Ideal green speed?!

[TEPaul]

We've certainly talked about green speed before on here and plenty but the subject generally comes up in the context that some clubs push for greenspeeds that are too high--get ridiculous and then the next thing you know they're thinking about recontouring and softening their greens which mostly serves to strip the character and challenge out of them.

I'd say categorically I'd always advocate slowing greens down instead of fooling with their contours but I believe a course should determine what their ideal top green speed is and then stick as near it as possible. Using the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" is the way to determine that top and ideal speed, in my opinion, and definitely not some arbitrary stimpmeter number.

But I must say I really do like fast greens and very fast greens for the given course. I think it ups the challenge on the course exponentially and the overall enjoyment.

What do the rest of you think the ideal greenspeeds are for your games and enjoyment?

[TEPaul]

By the way, I thought the greenspeed at Glen View when we were out there for the William S. Flynn invitational were really nice--they were fast and definitely super highlighted everything about those greens but they certainly weren't over the top. One did have to be very careful in certain places though and I did see some really thoughtful and imaginative putts that wouldn't have been so necessary if the greens were a foot or more slower.

[THuckaby2]

Simple:  as fast as the contours will allow, such that a ball placed within 3 feet of any reasonable pin placement will stay at 3 feet max from the hole, and not have gravity take it farther away.

Thus Pasatiempo out to be 7-8 max (stimp, that is)... many courses out here could be 15 (if such things were possible!).

TH

[Jason Mandel]

i agree that it matters on both slope but also type of grass.  

even though i think we all understand by now that many of the golden era architects built their courses with green speeds of about 5-7, i too enjoy them when they are faster, however, i really dont think the speed is as much of a factor if toughness in putting as  is wether a set of greens putts true or not.

while there is something to having a home course advantage by knowing the greens so well, as well as an added advantage of having a really good caddie, there is nothing that toughens up a course more, or slows up play more, than greens that simply don't putt true.  

te paul, i think the answer you are going to get on this subject is going to vary on region in which we all play,  up north i def. think people are going to prefer the faster the better.  down south, that may not be the case.  

by the way, with your talk regarding contours of greens, and "softening" them,  could you be talking about a neighboring course of ours that is the neighbor of the course that hosted the senior pga?

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Get off it. Most people can't even figure out a stimpmeter and the number that's right for their course--so don't confuse people with something far more complex like;

"The answer might be plottable on a bell curve distribution!"

Jesus man, what are you trying to do? I can just see some wacko telling his super the "plottable bell curve distribution" at course across the street is greater or better than our plottable bell curve distriubution so we need to soften our greens to make the "plottable bell curve distribution" better at our course than that course across the street.  

[Dan Kelly]

Simple:  as fast as the contours will allow, such that a ball placed within 3 feet of any reasonable pin placement will stay at 3 feet max from the hole, and not have gravity take it farther away.

I hate to agree unreservedly with anyone about anything -- but that's perfect.

[TEPaul]

"by the way, with your talk regarding contours of greens, and "softening" them,  could you be talking about a neighboring course of ours that is the neighbor of the course that hosted the senior pga?"

jmandel:

I wasn't thinking of that one--not really thinking of any one in particular but I did play in the Overbrook Challenge Match there this spring and their greens were fantastic in speed and firmness and every other way--a real challenge!

[Jason Mandel]

te paul,

i played there earlier this spring as well before they shut down and found them to be  a lot of fun as well, really the character of the course was in the greens.

i had heard that fazio was brought in to do the "softening" but never got confirmation on that, can you confirm that?  i always though it was a nice course but not fantastic, and that the greens were  what made the course so difficult, at least thats what the pros had such trouble with.

[Brock Peyer]

They are too fast if an above average gust of wind will move the ball....unless you are the USGA.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I don't know what the ideal green speed is. However, I remain concerned that the modern emphasis on faster and faster green will lead to less interesting greens overall.

Ideally, greens should be configured to test not just putting skills but also the ability to place approach shots and play recovery shots.

[golfnooch]

220, 221 whatever it takes  

[Mark_Fine]

Doak was forced to soften some of the contours at San Francisco because of green speeds.  Fenway probably will have to do the same for #11.  At green speeds above 9, there are essentially no pin positions on that green.  The same goes for #8 at Skokie.  It reminded me of a Charles River green set up on the hillside with a huge false front.  The pro told me they will probably add green space to the back portion of that green.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I find it remarkably sad that our greens are becoming so mundane in shaping and slope due to lower cutting of grass.

I played a modern course recently that stimps at 11 on average for everyday play.  The greens were designed sooooo flat and boring that I swear I didn't have a putt that broke more than a foot all day.  

Sadly, I felt that I was seeing more of the future than I cared to admit.  

So, I don't know what the ideal green speed is, but if this is where green design is going, it doesn't matter if they stimped at 25....they'd still be mundane, boring, and unimaginatively artificial.

[david h. carroll]

Mark Fine--NAF and I got into this discussion after he and Childs played Five Farms.  He asked why we recontoured three of our greens and the answer was simply that with the previous contours and the ability to have consistent green speeds throughout the course, the three greens in question (3, 9, 12) had limited (2 or 3)pin placements...mowers, agonomy and science had simply made the greens unfair.

[Ed_Baker]

Mark,
The green you are referring to at Charles River is the 5th. During our restoration, Ron Prichard outlined a program of gradual green reclaimation which included a slight raising of the front portion of the green through vigorous top dressing over about a 7 year period, we are about 4 years in to it and have gained a few more pin posistions.

Charles River just hosted the USGA Men's State Team Championship last week and the USGA actually insisted on green speeds a little slower than we play for the members tournaments, I concur with the USGA. They understand the "Steve Curry" green speed method.

[TEPaul]

This thread's title is phrased very poorly by me---because obviously it's misleading--and certainly in the wrong direction.

I didn't mean to indicate that there's AN ideal green speed, certainly not one that's universal in the way of a stimp number--I meant to indicate that there should be AN ideal greenspeed for each golf course--and a maximum one at that but only tailored to suit that course. Obviously the "Ideal" greenspeed for your course can and will be quite different from other courses!

The way to arrive at that is the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" of determining and establishing that spot on your golf course that you want to keep as pinnable that goes over the top first. The idea is to use that point as the barometer to establish a maximum greenspeed for the course that does not take that spot over the top---EVER.

If a club takes this seriously they should attempt to establish that maximum speed as the speed never to exceed. Put that formally into your maintenance program or even into the club's by-laws. The whole idea is to protect the contours of your greens and to prevent altering them in the future in the name of speed.

On the other hand, on the other side of the coin, I am an advocate that a course's greenspeed should be kept near that maximum greenspeed as much and as often as possible--agronomic safety foremost, of course! Physics and experience tells us that no matter what the actual stimpmeter reading is, greens that're near their maximum reasonable greenspeed (the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer") will offer all the challenge anyone could ever want and consequently the push to increase the greenspeed should be minimized.

[TEPaul]

I think Glen View in Chicago this week is a good example of a course that probably had their greenspeed near its reasonable maximum. They were fast, probably over 11 for them according to the super.

Many of us had never been there before and at those speeds we were told before playing to watch out for about three greens and basically not to get in certain sections of them to the day's pin or three putting problems would probably arise. I think that was true--and frankly I like that. When golfers become aware of that it basically has the effect of making parts of the course (greens) become far more strategic to play--always a good thing in my opinion!

[Tom_Doak]

I wasn't "forced" to change the green on #2 at SFGC.  I recommended it, reluctantly, because the ENTIRE green was 3-4 % slopes, and I was afraid that with A-4 on the greens they would get the everyday speed up to where there were no good hole locations ... and then that would be my fault, because I'd just rebuilt the green.

I may have been wrong to do it.  That green might have served as a "speed barometer" for the course, in that you wouldn't think a club would pick a green speed where one of its greens was entirely unplayable ... that one green might've kept them at 9 1/2 or 10 on the Stimpmeter and no more.

Then again, when does common sense ever prevail?  For US Opens at Medinah and Southern Hills they've cut a couple of greens at different heights than the rest because of a similar situation.

If we could trust committees and superintendents to pick a speed that's right for their course, and not base their choice on the course across the street, then there would be a lot more interesting golf architecture going on today.

[TEPaul]

"If we could trust committees and superintendents to pick a speed that's right for their course, and not base their choice on the course across the street, then there would be a lot more interesting golf architecture going on today."

TomD:

When one thinks about it that's a very powerful statement and one that should probably be voiced far more often by architects to committees, supers, clients, whomever.

Architects should probably just hit them with the question;

"What do you want, fun, interesting and challenging greens to be kept at a reasonable maximum speed to be determined or something super fast and super boring? Your choice!"

[JDoyle]

Last weekend I played Sand Hills.  The conditions were very dry and the course was playing fast & firm.  The greens were FAST.  The wind was about 20-25 MPH, which I understand is average.  On the first hole I left my approach on the back fringe.  The green slopes back to front and the pin was in the front.  With the wind at my back I just tapped my forty foot putt as if it were 12 inches.  It stopped rolling 40 yards from the pin back down the hill in the fairway.  

I always laugh at people who talk about a course, bunker, water hazzard or green being unfair.  That word doesn't belong in any discussion about golf, unless its over a guiness at the 19th hole with a smile on your face.  The whole game is unfair for everyone - thus it is fair for everyone.  But at some point you need to realize that if your greens have that much movement, and the ground conditions are fast and firm and the wind blows at 20 MPH that you need to slow the speed a bit, IMHO.

[TEPaul]

Bless you JDoyle, a post for the ages on this particular subject--well two subjects really--greenspeed and the general subject of fairness in golf! The thing you pointed out so well---when a golfer complains about unfairness in golf is that it's not something that's happening just to him but something that over time happens to everyone else also and very likely in equal measure. Golfers who complain about unfairness always seem to forget that.

[Doug Siebert]

I find it remarkably sad that our greens are becoming so mundane in shaping and slope due to lower cutting of grass.

I played a modern course recently that stimps at 11 on average for everyday play.  The greens were designed sooooo flat and boring that I swear I didn't have a putt that broke more than a foot all day.  

This makes no sense to me.  Of course you have to reduce the contours in a green to account for higher speeds.  But why would there be less break?  The slower the green, the greater the slope you put in the green.  The greater the slope the more break.  But ALSO, the slower the green, the harder you have to hit it and the more quickly it decelerates.  The faster the ball moves, the less it is affected by gravity (per foot), therefore less break on a putt of a given length.

Seems to me that overall the effects should cancel out.  Augusta shows that it is possible to have big breaks and fast speeds on the same green.  Granted that is too extreme to be considered for regular play (imagine how slow it'd be behind the average foursome!) but then you don't need breaks quite as huge as what Augusta has to make things interesting.

I'm not saying I want to see a stimp of 15 everywhere, but I think you could do that (assuming you can keep the grass alive) and still have some interesting greens with lots of breaks.  You'd just have to design with those sorts of speeds in mind.  If such a design could be done and maintenance costs weren't out of hand, I wouldn't mind playing it once in a while.

Even if you don't like them, fast greens are good for one thing, and that is exercising (and hopefully improving) your green reading skill.  Since even a tiny slope is magnified due to how slow you have to roll the ball, tiny breaks that wouldn't affect anything at a stimp of 8 can make that 4 footer miss when the greens are running 12.  Unless you are ballsy and ram it into the back of the cup, but that takes real balls if you are risking running that 4 footer 8 feet by!

[Dave_Wilber]

Last weekend I played Sand Hills.  The conditions were very dry and the course was playing fast & firm.  The greens were FAST.  The wind was about 20-25 MPH, which I understand is average.....

... But at some point you need to realize that if your greens have that much movement, and the ground conditions are fast and firm and the wind blows at 20 MPH that you need to slow the speed a bit, IMHO.

Your point is a good one in a way...but the reality is that it's not like there is a green speed selector dial at the maintenance building.

Wind is "usual" at Sand Hills and other places, but we all know that there are those days that it blows more than other days and sometimes not at all. The art of good greenkeeping is making a best guess about all of this and using one or all of the available methods practical for the moment to create puttable conditions. You don't always get to make 1 foot changes either way at the drop of a hat..there's more of a---trend line---for lack of a better word (not Bell Curve...right ) And sometimes nature makes those speed changes for you.

I agree that there's "just plain stupid" fast...and that can be managed for in most cases, but for the courses that we all love to be all the things we want them to be on the firm, dry and fast scale then every now and then, there'll be days when things get slick. But I sure hate to see people thinking that green speed is like some kind of "volume control" because that sort of thinking forces greenkeeping into a version of swinging at high pitches that isn't particularly healthy.

IMHO...of course

[TEPaul]

Ed Baker and Mark Studer (if either of you happen to stop by);

Ed:

I heard as well from our ex-dir at GAP who came back from Charles River after the first round for a meeting that the USGA insisted that your greens be slowed down some for the USGA Men's State Team Championship! What's the deal there? Do your members there really enjoy the extreme challenge of greens that're even quicker than the USGA thinks thosee national hot-shots should reasonably handle?

And MarkS:

Maybe you'd address that age old rumor that Oakmont actually slows their greens down for things like the US Open.

[Don_Mahaffey]

It's just so easy to get caught by the conditions. You have a club tournament or some other event and you cut em a shade lower and roll em once or twice and then the weather changes, humidity drops to nothing, wind blows out of a funny direction and all of a sudden a couple of greens are unplayable. Happened to me once during a PGA qualifier and I needed ear plugs by the end of the day.