In Praise of Slow Green Speeds

[Patrick_Mucci]

When we played the 2013 Midwest Mashie at Kingsley, the greens were both moderately fast and firm.  It was ideal.

There was nothing moderate about being above the hole on 17 on Sunday.

Still, I'm with you. I don't think I've ever thought "These greens would be more fun if they were slower." Not at Kingsley, not at Crystal Downs, not at Idle Hour, not at Erin Hills. I like slope, speed, and firmness.

There are other considerations besides personal enjoyment.  For instance, cost and turf health.  Who knows, private club membership may be just that more affordable if greens were kept under 10 and maybe some clubs wouldn't fold.  Its one more piece of the golf economic puzzle which adds up to trouble for some clubs. 

Sean,
Keeping greens at 11 versus say 9, isn't going to have a meaningful financial impact on running the club.

Mother Nature is a substantive factor regarding green speeds.,

Superintendents are pretty smart fellows and know how to manage turf conditions as they apply to green speeds.

In addition, everyone talks about green speeds as if they are constant. 
Nothing could be further from the truth and Tom Doak's post is to that point

[Brent Hutto]

To the extent I can believe the numbers posted by various clubs and courses I have played (which in fairness is my only way of knowing what a "10" rolls like) my preferences are along the lines of Lou's. I just haven't encountered many sets of greens that aren't playable at what I think of as "9" which is also about the slowest greens I've encountered that were smooth and true running. So there's a sweet spot there allowing for lots of "interest" due to contour while still being a fun speed to play.

And I also agree that somewhere in the 10-11 range seems to be suitable for a wide range of courses and I'm happy anywhere in that kind of range (again, maybe what I think of as "10-11" is based on exaggerated numbers I've been exposed to). I've played a few times on greens that were claimed to be something like "12.5" on the day I played. It's fun enough to putt at that speed but it does seem to limit hole locations to only the flattest parts of the greens. Even on a modestly contoured green, the speed I've been told is "12.5" leaves portions of the green unpinnable for handicap players.

If Augusta National really has greens significantly faster than "12.5" then most of the hole locations used in the Masters just would not be fun, fair or reasonable for anyone other than the best players in the world. But IMO it makes for very compelling, defensive, thoughtful, careful play for those elite players four days a year. And yes I said "defensive" meaning it as a good thing. On a course than often rewards very aggressive play from tee to green, the extreme green speeds add a welcome balance to that aggressiveness. I enjoy seeing the top players have a thorough workout of their Yin-Yang balance...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

Arthur Weber's study debunks many claims of very high green speeds, especially on greens with contour/slope.

Perhaps someone with graphic skills can post it

[Brent Hutto]

Pat,

I've not seen that study but am totally willing to believe the conclusion you state. My working life involves statistics performed on measures that in many cases are on arbitrary scales. The Stimpmeter is not arbitrary but the numbers I see are second-hand and therefore subject to the same kind of uncertainty.

Which is why I caveat my comments by saying that what I think of as "9" may very well be "8.5" and what I've been conditioned to believe is "12.5" may actually be "11". But I can only go with the scale as it has been presented to me by various entities over time. I do end up with a pretty firm mental image of the various speeds, subject to the accumulated distortion in my second-hand "training" as it were.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brent, I think you are right with your caveat because I am led to believe that many true and apparently fast links greens run at no more than 7 or 8

[Jason Topp]

I think these are the charts from another thread:

Patrick,

No need to e-mail it.  Davis has supplied the link.

The graph that I posted is presented differently than that presented by Weber.  Weber does not prescribe marginal and critical pinning areas.  His is more oriented to how much a ball will roll out on a given upslope or downslope based on  Stimp readings and when the ball will not stop rolling at all.

Interestingly, even though it was done in 1997 he used a small ball in his calculations.

His conclusion was:

"Generalizing, slow-to-medium speed greens, say
Stimpmeter reading 5 to 8 on a level green, although they
may be undulated upward of 5 to 6 degrees remain reasonably
manageable by the golfer. Medium-to-fast greens, say 8 to 12
Stimpmeter reading on a level green, start destabilizing the
nerves of golfers when angled upwards of 3 to 4 degrees.
Otherwise stated, markedly undulated golf greens, typical of
most time-honored courses, would be better maintained
with medium-to-slow speed greens, as they had been
architecturally conceived to challenge golfers by their contours,
not their slickness. To cope with fast greens, surface
angularities need be attenuated in fairness to playability by
the golfer and, lest we forget, maintenance by the superintendent"

His graphic was expressed in degrees, not percentage slope, for Ian's benefit.

Here's his graphic and the Lemons' one that I posted.  See if you think they are saying the same thing.







To tie this back to this thread, Weber's chart seems to indicate that on a green sloped at 5* that a ball is on the precipice of not stopping if the green is Stimping at 10.5'.  I'm pretty sure he's using degrees and not percentage slope.  The reports about the 11th hole at TOC seem to say it had a slope of 5 (but, not clear if that is % slope or degrees).  If it was degrees then they would have been living on the edge if there was any wind at a Stimp of 10.5.  If it was a 5% slope then there was some margin for pins there - absent any wind.  I presume that they measured the slope accurately by whatever measure before they erased it, although we probably won't know what it was given what seems to be the R&A's communication approach.   

[Sean_A]

Pat

One man's meaningful impact on finances is another man's drop in the ocean.  As an advocate of cheaper golf in general I am all for slower greens and healthier turf which requires less inputs.  What sort of saving that is I don't know, but I do recall a super on here it was more than most people think if in a hot climate or hot season.   

Mind you, I have very rarely played these courses with very fast greens.  I hear a lot about rolling this and that and I think a lot of time its lies, inexperience, obfusication or a combo of the above.  For instance, at Mid-Pines last fall we had a conversation about the speed of the greens.  I thought they were slowish, maybe 8.  Another guy thought they were more like 9 or 10 even.  I didn't buy it and a few days later at Old Town the greens were much faster and I highly doubt they were 12ish (I guessed 10.5ish).  I guess the point is most of the time, we are guessing based on our own experience.  At my club I am told the greens rarely roll above 10 and are usually 8-9.  They don't strike me as quick, but they are faster than most greens I encounter.  But I have never watched anybody measure our greens. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One man's meaningful impact on finances is another man's drop in the ocean. 

Baloney, that's an attempt to exagerate the differential in the actual expense when compared to the club's overall budget, let alone the green budget.

As an advocate of cheaper golf in general I am all for slower greens and healthier turf which requires less inputs. 

But, to what degree.
If it costs $ 50,000 to have the greens at 11 versus 8 and you have 250 members, that's $ 200 per member per year for great putting conditions.
I don't know of many "golfers" who wouldn't pay $ 200 a year for great putting conditions.  If it costs $ 25,000, that's $ 100 per member.
Would you pay $ 100 per year to have great putting conditions year round ?

Would the members at Oakmont ?

What sort of saving that is I don't know,

Then you can't go making the statement that the cost to maintain fast greens can cause a club to have financial difficulty, to the point of going out of business.

but I do recall a super on here it was more than most people think if in a hot climate or hot season. 

Now you're inserting a caveat. 
EXTREME CONDITIONS
Everything costs more to maintain when the conditions are extreme.
And, there's no way to budget for unexpected, extreme conditions.
And, that's not the issue.
Routine annual maintenance is the issue.
 

Mind you, I have very rarely played these courses with very fast greens.  I hear a lot about rolling this and that and I think a lot of time its lies, inexperience, obfusication or a combo of the above.

For whatever reason, golfers seem to take pride in declaring that their greens are lightening fast.
I don't understand it, but, there's an element of the membership that delights in difficulty or extremes.
They love to claim that their greens roll at 13.
Well, maybe they do, in late October, but, they aren't rolling at 13 in the heat of the summer on a daily basis in the Northeast, Midlantic or South.

I think that golfers refering to green speeds are lie the fisherman refering to the one that got away. 

For instance, at Mid-Pines last fall we had a conversation about the speed of the greens.  I thought they were slowish, maybe 8.  Another guy thought they were more like 9 or 10 even.  I didn't buy it and a few days later at Old Town the greens were much faster and I highly doubt they were 12ish (I guessed 10.5ish)

I used to carry a stimpmeter in my bag and most of the time, green speeds were overestimated by the golfer's playing them.. 

I guess the point is most of the time, we are guessing based on our own experience. 

I agree, although many clubs are starting to post them, mostly from readings taken in the morning.
Often the greens have slowed up by noon.

At my club I am told the greens rarely roll above 10 and are usually 8-9. 
They don't strike me as quick, but they are faster than most greens I encounter. 
But I have never watched anybody measure our greens. 

Send away for a Stimpmeter 

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Pat

There are all levels of clubs.  I don't know if your figures are correct, but even using those, raising dues in the UK by £125 in one year could be disastrous in terms of membership levels.  Hence, one man's meaningful....is not an exageration.  It would be interesting if some supers could chime in about the financial and turf health differences (including the higher risks involved in stressing the greens and the financial implications) between greens at 9 and 11 on the stimp.   

I have been led to believe that a combo of harsh weather and expecting too much from the greens has been a disaster for some clubs along the Atlantic seaboard and south these past few years.  I think its entirely reasonable to include the cost of repairing the damage to greens when talking about how well they should perform.  It is my understanding that if the greens were kept slower when approaching the time of year when there is a decent likelyhood of extreme weather than the greens would have had a higher chance of getting thru the rough times in a better fashion.  Isn't that what all the fuss is about developing new strains of grass?  Creating greens which can perform very highly under great stress over longer periods of time?  Some clubs want it all and of course, replacing greens is very expensive as well. 

Nope, no interest in purchasing a stimp.  I know my club is sensible in delivering good quality greens with minimal stress at a good price.  That suits me just fine.

Ciao 

[Steve Okula]

If your playing a Dr Mack or Willie Park Jr course 9 will give you plenty of challenge.  Plus to make greens faster greens are typically made softer.  I don't want to see greens have their slope removed.  Firmer is better.  The 20 handi wants his shot out of the rough to hold on the green and for them to run 11 on the stemp.  He has it all backwards IMHO. 

How is it that fast greens are softer? By my perception, the opposite is true. I can't remember having seen a soft, fast green.

Steve,

The ONLY time I've seen that is with German Bent or Velvet greens.

But, I would agree with you in general.

In addition, if the greens are soft, they're going to show footprints, and that ain't happening in Augusta in April.

When was the last time you saw a course with velvet bentgrass greens, or old South German mix, for that matter. Do any still exist?

[Steve Okula]

A higher height of cut will mean the grass needs more water. There will be more leaf blade, transpiration and biomass that all requires water.

That said, under shorter heights of cut the roots tend to be more shallow, so the plants may dry out more quickly. It's casual observation, but I have noticed in heat/drought stress situations that the higher cut of collar around the putting surface is often the first area to wilt.

[Steve Okula]

Pat,

You said that by noon on any given day greens may have slowed down from their morning speeds.

I did my own study on this over a period of several months. I measured the same place on the same greens right after the morning mow, again early afternoon, and finally late afternoon.

I found that the green speed usually topped out in early afternoon. In the morning there is typically still some residual moisture on the surface from the dew that slows down the roll a fraction even after the mower has been across. The ensuing drying of the surface more than compensates for any leaf growth in the first few hours, until later in the day as the growth begins to take over.

Mind you, my greens were under the influence of growth regulators, and unregulated turf might respond differently. Also, it is assuming there is no precipitation during the day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If your playing a Dr Mack or Willie Park Jr course 9 will give you plenty of challenge.  Plus to make greens faster greens are typically made softer.  I don't want to see greens have their slope removed.  Firmer is better.  The 20 handi wants his shot out of the rough to hold on the green and for them to run 11 on the stemp.  He has it all backwards IMHO. 

How is it that fast greens are softer? By my perception, the opposite is true. I can't remember having seen a soft, fast green.

Steve,

The ONLY time I've seen that is with German Bent or Velvet greens.

But, I would agree with you in general.

In addition, if the greens are soft, they're going to show footprints, and that ain't happening in Augusta in April.

When was the last time you saw a course with velvet bentgrass greens, or old South German mix, for that matter. [color=blue

When I played my home course last fall in NJ.  A course that I've been a member of for 50 years][/color]

Do any still exist?

Sadly, they're now less than 20% German Bent.
The years have taken their toll on their purity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

Obviously, if you're taking Stimp readings when the greens are moist, they'll speed up as they dry out.

What kind of grass do you have and what's the location of the course ?

[Steve Okula]

Steve,

Obviously, if you're taking Stimp readings when the greens are moist, they'll speed up as they dry out.

What kind of grass do you have and what's the location of the course ?

I have 50% Penncross & 50% Poa located in the suburbs of Paris, France.