[Patrick_Mucci]

does the architect become more limited at the green end ?

Does it put more emphasis on the body of the hole in terms of creating strategic interest ?

[BCowan]

Yes.  Creates less strategic interest.  Less undulations lead to less importance on lag putting imo.  Greens could become more Penal vs Strategic.

[Craig Sweet]

Fast greens are another example of technology changing the game for the worse.

[jeffwarne]

Fast greens are another example of technology changing the game for the worse.

+1

Super fast putts on medium speed greens=exciting and interesting golf

[Chris Cupit]

Super fast greens=dumbed down greens.

Worse, that is what the vast majority of golfers want 

[JESII]

Sure Pat, just look at the slope percentages the architects on here talk about...2 or 3% in pinnable areas...pinnable areas must be a certain percentage of the total green space.

3% slope means 3 inch climb over 100 inches...pretty mundane.

[Lyndell Young]

Sure Pat, just look at the slope percentages the architects on here talk about...2 or 3% in pinnable areas...pinnable areas must be a certain percentage of the total green space.

3% slope means 3 inch climb over 100 inches...pretty mundane.

+1 and look at all the unpinnable areas on older greens.We are losing pinnable unless we dumb down.

[Jason Topp]

I am not sure I agree. 

Are the greens at your course more interesting to putt when they are slow or when they are fast?  Are slow greens with big slopes more fun to putt than more modestly sloped fast greens?  Why is it impossible to create interesting greens that have subtle slopes and are designed to be played at fast speeds?

I can't say I prefer to putt at stoneeagle - with slow, very creative greens - than I do at my course which has greens designed to be played at very fast speeds.  Both sets of greens present a number of interesting shots.

 

[V. Kmetz]

On the playing end, I have often preferred when mid-range and long putting is more of "shot" than a small, anxious shoulder movement. I respect variety too; I think this is because my playing is so bifurcated between classic private courses' fast greens with speeds always around 9.5-10.5 (and faster still) and muni-courses with speeds in the 6s and lo-7s.  I derive a lot of fun in both, and at the latter me and my old college golf coach really put hooks and over spins and little cut motions into our attack, even the shorter putts.

This leads to...

On the architectural end, I've always wished that "someone" would have tried to design greens within the same course intended to play at different mowing heights/speeds commensurate with their designed contours. I think a generally flat green and untroubled green plaza can bear a 12.0 stimp, but the very next surface might be wildly moguled, pitched and tiered and be conditioned as a 7.5 where you must really slap it up a hill but don't need to just "breathe on it" down such contour.

I know; I know; I know...there's a volume of ways that I've heard that such a presentation/design would never fly, but if I had a 9-holer to tinker with, I would try it.  I'm fairly certain the sun would still rise in the east and set in the west and golfers would quickly accrue it into their sense of such a course.

FYI: The splendor of WF greens (for one example) are most widely enjoyed when they run between 8.5 and 10.  In the Anderson four or five years ago, they had the East course up over 12....5 hour round (great players/best ball!!), lots of embarrassment, and scores that were unidentifiable with the otherwise sound play I observed from several groups.

cheers

vk

[Chris Cupit]

I am not sure I agree. 

Are the greens at your course more interesting to putt when they are slow or when they are fast?  Are slow greens with big slopes more fun to putt than more modestly sloped fast greens?  Why is it impossible to create interesting greens that have subtle slopes and are designed to be played at fast speeds?

I can't say I prefer to putt at stoneeagle - with slow, very creative greens - than I do at my course which has greens designed to be played at very fast speeds.  Both sets of greens present a number of interesting shots.

 

I would say that significant contour and roll with greens stimping 10-11 require more skill, judgement and result in more fun than greens that stimp above 12.5 as they eliminate interesting hole locations.  At 12.5 you must have fairly benign contours or worse, distinct tiers so that you can have enough flat area around the hole.

People love the idea of fast greens because they think they are supposed to.  For better players, faster greens require less skill (up to a point and again assuming reasonable hole locations).  Faster greens require less of a stroke or a hit.  Is that really a test of skill?  Just get it rolling and then the ball should behave as if it is on a pool table??

Why not just have perfect synthetic greens? 

While I agree that greens that are very slow (under may not allow the natural contours to come into play either but speed is ruining green complexes.  And it is exactly what the dumb masses  think is good.

[Chris Cupit]

This green (viewed from behind) is a blast to play and is "fair" at speeds of 9.5-11.5   When the greens get faster we either lose a bunch of hole locations or have people having to hole four foots putts to finish!

This is just one example of a type of green you "lose" with fast greens

[Lou_Duran]

Super fast greens=dumbed down greens.

Worse, that is what the vast majority of golfers want  

Disagree on the first.  Some of the most interesting greens I've putted on have been pretty fast (10'-12') with difficult to read subtle breaks and very few straight putts.  These rely more with the slope of the site and what is created for surface drainage.  In Texas, I am thinking of the greens on courses like Colonial, Shady Oaks, and the pre-Brauer Great Southwest GC.  These type of greens typically differentiated the best putters from the rest and could be set up for a large variety of play.  

I am not sure about the second.  While most golfers may profess to prefer fast greens, I think slower, moderately contoured greens are easier for most golfers, particularly on a home course.    

Are the greens at your course more interesting to putt when they are slow or when they are fast?  Are slow greens with big slopes more fun to putt than more modestly sloped fast greens?  Why is it impossible to create interesting greens that have subtle slopes and are designed to be played at fast speeds?

I can't say I prefer to putt at stoneeagle - with slow, very creative greens - than I do at my course which has greens designed to be played at very fast speeds.  Both sets of greens present a number of interesting shots.

It comes down to whether you like courses that challenge from tee-to-green and reward the good approaches with makeable putts.  It is a question of balance in my view.  Some courses emphasize the green complexes at the expense of the long game.  Others err the other way.  I prefer courses which attempt to challenge both and reward good execution, not necessarily every time, but with some frequency.  I can accept that if I hit the ball past the hole, I will likely have a difficult downhiller.  However, I don't find much charm with a small mogul between my ball and the hole some 10' away.

BTW, I play pretty widely, both geographically and by course quality, and I am not seeing an emphasis on ultra fast speeds.  I would estimate that many of the courses stimp well below 10' and very few over 11'.  What we see on the tour hardly resembles what most of us putt on.    

[Tim Liddy]

Better architects have built greens with less slope, but made them appear to have more movement. Counter rolls have also become more important.

[JESII]

I am not sure I agree. 
 

Jason, I was answering Pat's specific question about limiting an architect's options. Personally, I prefer fast and highly contoured greens. I believe they impact play all the way back to the tee in a way slower greens cannot.

Chris,

I think the upped end of your 9.5 - 11.5 range is optimal for greens to influence every shot on a hole. There was an experiment on the amount of roll-out at various speeds and % slopes and the increase was exponential in that 9 - 12 foot range. In other words, the 9 or 9.5 stimp green didn't have much roll-out at all.

[Chris Cupit]

A perfect example of what I am describing is the continual flattening of the greens at Augusta National.  The old greens are unputtable at today's speeds.  

I am talking about greens with significant contour.  I am not speaking of slower, moderately contoured greens.  I do agree that one way to make things easier for average guys and harder for experts is to slow greens down a little.  Of course, slow greens mean fewer three putss but it also means fewer holed putts at distance.  With SIGNIFICANT contor and greens stimping at 10-11 (very fast and with significant contour an effective stimp above 12.5) you force a player to "hit" uphill putts and be defensive on downhill putts.  

That is very challenging as you encounter putts that may start off "slow" uphill and then finish "fast" by rolling away from you.  Too hard and the contour makes the ball roll far away and too soft and the ball never climbs the hill.  If you really want a tough combo, have the greens very firm and yet somehow not so fast  Let's face it--most goflers want soft, "receptive" greens, fast greens with small, continuous breaks. (not perfectly straight).  Oh, and bunkers must be perfectly raked and "consistent" (a whole other topic)  

I hate to admit it but we stimp greens every day (or almost every day).  I am adamant that we do not publish "results".  People in general have no idea the difference between 10 and 12.  It is HUGE!  

But I do think, in general, the more physical motion a stroke requires, the more challenging it is.    

[Peter Pallotta]

Not so dirty little secret # 1 - fast greens are easier to put on. (Put the pros on the slow bumpy greens that Brett and I play on and see how good they are). Not so dirty little secret #2 - there are such things as green surrounds, and if the architect does good work there and the approach areas are firm and fast, quicker and less contoured greens pose more interest and challenge and shot-making options than their slower and more curvy brethren. Not so dirty little secret #3 - If you're working your approach shots to get the ball close and to the right spot on a green, THAT'S the most interesting part of the game of golf. Occasionally getting lucky with the read, the stroke and the speed and actually making a putt of any significant length on a heavily contoured green is, well, fun -- but in a sort of superficial way, and, though we jump up and down at the moment the memory fades sooon afterwards, while it is the great approach shots that keeps us (average golfers) coming back. No so dirty little secret #4 - whenever a thread suggests the consensus view and then gets near unanimous support, it is useful to challenge the conventional wisdom.

Peter

[Sean_A]

I am not quite sure what people mean by really contoured greens, but I grew up on what I think of as quite severe greens in terms slope and contour.  No question in mind that type of green is best when running 9, 10ish tops if quite firm.  No matter how much slope and contour, I don't see much point in running greens over 10ish if keeping them short is how its done.  If firmness and rolling can create quicker greens I don't mind if the speed is cranked up a bit because it will be short-lived.  Its a diminishing return situation in terms of money spent VS pinnable sections of the greens and loss of slope/contour.  It doesn't make much sense to me to flatten greens to accommodate speed and I do think it handcuffs archies. 

All that said, I can't recall the last time I played really fast greens.  In GB&I greens are rarely fast and in general, I think, just like wind, folks over-estimate green speed.  Anyway, I can probably count on two hands how many times I thought green speeds were too quick.  The last time was probably Old Town and they were probably just a bit too fast rolling around 10ish (I would guess). 

Ciao

[Richard Hetzel]

I personally dislike really slow greens where you lose all "touch" while putting th ball. As the best part of my game, I welcome challenging greens with a faster speed. Nothing worse than having to literally smash a putt to get it near or up to the hole. That being said, I think that the shape, style and undulations should be a factor when mowing a green as well. And by the way, I love greens like this Tom!

Lost Dunes CC Michigan

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

Not so sure that I agree that "fast" greens are "easier" to putt.

I think there's a range, probably 8 to 11, within which we've adapted and are able to putt them with a reasonable degree of proficiency.

Thrust greens at 6 to 8 at us, and given time, we'd again adapt and putt them with a reasonable degree of proficiency.

Speeds in excess of 11 start approaching the "goofy" stage and are probably the primary reason that the disfiguration of greens, vis a vis, removing their contour and slope take place

[jeffwarne]

I am not sure I agree. 

Are the greens at your course more interesting to putt when they are slow or when they are fast?  Are slow greens with big slopes more fun to putt than more modestly sloped fast greens?  Why is it impossible to create interesting greens that have subtle slopes and are designed to be played at fast speeds?

I can't say I prefer to putt at stoneeagle - with slow, very creative greens - than I do at my course which has greens designed to be played at very fast speeds.  Both sets of greens present a number of interesting shots.

 

I would say that significant contour and roll with greens stimping 10-11 require more skill, judgement and result in more fun than greens that stimp above 12.5 as they eliminate interesting hole locations.  At 12.5 you must have fairly benign contours or worse, distinct tiers so that you can have enough flat area around the hole.

People love the idea of fast greens because they think they are supposed to.  For better players, faster greens require less skill (up to a point and again assuming reasonable hole locations).  Faster greens require less of a stroke or a hit.  Is that really a test of skill?  Just get it rolling and then the ball should behave as if it is on a pool table??

Why not just have perfect synthetic greens? 

While I agree that greens that are very slow (under may not allow the natural contours to come into play either but speed is ruining green complexes.  And it is exactly what the dumb masses  think is good.

+1
additionally, faster greens caused reduced slope to be designed in, all things being equal
Less slope equals less bounce impact of an approach, pitch or chip, changing the game and the strategy for the worse
a slow green can yield an incredibly fast putt due to more designed in slope particularly in pinnable areas, and such a putt seems even faster when compared to the commensurately slow putt going up the same hill

[BCowan]

''additionally, faster greens caused reduced slope to be designed in, all things being equal
Less slope equals less bounce impact of an approach, pitch or chip, changing the game and the strategy for the worse
a slow green can yield an incredibly fast putt due to more designed in slope particularly in pinnable areas, and such a putt seems even faster when compared to the commensurately slow putt going up the same hill''

+2

[Jim Hoak]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that really fast green speeds often lead to unhealthy greens--more diseases and maintenance issues.

[Chris Cupit]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that really fast green speeds often lead to unhealthy greens--more diseases and maintenance issues.

excellent point and very true.  Mowing heights half of what they used to be, rolling of greens and spoon feeding nutrients and water so as to keep the greens at an optimal level of firmness, smoothness and speed is playing with fire and an ever increasing cost.

[BHoover]

What does the DG think is the ideal green speed? Personally, I prefer greens on the faster side, but I think we tend to overestimate the Stimp on most greens. The best greens I've played, in terms of speed are those at Canton Brookside and at Kingsley during last year's Midwest Mashie. Whatever speed those greens were, that's what I would prefer.

[BCowan]

The firmness of Kingsley greens was awesome, I would prefer a touch slower with their bold contours.  If they were 11, id prefer 9.5-10 for tourney, 9 for everyday play.  All in all it was the best course set up I have ever played on

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()