[Mike Wagner]

Mike,


I was scratch at 15 years old and though I do not know exactly how many tournaments I have played with all scratch fields it is probably in the thousands. Why?


Jon

Jon -


I appreciate that.  Most people get bent out of shape when asked .. and it's crucial for me to understand the perspective you're coming from.  Experience to me is what matters most.


I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of faster greens being easier the better the player ... in fact, I completely agree because that's my experience as well.  I think there's a point of diminishing return, though, with greens that get THIS fast.  For the most part, I think it's safe to say really good players and pros are most comfortable on speeds of 10-13 or so that are super smooth.  It most likely comes from all the experience of getting to  that level where that is usually the conditions presented.


Bottom line is I got wound up on the whole "luck" thing that was presented .. not even necessarily by you. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,


I used to practice on the wooden dance floor at my first club which was really, really fast though obviously pan flat. I used to be able to get 9 out of 10 ball to stop inside 18" of a tee peg from a good 30 odd foot. Fast greens are nearly always flatter through necessity. I am firmly in the park of greens should stimp at around 9 to 10 ish but with a bit of contour.


Jon

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know how many incidents have occurred this week regarding balls moving on the green at address. But, has it been more than average? If so, how can it be anything but greenspeed? I mean, these guys aren't nicking the ball as they make practice swings, so....?

[Jason Connor]

Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.

But best is subjective.   Fastest is measurable.


That's one of the things wrong with the world in 2016.  Now that so many things are measurable, people focus on what is specifically measurable -- not on what is worthwhile.

[jeffwarne]

Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.

But best is subjective.   Fastest is measurable.


That's one of the things wrong with the world in 2016.  Now that so many things are measurable, people focus on what is specifically measurable -- not on what is worthwhile.

Same with courses rating and rankings, as well as golf instruction

[Will MacEwen]

Now that the course is being returned to ordinary member play, how much faster will the greens be?

For years we have heard that the only adjustment needed at Oakmont is to slow the greens down, so is 16 on the stimp normal there?

[Doug Siebert]

The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.

I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.

[jeffwarne]

The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.

I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.

I'm guessing there's no way Oakmont's greens are boring at 10
Was Oakmont boring in the 60's,70's 80's and 90's?
Just agitating to current members measuring their johnsons

[Tom_Doak]

The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.

I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.

This is completely backwards, Doug.


Older greens have a big variety of slopes -- Oakmont's have spots that are only 2% or 3%, and other spots that are 4% and 5% and 6%.  In the old days, you could use the areas up to 5% for tournament play, because the greens were only 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter.  Now that they are more than that for everyday play, all of the latter hole locations are obsolete, and you can only use the ones in the flattest parts of the green. 


But you could have hole locations that were JUST AS DEMANDING TO PLAY if the greens were a bit slower and you were using the steeper parts of the green.


The search for "championship conditions everyday" is the ruination of many courses, and frustrates more and more golfers into quitting the game.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: Your last sentence was a perfect summary of my reason for starting this thread.


The search for "championship conditions everyday" is the ruination of many courses, and frustrates more and more golfers into quitting the game.

[BCowan]

The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.

I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.

This is completely backwards, Doug.


Older greens have a big variety of slopes -- Oakmont's have spots that are only 2% or 3%, and other spots that are 4% and 5% and 6%.  In the old days, you could use the areas up to 5% for tournament play, because the greens were only 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter.  Now that they are more than that for everyday play, all of the latter hole locations are obsolete, and you can only use the ones in the flattest parts of the green. 


But you could have hole locations that were JUST AS DEMANDING TO PLAY if the greens were a bit slower and you were using the steeper parts of the green.


The search for "championship conditions everyday" is the ruination of many courses, and frustrates more and more golfers into quitting the game.

Tom,

   Some friends of mine played Crystal a week or 2 ago and said the greens were running 12.5 and even some of the members were complaining.  When is CD going to stop the greens speeds arms race?

[jeffwarne]

The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.

I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.

This is completely backwards, Doug.


Older greens have a big variety of slopes -- Oakmont's have spots that are only 2% or 3%, and other spots that are 4% and 5% and 6%.  In the old days, you could use the areas up to 5% for tournament play, because the greens were only 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter.  Now that they are more than that for everyday play, all of the latter hole locations are obsolete, and you can only use the ones in the flattest parts of the green. 


But you could have hole locations that were JUST AS DEMANDING TO PLAY if the greens were a bit slower and you were using the steeper parts of the green.

I'm going to disagree Tom.
The greens would be MORE DEMANDING TO PLAY(rather than JUST AS) in your above scenario because the difference in size of stroke between a downhill 20 footer on a 5 degree slope and an uphill 20 footer on the same slope would be much greater.


But we're both saying the same thing.
Competing with another course on quantification of green speeds nearly always results in MORE boring golf due to the loss of the best pins.
Perhaps we could start measuring johnsons by degrees of slope in pinnable areas

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()