The Morris Method - Green speeds made to order

[Sean_A]

Jim

You may be right about the race for higher green speeds, but I still believe the focus is wrong.  Get the firmness right (and that in and of itself is a major marketing deal...just as higher stimping was and is) and the other stuff will follow. Of course, when clubs throw untold amounts of money into maintenance it is clear saving money isn't a priority for those driving ahead with green speeds.  Having said all that, I have rarely encountered greens which are too fast for the design, but I would be happier to pay less, firm the greens up and slow them down to 9ish...interesting greens at that speed and firmed up are a challenge for anybody without being overbearing for most.  Quite simply, most golfers can't hack high green speeds and its awful to stand about watching my time and money wasted away. 

Ciao

[JESII]

True...but speed is worth discussing on it's own I believe.

After all, we do have somewhat more control over speed than firmness, at least here in the Philly area.

[jeffwarne]

I'm curious if the original architects of Pine Valley ever realized they evidently designed greens which didn't have enough slopes for the speeds of the day, or perhaps they were just so foresighted (and generous ) that they designed greens that would be "better" at higher speeds long after they were gone.

I also love 2 feet of break (or more) on a 20 footer. I just prefer it to be from gravity's effect on healthy grass, not space age height of cut which creates (more) of a need for conditioning that leads to softness under stress

 

[John Connolly]

I like where this thread has gone because I think unwittingly, the conversation has reinforced the notion that firmness and speed are not necessarily related. On that unintentionally oblique thread I started last week looking for a 3 set Venn diagram expression for green speed, firmness and cost, it was concluded that speed and firmness are uncoupled entities. That is affirmed here as well.

[JESII]

Jeff,

To be equally ridiculous, isn't it easier and cheaper and healthier to grow grass a couple inches long? After all, we never hear about courses losing their rough but we hear about fairways all the time...

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

To be equally ridiculous, isn't it easier and cheaper and healthier to grow grass a couple inches long? After all, we never hear about courses losing their rough but we hear about fairways all the time...

Perfect, just put about 12 degrees of slope in the greens!!!

on a serious note, do you really hear about courses losing their fairways?
We actually lose our roughs first

[JESII]

Maybe not so much, but I'd say fairways themselves must be more delicate than rough, it's just that rough is prone to not be irrigated, right?

[Sean_A]

True...but speed is worth discussing on it's own I believe.

After all, we do have somewhat more control over speed than firmness, at least here in the Philly area.

Sure speed is worth discussing....but it has been discussed to death and we are still pushing a death wall for more speed at the expense of interesting and healthy greens.  So my idea of a discussion about speed is to slow greens down to make greens healthier and cheaper to maintain. Lets put our trust in archies to provide interesting greens without resorting to a huge spend for speed.  Lets get greens as firm as reasonable given climates, seasons and grass types.  Lets choose more sensible grass types for greens which will thrive given climates and seasons.  At the moment, too much emphasis is centred around speed and how we can create more speed with better grasses blah blah blah.  Its a one sided conversation had by people wearing blinkers...the same people who want to play faster and pay less...its as if golfers refuse to connect the dots.


Ciao 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

Grass is not much different to the human body in that you want it to be reasonably fit but if you push fitness to an extreme and then overwork it you end up with more injuries and illness than a normal person.


disease on greens is due to many things but it usually comes back to a weakened sward being stressed beyond its limits. The stress is usually a combination of 1. too low a cutting height, 2. lack of natural bio balance due to a sterile rootzone and 3. use of fungicides, 4. excessive growth rate and 5. the climate.

You cannot do much about the climate and I am saying this is correct for a warm season climate but for cool season an increase in 1. combined with a more balanced rootzone in 2. leads to less use of 3. and less need for 4 thus giving the grass sward a better chance to resist disease.

Sean is absolutely spot on with his assessment.

Guess now I just sit back and wait to get torn apart for my heresy

[jeffwarne]

Maybe not so much, but I'd say fairways themselves must be more delicate than rough, it's just that rough is prone to not be irrigated, right?

To be fair we don't "lose" the roughs, they just go dormant first in heat due to less irrigation coverage-definitely less tolerant of vehicle traffic

[jeffwarne]

True...but speed is worth discussing on it's own I believe.

After all, we do have somewhat more control over speed than firmness, at least here in the Philly area.

Sure speed is worth discussing....but it has been discussed to death and we are still pushing a death wall for more speed at the expense of interesting and healthy greens.  So my idea of a discussion about speed is to slow greens down to make greens healthier and cheaper to maintain. Lets put our trust in archies to provide interesting greens without resorting to a huge spend for speed.  Lets get greens as firm as reasonable given climates, seasons and grass types.  Lets choose more sensible grass types for greens which will thrive given climates and seasons.  At the moment, too much emphasis is centred around speed and how we can create more speed with better grasses blah blah blah.  Its a one sided conversation had by people wearing blinkers...the same people who want to play faster and pay less...its as if golfers refuse to connect the dots.


Ciao  

I don't feel so alone now-well said.

I would add that if greens need to run at least 11 to be interesting, (as mentioned earlier by a respected poster) that the architect has not done a good job and/or is allowing the inmates to run the asylum by designing greens to cope with a stated high speed, or hasn't at least explained the possibilities of another option and explained the additional costs of keeping the greens at a minimum of 11.

To be fair though Sean, the trend BACK to bermuda(fancy new strains of course ) in the south has helped a lot with firmness and sustainability. If we could just get the powers that be to stop being so fixated on speed with them just because they can, especially when winter dormant. (Palmetto has a couple of greens that are virtually unplayable in February and they've already altered one )

As far as bent, it should NEVER have been the choice down there anyway UNLESS a course was open only in cold season like Augusta, and I would argue the course was BETTER pre 1980 with firmer bermuda overseeded with rye and the original slopes and overall tilt rather than more tiers like they have now.

[JESII]

Just had the chance to go back and read these posts again and I think our wires are crossed somewhere.

First of all, the thread is about the superintendent at a very highly ranked course developing his own method for communicating green speeds to his players. I doubt he set out on that mission as a way to push for faster, and more expensive to maintain, greens. The reality, it seems, is that his players determined they like the greens to roll at about 11.5 feet. I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, which in this instance means the CD folks understand the consequences of that preference.

The thread itself isn't about pushing faster speeds, even though I've indicated my preference for fast greens.

When you guys tell me that 9 feet is preferable to 11 feet for a number of valid reasons, why wouldn't 7 feet be better than 9 feet for those same reasons? How about 5 feet?

For what it's worth, I would pick firm greens that run at 10 feet over soft greens at 11 feet every single time...but I don't think that's a real scenario. I think the guys that believe in maintaining a firm golf course can do it just as well with the greens at 11 feet as they can at 10 feet. If I'm wrong, please tell me so.

There's a tipping point in both maintenance and playability in the arms race with the greatest risk being the flattening of greens and the building of boring greens. I'm 100% on the GCA accepted side of that debate, I just disagree with most of the playability / fairness complaints and feel the maintenance pressure is pretty controllable until you get right near the edge of the cliff.

[Brent Hutto]

As for firmness vs. speed, my perspective is extremely limited as 99% of my lifetime rounds have been played on Bermuda grass of one form or another. Keeping Bermuda firm does not have as extreme a cost as keeping Bent grass firm, I'd bet.

But more to the point, in my experience there's no such thing as smooth, true-rolling and consistent putting surfaces of Bermuda grass that Stimp at 7 or 8. For the courses I play, if you're going to have firm greens and they''re going to smooth and true then they are going to Stimp somewhere north of 9, period.

I've certainly encountered greens much slower than I'm used to in the UK which roll extremely well even though slow. But that is not AFAIK replicable in South Carolina using Bermuda hybrids.

[jeffwarne]

As for firmness vs. speed, my perspective is extremely limited as 99% of my lifetime rounds have been played on Bermuda grass of one form or another. Keeping Bermuda firm does not have as extreme a cost as keeping Bent grass firm, I'd bet.

But more to the point, in my experience there's no such thing as smooth, true-rolling and consistent putting surfaces of Bermuda grass that Stimp at 7 or 8. For the courses I play, if you're going to have firm greens and they''re going to smooth and true then they are going to Stimp somewhere north of 9, period.

I've certainly encountered greens much slower than I'm used to in the UK which roll extremely well even though slow. But that is not AFAIK replicable in South Carolina using Bermuda hybrids.

That's where the disconnect is Brent.
many would consider 9 slow.
So when people talk slow or fast, it just depends upon the course circle they travel in.

I have no preference for speeds to be 5, 7, 9, 11,13, or 15.
I have a strong preference for interesting greens and interesting pin placements.
Interesting green design should consider approaches and recoveries.
more speed=s less slope(designed in new courses or taken out of old courses) =s less importance of angles and (often) less firm.

Jim you are right there is a tipping point and my guess is that tipping point for green high speeds leading to softer greens and lower turf health is lower in Philly than New York due to high heat and humidity. (why else would supers leave their greens higher during heat waves?)
Many interesting pins are no longer used due to absolute speed being too high to stop a ball near that spot-most don't even know what they are missing because that spot is never pinned.

13, 14, and yes 15 are speeds I used to think were just some BS story until I saw them in person and saw them stimped.
No good pin can be used at 14, and eventually we'll see greens designed for that speed the same as the poster who suggested the greens at his club had been designed for 11.
It's a race to eventual flat greens,or at least flat tiers. Higher maintenance, higher costs, less interest.


Of course as I type this they're out syringing the greens to slow them down allow them to continue play in 22 mph winds.

I do think the good thing about the survey is that they will cater to the majority as opposed to a vocal minority (hopefully after taking out the human nature factor Tom Doak suggested)
ideally, they would be at different speeds at different times of year due to conditions such as weather, turf health, humidity, maintenance, competitions, etc.

[JMEvensky]

As for firmness vs. speed, my perspective is extremely limited as 99% of my lifetime rounds have been played on Bermuda grass of one form or another. Keeping Bermuda firm does not have as extreme a cost as keeping Bent grass firm, I'd bet.

But more to the point, in my experience there's no such thing as smooth, true-rolling and consistent putting surfaces of Bermuda grass that Stimp at 7 or 8. For the courses I play, if you're going to have firm greens and they''re going to smooth and true then they are going to Stimp somewhere north of 9, period.

I've certainly encountered greens much slower than I'm used to in the UK which roll extremely well even though slow. But that is not AFAIK replicable in South Carolina using Bermuda hybrids.

My experience is the same--slower/smooth Bermuda is a tough combination.

I'm not sure the Bermuda people and the bent people can fully appreciate the others' situations. Getting Bermuda greens firm and fast in the summer isn't difficult nor dangerous to the turf.

[jeffwarne]

As for firmness vs. speed, my perspective is extremely limited as 99% of my lifetime rounds have been played on Bermuda grass of one form or another. Keeping Bermuda firm does not have as extreme a cost as keeping Bent grass firm, I'd bet.

But more to the point, in my experience there's no such thing as smooth, true-rolling and consistent putting surfaces of Bermuda grass that Stimp at 7 or 8. For the courses I play, if you're going to have firm greens and they''re going to smooth and true then they are going to Stimp somewhere north of 9, period.

I've certainly encountered greens much slower than I'm used to in the UK which roll extremely well even though slow. But that is not AFAIK replicable in South Carolina using Bermuda hybrids.

I'm not sure the Bermuda people and the bent people can fully appreciate the others' situations. Getting Bermuda greens firm and fast in the summer isn't difficult nor dangerous to the turf.

100% correct
The same is true of bent and or poa in cooler spring and fall months.
the problems stem from people wanting day in, day out absolute speeds when most people play up north-the summer when it's most likely to hot and/or humid.

[Brent Hutto]

I just joined my current club over the winter and haven't yet played our greens in high summer since they were regrassed a couple years back with one of the new miracle hybrids (Mini-Verde or Champion, can't recall which). But being blessed with a set of green contours that Jeff W would no doubt love it's my understanding we can have it both ways.

We can keep the greens firm and reasonably fast all summer which makes them pretty scary given the ridges, humps, falloffs and general PITA-ness of the shaping. And the Bermuda just hums along no matter how hot it gets as long as you don't shave them down to a nub. Then for big tournaments and such we can also shave them down and let all manner of hell break loose.

I'm looking forward to my first summer there. Who knows, I may be on here touting my love of greens Stimping 8 by August...

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, My taste? Where did you learn them? Wanting the speed race to end isn't a reflection of my taste in speeds. It's a reflection of realizing the 5 1/2 hour round is killing the "industry". But since you asked. I prefer the one day on one day off approach. That challenges me to adapt daily and allows others, to play on the greens speeds they prefer. And if hit and runners show up on the day they don't prefer, they can come on here and post repeatedly their pampered feelings.



Surely, giving the paying customer what they want has worked out really well. Well, for renovation architects, at least.

[JESII]

Since the thread was dead, I'll address a point in Adam's post knowing it will result in a threadjack...but...


Adam,

Can you describe your experiences with 5 1/2 hour rounds and their effect on your participation in the golf industry?

[Brent Hutto]

In my opinion, the "it takes too long to play" barrier is extremely over-reported in mass-market surveys relative to its true effect on participation.

My area of research is not golf participation but I know when you ask the general public about barriers to physical activity and exercise generally, there are certain barriers that almost everyone will report as being important. But when you look at actual relationships between those supposed barriers and measured activity levels, the relationship hardly ever pans out.

I'd not be at all surprised to find that regular players of the game feel that "it takes too long to play" just as often as people who seldom or never play. There's always a certain disconnect between the excuses someone gives (which tend to be the first thing that pops in their mind when answering a survey) and the actual influences on their behavior (which they may not be aware of and probably don't spend any time reflecting upon).

[Jon Wiggett]

In my opinion, the "it takes too long to play" barrier is extremely over-reported in mass-market surveys relative to its true effect on participation.

I'd not be at all surprised to find that regular players of the game feel that "it takes too long to play" just as often as people who seldom or never play.

There's always a certain disconnect between the excuses someone gives (which tend to be the first thing that pops in their mind when answering a survey) and the actual influences on their behavior (which they may not be aware of and probably don't spend any time reflecting upon).

Brent,

you could just as easily argue that regular players carry on playing despite it taking so long and that many of those who say they play less or have stopped because of the time it takes are telling the truth and there is no disconnect.

Jon

[Brent Hutto]

Impossible to establish a particular form of causality without observing the same people over time under various conditions of the factor in question. So you may well be absolutely correct. There may be millions of people who would flock to the game (or return to regular participation) if it took 90 minutes less complete a round.

But the fact that a non-golfer says "golf takes too long" when presented with a question on a survey doesn't mean much other than that's the first thing that popped into his or her mind when asked. IMO it means even less if they check the box next to where that reason/excuse/barrier is already printed on the survey.

Here's an example of human behavior. A cop stops me for speeding, doing 48mph in a 35mph zone. I say "Sorry but I'm running late to church this morning". I may indeed be running late to church but it's entirely possible I drive 48mph on that street even when I'm not late and it's also possible that other people running late to church drive 35mph anyway.

Many people feel golf takes too long to play. Some of them play anyway, some don't play. Some of the ones who don't play also would not play if it took less time. For all we know, many of those people who say "golf takes too long to play" aren't talking about 5-1/2 hour rounds. They would think it takes too long with 3-1/2 hour rounds.

Which brings me to my own supposition about this commonly reported barrier. I find it hard to believe that someone who can never or almost never afford to be away from home for 7 hours at a stretch (half hour drive each way, 5-1/2 hour round, half hour warmup before teeing off) would play once or twice a week if it took only 5 hours at a stretch (everything else the same but 3-1/2 hour round).

But there's no way of knowing for how many people my supposition is correct just like there's no way of knowing if 5-1/2 rounds CAUSE low participation at all. We simply know it's something that golfers and non-golfers both answer on surveys. Hell these surveys being quoted are never even cross-tabbed to show how many people endorsed the "takes too long" meme versus how often they play golf! Not that I've seen anyway.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,

reading your last post I think you have too much time to both over think and post .

Jon

[Brent Hutto]

In a perfect world, given that it's 70F and sunny outdoors today, I'd be off doing some activity that takes too long. Instead, here I am.

[Terry Poley]

We have just introduced the "Morris Method" to our members.  Early data seems to confirm what Tom D. said earlier, no one will circle too fast on the card...

Since we started this exercise, I have been keeping detailed information on green speed; what type of mowers used for the day, How many blade reels on the mower, staff member name and mower ID number for each mower "loop", did we groom, did we brush, did we roll, height of cut, etc.  And then, the average speed of each mower loop to determine if there is an unacceptable variance.  This is all added to a Numbers spreadsheet on my iPad.

Speeds have been very consistent and very fast (in my opinion), but replies have been surprising...
I will give two recent examples:

Green speed (4 loops): A=12'4", B=12'3", C=12'7", D=12'3". 
Response:  25% slow/OK, 25% OK, 50% fast/OK

Green Speed (4 loops): A=13'5", B=13'7", C=13'3", D=13'5"
Response:  33% OK, 66% fast/OK

Can anyone guess the scores and the pace of play for the second example....

Further, there are still comments regarding consistency from green to green...

I am certainly not writing this to brag, I am as far from a "tape measure man" as you can get. I am just pointing out the obvious, generally speaking, golfers have no idea about green speed and consistency.  Their opinion is based almost entirely on slope.

Our greens are relatively flat, and since the second world war the greens sizes are probably half of what they were in the 1920's.  Then, once modern irrigation was installed, the green sizes and shapes were "locked".  This means all the cool features and movement is now in the surrounds and collars, and we are now using only the inner flattish portion of the original putting surface.

OK, fire away, I've got broad shoulders and thick skin