[Brent Hutto]

I'm not in favor of flattening otherwise reasonable green contours in search of extreme stimp readings. But Jim S has it right.

We play golf on manicured surfaces because it's more fun than playing in a pasture somewhere. One of the pleasures offered by these manicured surfaces is a smooth, fast-rolling putting green that gives up those 8-second rolling times or whatever it might be. Putting and then watching the ball creep along forever, moving with even minor contours, is just plain old fun.

And as he said earlier, I've played plenty of courses with significant humps and bumps and ridges and contours that were perfectly playable at speeds of 11-ish. There is no incompatibility between interestingly contoured greens and sufficient speeds to allow for that slow, smooth, long rollout that we're talking about. There's a perfectly cromulent sweet spot that can be achieved if the club does not get carried away in search of extreme numbers on the stimpmeter.

[Brian Finn]

Cromulent is not a real word.

[Mark Pearce]

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.

They do if they have plenty of slope...

[JESII]

Not to be too blunt Mark, but they simply don't.

I don't now the pure physics more than real life practice, but a ball will stop on a slope of 4% in pretty short order.

[Brent Hutto]

Cromulent is not a real word.

All I was trying to do was embiggen the conversation.

[Chris Johnston]

"Appropriately" fast greens are a blast.  Excessively fast or slow greens not so much.

Take (for example) The Masters:  ANGC has some wildly sloped greens, designed to reward the player who hits it in the right, and sometimes small and tight, spot.  In the event, greens are wicked fast...to the point even the best players in the world can look silly.  The average player would have a hard time with this combination.  Thankfully, these green speeds are for the event, and the green speeds are backed down for the members.

I don't enjoy slow greens, ever.  For me, anything below a 9 to 9-1/2 is both boring and frustrating.  If greens have to be slow due to excessive slopes, the game isn't fun.  Imagine The Masters at an 8 stimp...yawn.

Balance is the key.

[Mike Hendren]

In the past month I have played two rounds, one on the slowest greens I've ever played (I estimate 6 on the stimp-thingy) and another on the quickiest I've ever played (very likely 14+).   The slow greens were immensely more fun.

For me it boils down to this:  Putting the ball on extremely fast greens might be the most unathletic endeavor in all of sports.  At the most basic level, it's silly.

Bogey  

[Brian Finn]

Cromulent is not a real word.

All I was trying to do was embiggen the conversation.

OK, Lisa.  I understand.  Sorry to take this thread off track.

[JESII]

I take the over on your 2 round claim, Mike!

[Mike Hendren]

8 or 9 is about right in my book.

I'd rather hit the ball than nurse it.

Bogey

[BCrosby]

Something new is happeing in the SE at clubs that have installed ultra dwarfs.

It is now possible to maintain u/d greens in the SE in the summer at speeds once believed unthinkable.

Supers now know they can keep greens rolling at 12.5 and faster year round. So they do.

It has gotten out of hand.

Bob

[Dan Kelly]

Putting the ball on extremely fast greens might be the most unathletic endeavor in all of sports.  At the most basic level, it's silly.

One word: curling.

Which, come to think of it, bears a certain resemblance to putting on extremely fast greens.

To me, the key word is "extremely" -- in both directions. Neither extremely fast nor extremely slow is much fun, IMO.

I'll generally take fast over slow, if we can stay out of the extremes.

Slippery slopes are welcome challenges.

[Lou_Duran]

In the past month I have played two rounds, one on the slowest greens I've ever played (I estimate 6 on the stimp-thingy) and another on the quickiest I've ever played (very likely 14+).   The slow greens were immensely more fun.

For me it boils down to this:  Putting the ball on extremely fast greens might be the most unathletic endeavor in all of sports.  At the most basic level, it's silly.

Bogey  

To the extent that the Bell Curve applies to athleticism, and faster speeds are normally thought to favor the better putter, I'd think the opposite is true.  Slow greens might be more fun for the many largely because skill/athleticism is not as much of a requirement.

Like with many things in experiencing gca, it comes down to design, balance, and the "maintenance meld".  Beverly CC greens were crazy fast for the amount of contouring and not a lot of fun for me during my single round years ago.  Colonial CC at the same speeds are a delight.  

[Lou_Duran]

Something new is happeing in the SE at clubs that have installed ultra dwarfs.

It is now possible to maintain u/d greens in the SE in the summer at speeds once believed unthinkable.

Supers now know they can keep greens rolling at 12.5 and faster year round. So they do.

It has gotten out of hand.

Bob

If they're "out of hand" in the summer, wait until the winter when there is little leaf density.  I hope that they don't overseed to keep them "playable".  BTW, if Champion is the grass of choice, I am aware of one course which converted to TifEagle to overcome the speed problem during dormancy.

[Mike Hendren]

Putting the ball on extremely fast greens might be the most unathletic endeavor in all of sports.  At the most basic level, it's silly.

One word: curling

Not if you're the dude with the broom.  You're busier than a pair of jumper cables at a Skynyrd concert!

[Mike Hendren]

Something new is happeing in the SE at clubs that have installed ultra dwarfs.

It is now possible to maintain u/d greens in the SE in the summer at speeds once believed unthinkable.

Supers now know they can keep greens rolling at 12.5 and faster year round. So they do.

It has gotten out of hand.

Bob

+1
The course I played with fast greens had Champion bermuda.  I was afraid of slipping and falling down.

[archie_struthers]

 


I've got my Pine Valley Butt boy hat on as I write this  but it's one of the reasons I often think it's the best architecture ever.  Even at frightful speeds there is always a way to two putt or lag using the slopes and hills in the greens themselves to slow down the ball.

Never was this more evident  to me than a few times when the Crump Cup  speeds got a little out of hand , notably when superintendent  Dick Bator sought and got  "revenge" for a 64 fired the previous year in qualifying by amateur (Walker Cupper)  Bob Lewis.  We often argue here about the merits of caddies but on that day the best caddies at the club were worth 5 or more shots to their players. it was one of those " you want me on that wall , you need me on that wall kind of days" where you felt part of a bigger process in golf. A Shivas Irons moment !    It was  similar to the Open at Shinnecock won by Retief Goosen with  body bags everywhere but altogether different because at PV there was a way to stop the ball from rolling off the surface.

  

Now a lot of you might say this isn't fun or golf as you like it , but it was memorable to me !  I will never forget thinking that 85 might make the championship flight , and for once hitting the number right on the head. However , those greens have so many internal contours , albeit the  broad ones I love ,  that you could use them to brake your lag putts. If you could wrap your brain around this, you had 85 % of the field beaten before they started.

Don't know if you could ever get such mental images on slower greens , just remember at the end of my players day I was both exhausted and exhilarated by the thought process of my "menial  job"  lol

[Jon Wiggett]

The greens that require the most skill from a speed point of view are the early morning putting surfaces where there is still a good dew on the green except the 6 foot around the hole. Now that takes vision, touch and nerve to play

Jon

[jeffwarne]

"



I don't enjoy slow greens, ever.  For me, anything below a 9 to 9-1/2 is both boring and frustrating.  If greens have to be slow due to excessive slopes, the game isn't fun.  Imagine The Masters at an 8 stimp...yawn.

Chris, in general I agree with your comments above.
That said.

If it was a yawn, how did it become (argueably) the single biggest sporting event in the world in a period where the greens stimped exactly that.
Of course a ball can roll for awhile, if there's enough corresponding slope.

Exactly what speeds do you guys think the Golden Age designers designed for?
Hint-it wasn't 12

[Mark Pearce]

I don't enjoy slow greens, ever.  For me, anything below a 9 to 9-1/2 is both boring and frustrating.  If greens have to be slow due to excessive slopes, the game isn't fun.  Imagine The Masters at an 8 stimp...yawn.

You wouldn't want to play the vast majority of great links courses in everyday condition, then.  A daft thing to say, frankly.

[Chris Johnston]

"



I don't enjoy slow greens, ever.  For me, anything below a 9 to 9-1/2 is both boring and frustrating.  If greens have to be slow due to excessive slopes, the game isn't fun.  Imagine The Masters at an 8 stimp...yawn.

Chris, in general I agree with your comments above.
That said.

If it was a yawn, how did it become (argueably) the single biggest sporting event in the world in a period where the greens stimped exactly that.
Of course a ball can roll for awhile, if there's enough corresponding slope.

Exactly what speeds do you guys think the Golden Age designers designed for?
Hint-it wasn't 12

Jeff,

Question is...when did it become the single biggest sporting event in the world?  I honestly don't know.  

I do think that the speed, aesthetics, and guys like Jack played a big part, as did the biggest cause in golf...Television.  Could it be said that it really became so when young Eldrick Woods came on the scene?  

Your question is a good one.  I wonder what the Golden Age designers would think about the wide variety and playablity bentgrass, and walking greens mowers?  Then again, I wonder what Edison would do today with a Macintosh, or a simple calculator.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the past month I have played two rounds, one on the slowest greens I've ever played (I estimate 6 on the stimp-thingy) and another on the quickiest I've ever played (very likely 14+).   The slow greens were immensely more fun.

For me it boils down to this:  Putting the ball on extremely fast greens might be the most unathletic endeavor in all of sports.  


Bogey,

I strongly disagree and am surprised that others haven't challenged your statement.

Putting on fast and faster greens takes a tremendous amount of athletic talent, especially under pressure.

"NERVES" , judgement and a skilled surgeon's touch are what makes putting fast greens an athletic endeavor.

The examination of one's putting skills intensifies and becomes more thorough as green speeds increase.

On the other hand, when your nickname on the green is "Roberto Duran" I can see how you feel that way    At the most basic level, it's silly.

Bogey  

[JimB]

While I personally like fast greens, I do have dreams of playing on original-style 'wild' greens of the type that have gone nearly extinct or been severely remodeled with the increase in green speeds.  I'd love to play original MacKenzie greens at their original speed, just because my current frame of reference is all imagination in that regard.

This response is interesting to me because I play on original MacKenzie greens pretty often and I often wonder what "original speed" is. If it is anything near the numbers I have seen mentioned before I can say that the greens are not as fun to play. The beauty of the design is the ability to use the slopes as backstops so you can take as high a line as possible and feed the ball towards the hole whether chipping or putting.  If the greens are too slow, the ball stops on the major slopes between tiers and it becomes a game of moving the ball directly towards the hole and stopping it rather than imagining the best line to work the ball into position. I don't like to use numbers to point out the best speed but the greens themselves are a perfect internal control. If a ball that is deftly placed at the top of a major slope stops rolling they are too slow. If it races down the slope, across the flatter part and off the green they are too fast. When the ball slowly roles down the slopes between tiers and settles in somewhere near hole high, it's going to be a fun day!

[John Kirk]

In the past month I have played two rounds, one on the slowest greens I've ever played (I estimate 6 on the stimp-thingy) and another on the quickiest I've ever played (very likely 14+).   The slow greens were immensely more fun.

For me it boils down to this:  Putting the ball on extremely fast greens might be the most unathletic endeavor in all of sports.  


Bogey,

I strongly disagree and am surprised that others haven't challenged your statement.

Putting on fast and faster greens takes a tremendous amount of athletic talent, especially under pressure.

"NERVES" , judgement and a skilled surgeon's touch are what makes putting fast greens an athletic endeavor.

The examination of one's putting skills intensifies and becomes more thorough as green speeds increase.

On the other hand, when your nickname on the green is "Roberto Duran" I can see how you feel that way    At the most basic level, it's silly.

Bogey  

The ability to control your nerves under pressure on super fast greens is the same skill set required for sports like bowling, curling, and maybe a couple of others.

I like fast greens a lot, but I'm getting worse at a good forward stroke on a short putt under those conditions.  Medium to medium slow greens allow the player to stroke the ball harder on short putts, without fear of a long return putt if they miss.  In the first few years it was open, Pacific Dunes had dry, sort of shaggy greens that rolled true and about 8.5-9 feet.  It was very enjoyable and not stressful stroking 5-10 foot putts for par.

Always fascinating watching the ball roll slowly, with little resistance.  Putting the short ones can be nerve wracking.

It's a matter of whether you feel that ability to hit the ball super soft should be a requirement for golfing excellence.

[JimB]

John, this quote is the key for me. It really brings contoured greens alive when the ball can role slowly for a long time and finally settle next to the hole if the shot is deftly played. Agree it's probably too much though if 5-10 footers lose their fun due to fear of missing the next one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()