[Patrick_Mucci]

John Kirk,

The stress upon the stroke on a downhill, down grain, down wind 4 footer can be excruciating, but that's part of the game.
And it places a premium on positioning yourself such that you have a 4 footer that's uphill, into the grain and wind.

That smooth forward stroke you seek can become more elusive with age.
I think that was the advantage of the long putter.

Fall seems to max out putting speeds for the season and as putting green speeds increase, so does the influence of slope and contour, which further exacerbates the golfers attempt to get it close on his approach putts.

[Mike Hendren]

"...a skilled surgeon's touch..."

Patrick, once again I thank you for enlightening me.  I was totally unaware that surgery is either a sport or a game.

By equating putting to bowling and curling, my good friend John Kirk inadvertantly has my back on this issue, though the thought of The Mooch renting red, white and blue shoes with a number on the back has made my day.

I continue to think that putting on extremely fast greens is a silly exercise for a grown man or women, especially thin legged, white haired older gentlemen wearing salmon colored shorts.

Bogey

[Dan Kelly]

The Mooch abides.

[David Davis]

As far as continental Europe is concerned I can't argue against a case for fast greens although I can argue that slow green speeds might not always provide a larger margin for error.

Fast greens in my experience usually run a lot smoother and hold the line better than slow greens. At least in CE. Slow will often be accompanied by poor maintenance, poor conditions and greens full of bumps. We deal with it on 90% of the courses each year after the winter. I'll take fast greens that hold there line every day of the week.

[Adam Clayman]

Golf's Arms and Speed race defies one of life's Tenets. Moderation:

Ego and denial are at the root of pushing the envelope to extremes.

There's no question that courses can "come alive" at a faster greens speed. However, at the fastest speed, any course can be made ridiculous. Unless of course the art has already been disfigured, their character removed, by the ego sucking mentality of the selfishly vain.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bogey,

It would appear that you view athleticism in the sole context of brute strength to the exclusion of finesse.

A deft or surgeon's touch requires talent, athletic talent when applied to golf.

The critical question, one which Arthur Weber attempted to illustrate, is how to achieve the proper combination of slope/contour and speed.

There may be a threshold, beyond which additional speed is counter productive, but, absent the identification of the greens upon which that speed will be introduced, I don't think you can condemn speed in the absolute.

[JESII]

Is anybody able to translate that?

[JMEvensky]

Is anybody able to translate that?

It's authentic frontier gibberish.

[Dan Kelly]

Is anybody able to translate that?

It's authentic frontier gibberish.

Rarrugh!

Or, as Nietzsche put it: "Are we making any progress, or are we just ..." -- well, you know.

Howard Johnson

[Sean_A]

For many years I have held that 10ish is about as quick as greens should get - even flat greens.  The money required to reach faster speeds is better spent in drying the course out to create firm conditions.  I think it is quite clear the firm and modest speed greens give golfers all the challenge they need.  

It was quite interesting, the other day we were trying to determine the speed of greens and I was thinking 7-8 and the other guy was thinking 9-9.5.  I thought 9-9.5 would be perfect speed for the greens.  Maybe I have been looking for firmness to create the added interest for so long that I can't really judge green speeds anymore.  In any case, I rarely play greens which are too quick - mind you I don't play high end clubs that often.  Personally, just like wind, I think guys over-estimate green speeds.

Ciao  

[Thomas Dai]

Has anyone taken a Stimpmeter with them onto the course when they've gone out to play and checked the figures quoted by the club/course?

For example, I know of a course that takes regular Stimp readings and those on the committees will quote the allegedly speedy figures with pride to anyone who enquires, except what those on the committees don't know, because they arn't that golf-savvy and because they've not asked and it's not been disclosed to them, is that the readings are only taken once per week and are only taken on the flattest and least used green on the course.

Watch out for smoke-and-mirrors when committees/clubs quote Stimp readings.

The figures may well not be what they seem to be, and without taking a Stimp onto the course yourself and doing a Stimp test at the same time as the 'official' readings, the sets of figures will not match, and I will need a great deal of convincing that a player, not matter how gifted, can tell with any degree of exactness an 8 from a 9 from a 10 etc just by putting a few balls around on different greens all with differing gradients, different degrees of shade and wind etc etc.

All the best.

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I'm dumb enough to take a stab at translating.

In short, It makes the opposite case Pat's original thread title implies. Or should I say what I inferred, and that is that the speed race is a good thing. It qualifies the statement by recognizing the uniqueness of each and every green, so "speed" in the absolute, should not be condemned, but, too fast for any green, with too much slope, is a bad thing.

As was mentioned very early thread, a sportsmen should relish the opportunity to adapt and figure out green speeds. But sadly, the sport has been turned into a game mind mentality, for the majority of golfers.

The standardization of green speeds (All 18 greens must be close to the same speed, everyday) is the biggest obstacle in dealing with the game minders. Or as I like to call them... whiney bitches.

[JESII]

Sean,

To expand on that last thought...I think people actually exaggerate (intentionally or not) in both directions with 9 or 10 being the median. I suspect people on here talking about 7 or 8 foot speeds are on greens a little faster than that and that 13 foot greens are a little slower.

It's pretty easy to have a couple of severely downhill putts on 11.5 foot greens that simply cannot stop. I think this leads people to think those greens are well faster than the true number. Same thing with uphill putts on an 8.5 foot green.

I hope my position in this thread is clear. I'm not suggesting 14 feet is desirable compared to 12 (in truth I think 14 feet is a farce), but that 11 or 12 feet is better than 8 or 9 on every single set of greens I have ever played.

An add-on is that I'd prefer to play a really firm green at 9 feet than a soft one at 12 but that wasn't the question at hand I didn't think.

[Brent Hutto]

And those of us who play on Bermuda probably remember how hard we had to hit some into-the-grain putts on a "slow" green. On some moderately slow Bermuda greens when you're putting uphill and into the grain you'd swear it was Stimping minus-one!

The public course where I played my first 10 years has Common Bermuda greens (still, to this day) and are also turtlebacked pushups. So it tends to work out that every green falls off on at least two or three sides and that grainy Common Bermuda almost always grows with the grain downslope. My uncalibrated guess is that an overall average Stimp reading would be 8-ish most days but that's a totally meaningless average. It's an incredible challenge to judge a long putt that's uphill and into the grain then about the time it approaches hole high it becomes downhill and downgrain. The speed difference is extreme.

So as a pathological case of Jim's selective recall comment, if you play there and have a bunch of putts slip away off the green because you hit them an ounce too hard you might remember it as "greens must have been Stimping 12 today". Conversely if you spend all day trying to get long uphill/upgrain putts to the hole the recollection would be "greens were way too slow, maybe a 5-6". We tend to remember only the specific moments with the highest emotional valence and that definitely colors our retrospective "estimation" of green speeds.

[BCrosby]

"...I'd prefer to play a really firm green at 9 feet than a soft one at 12 but that wasn't the question at hand."

What Sully says. More broadly, if the question is what makes for a good green, speed and firmness are joined at the hip. Conversations about one without including the other are not very useful.

Bob  
 

[Brent Hutto]

I totally prefer firm to soft greens. Plus there's the added bonus that when they're really, really firm you spend less time fixing ball marks!

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan K, Jeff - thanks for the laughs.

"The Mooch abides" and "It's authentic frontier gibberish" are really funny.

Peter

PS - Oh, yeah, what JES says. He's smart.

[JESII]

Pallotta - "Oh, yeah, what JES says. He's smart."


Clayman - "Sully, I'm dumb enough to take a stab at translating."


Two of my heroes disintegrating before our eyes...

[Sean_A]

Jim

It would be interesting to know the cost differential between keeping greens at 9 and 12.  One of the reasons I have stuck to 9ish is I recall a Super telling me many years ago that was about his cut-off point economically and in terms of healthy greens in the heat. I have never quite understood the urge to push greens to the breaking point or the constant R&D to increase that breaking point.  Sometimes, money chases money without an end in sight.  Its almost as if folks want constant improvement and the stimp reading is the measuring stick.  To me, firmness will lead to higher speeds in a more economical healthier way than cutting grass super short.  

Ciao        

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

almost all the research being done is funded directly or indirectly by the industry so it is no surprise it is all geared up to making using the maximum amount of products a necessity. I agree with your view on this topic completely.

Jon

[Jud_T]

Sean,

While I agree with much of what you're saying here, I think it's hard to generalize as each course's design, soil, grass strain, budget and microclimate will dictate what is best for the playability/economics balance.  Of course if we put a hard rule that no green can be run above 9 it might be the best thing to happen to green design since Old Tom was in short pants...

[JESII]

Sean,

I agree with you and I'm sure Jon and the rest of the experts on here could give a decent idea of the increased cost to manage fast versus moderate on a daily basis.

For my money, I'd spend it! I'd prefer the tee is a 3 yard square with no grass and I'm fine with fairways and rough being spotty if that money is reallocated to presenting awesome green conditions...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean A,

You're kidding yourself if you think "the" or "any" focus is going to be taken off the greens and placed elsewhere.

As Jim stated, golfers will tolerate less and/or inferior quality on the tee, fairway and rough, but not on the greens.

The greens remain the object of the golfers eye

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim, Pat,

I agree that most clubs will cut spend on the greens as a last resort but most golfers playing average cost courses here in the UK are mainly interested in not having to look for balls much. The condition of the greens is secondary. Given a course with great conditions but where you lose 10 balls each round and another down the road costing as much, in average condition but no lost balls and the latter will see far more repeat play.

It could be that UK golfers are less fixated on conditioning than those in the US

Jon

[jeffwarne]

Jim, Pat,

I agree that most clubs will cut spend on the greens as a last resort but most golfers playing average cost courses here in the UK are mainly interested in not having to look for balls much. The condition of the greens is secondary. Given a course with great conditions but where you lose 10 balls each round and another down the road costing as much, in average condition but no lost balls and the latter will see far more repeat play.

It could be that UK golfers are less fixated on conditioning than those in the US

Jon

or are perhaps more fixated on ball cost

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()