and allow ingenuity to play a bigger role methinks. And the fact that lower maintenance regimes are able to be put in place is also a real plus in my book.

So I don't think the case for fast greens should be made on the vast majority of our golf courses. I think that for the professional tournament the speed can be increased but make sure you have plenty swooping undulations to begin with. This should concentrate the pro's mind wonderfully!

Cheers Colin

[JESII]

Jon,

I think you're correct. We were coming at this from different perspectives. I'm thinking of a single green and the challenge presented at two different green speeds, hence the questions about Augusta at 9 feet or a British Open at 12 feet.

Regardless, I agree that the trend towards flattening greens is bad, but I have seen very few greens in my time that would need to be flattened if 11 to 12 feet were the realistic max and that players would understand the potential implications of a poorly thought out approach shot.

I've never been a believer in the adage that if you're on the green you should be able to putt the ball up right next to the hole. In addition, to me, there's nothing better than seeing a ball roll across 50 or 60 feet of a green at 11 or 12 feet. Considering those two statements, is it any wonder I'm no fan of 8 foot stimping greens?

[JMEvensky]

In addition, to me, there's nothing better than seeing a ball roll across 50 or 60 feet of a green at 11 or 12 feet.
 

I agree with everything you typed but this,to me,is the biggest reason why good putters/players prefer faster greens.A 50 foot lag putt on greens at 11 or 12 requires a lot of talent.

It's not the 8 foot putts that are the big difference--it's the 50 footers.

[Tom ORourke]

I am in the midst of playing some of the courses on the RTJ Trail in Alabama. The greens are very quick. I agree that straight putts are easier. I have made a bunch of 4 to 6 foot putts. Many of them are my second putt. There are some substantial breaks here over major ridges and it is difficult to get the line and speed correct when you go up and then down a hill with a 4 foot break. The longer the putt the more skill is needed with fast greens to prevent the ball from getting away from you. Playing the great old Philly courses was good practice for this as playing greens that were not designed for speed makes you a better putter than someone who only knows slow greens.

[JESII]

Perhaps...but doesn't it also play into John Kirk's thesis about the longer (time duration) a ball is moving on the ground the better? Greens at 8 feet simply don't allow a ball to roll for very many seconds.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

I think we can say that we appreciate both sides of the argument and the strengths/weaknesses there of. I omitted to respond to the Augusta 9 foot question so here I will add that Augusta would still offer a good test if the pin positions were correct. I believe where Augusta gets away with the excessive speeds is because most of the greens gather into areas so presenting the challenge of hitting the right part of the green or facing a tricky putt over humps and ridges.

I have no problem in hitting long putts on slower surfaces. Indeed, when playing a links course in summer on a windy day it is often the smart choice to play a 40-50 approach with the putter rather than an iron.

JM,

I disagree about the talent for judging distance. If you spend 1 hour every day on quality practice of 50 footers and do this for a year then at the end of the year you will find long lag putts pretty easy if there is no real slope. Just about anyone will learn to feel the distance automatically if they spend enough time practicing. The problem is very few people do practice.

After the age of 18 very, very few people will ever reach there potential at full shots but with putting and short chips almost anyone can become proficient at the basic shots. The problem is that at practice facilities people spend most of their time banging longshots away and just a cursory few minutes on the shorter shots. Very few people have the time to put in the necessary 2 hours+ each day on practice I know I don't and when I do have the time I prefer to play a few holes.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()