Here We Go Again With Green Speeds

[Mike Wagner]

My personal experience with fast greens was in Portugal at Troia. I puttet up the slope, missed the hole on the right hand side, the ball went around the hole, stopped... and startet to trickle down the slope, off the green. So count me towards those who hate excessive green speeds. And everyone who doesn't think Oakmont is on the wrong side this week should just look at the Bnker shot Byeong-hun An postet on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/

Agreed.  Anyone on here espousing the merits of 14+ speeds needs to watch that video.  Ultra fast greens don't promote skill, they promote luck.

Mark - How many tournaments have you played with a field of 144 and the majority were scratch or better? 

[Mark Pearce]

Mike,


That's a really silly question, to which you know the (entirely) irrelevant answer.  The player in the video is in the field this week.  He hits a "hero shot" (Sam) which virtually stops a few inches from the hole and ends yards from it.  Of course I don't have the skill to deal with that.  That isn't the point.  The point is that it is near to impossible, even for the world's best.


Now, aside from that stupid question, do you have a view?

[Andrew Buck]

Mike,


That's a really silly question, to which you know the (entirely) irrelevant answer.  The player in the video is in the field this week.  He hits a "hero shot" (Sam) which virtually stops a few inches from the hole and ends yards from it.  Of course I don't have the skill to deal with that.  That isn't the point.  The point is that it is near to impossible, even for the world's best.


Now, aside from that stupid question, do you have a view?

My view is it is fine to have difficult golf courses if that is what a membership wants.  It is certainly reasonable for a major championship to be contested on a course where a miss in the wrong place does not allow a player a chance to get within 10 - 15 feet of the hole. 

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,


That's a really silly question, to which you know the (entirely) irrelevant answer.  The player in the video is in the field this week.  He hits a "hero shot" (Sam) which virtually stops a few inches from the hole and ends yards from it.  Of course I don't have the skill to deal with that.  That isn't the point.  The point is that it is near to impossible, even for the world's best.


Now, aside from that stupid question, do you have a view?

Mark -


Of course I have a view, and it wasn't a silly question or stupid question.  I find it very important to understand the frame of reference of a person's response.  EXPERIENCE is what matters to me the most.  It validates words more.  For example, I get a kick out of a 20 handicap who thinks he knows what's best for a pro .. you get the drift.  It's sort of like me saying I know what's best for Warren Buffet when it comes to investing.  I can invest, but ...


You assumption of me knowing the answer to my question is way off base.  I had /still have no idea. 


Where am I going with this?  Well, unless you've been in a field with numerous scratch or better players on really fast / difficult greens, then I don't find it credible.  I don't say that to be offensive, I say it because as you watch a tournament, you're only seeing a fraction of the whole and what's going on with everyone.  Greens are only a part of the overall difficulty. 


You'd really have to watch shots over and over up close to see that it's not luck that wins.  You may not be able to win WITHOUT some luck, but it's not luck on the greens (or anywhere else for that matter) that wins tournaments at this level.

[BCowan]

Mike,

   By that same logic you are basically saying that a Golf course Architect needs to be a major champion or play the tour or be a scratch golfer in order to design a major championship level golf course.  Some of the best golf instructors aren't great players or former touring pros. Tim rosaforte is a 15-20 handicaper and I think he has seen enough golf to determine green speeds.  Meaning he is intelligent observer without practical experience.   

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

   By that same logic you are basically saying that a Golf course Architect needs to be a major champion or play the tour or be a scratch golfer in order to design a major championship level golf course.  Some of the best golf instructors aren't great players or former touring pros. Tim rosaforte is a 15-20 handicaper and I think he has seen enough golf to determine green speeds.  Meaning he is intelligent observer without practical experience.

Ben -


No  .. I'm not ... AT ALL.  Maybe you forgot the original premise.  It was about LUCK being the determining factor on fast greens.  That's all.  I don't believe it is ... AT ALL.  I was asking for someone's experience in playing fast greens with seriously accomplished players.  I've been there, and I can tell you that is simply NOT my experience.  There are certain skills people won't notice:  example ... two players are side by side, fly it the same distance, and one spins more than the other down a hill ... it may look like it was green speed and luck.  In actuality, it may have been a less spinning shot, applied with SKILL that determined the difference.


We're not talking about the same thing .. not even close.

[Kalen Braley]

Fred Couples whole-heartedly agrees....luck has nothing to do with winning big tournaments!! 

[Mike Wagner]

Fred Couples whole-heartedly agrees....luck has nothing to do with winning big tournaments!! 

I never said it had NOTHING to do with it.  In fact, I absolutely agree luck is part of the equation .. it's just a very small part.

[Jerry Kluger]

How do you feel as to whether the same player would win if the green speeds at Oakmont were 12 instead of 15 - what would you attribute the difference to?  We cannot look at Cabrera and say that he is a great putter even if he won at Oakmont and Augusta.  He is a streaky putter which is probably one way you can win at these venues. 

[Pete_Pittock]

How do you feel as to whether the same player would win if the green speeds at Oakmont were 12 instead of 15 - what would you attribute the difference to?  We cannot look at Cabrera and say that he is a great putter even if he won at Oakmont and Augusta.  He is a streaky putter which is probably one way you can win at these venues.

Cabrera won at Oakmont because he was knocking the pins down on his approaches, and nobody else was.

[Mike Wagner]

How do you feel as to whether the same player would win if the green speeds at Oakmont were 12 instead of 15 - what would you attribute the difference to?  We cannot look at Cabrera and say that he is a great putter even if he won at Oakmont and Augusta.  He is a streaky putter which is probably one way you can win at these venues.

Cabrera won at Oakmont because he was knocking the pins down on his approaches, and nobody else was.

Exactly!

[Phil McDade]

Sometimes the winner just looks like he's good and playing well because he gets to the clubhouse with a lower score than anyone else. That's the objective, of course, but I'm not sure all golfers who emerge from 144-player fields in high-caliber tournaments with wins do so without a fair amount of luck.


For starters, I'd say any golfer on Tour who won a tournament between August of 1999 and, oh, the summer of 2002 had an enormous out of luck because Tiger had an off week.

[Mike Wagner]

Sometimes the winner just looks like he's good and playing well because he gets to the clubhouse with a lower score than anyone else. That's the objective, of course, but I'm not sure all golfers who emerge from 144-player fields in high-caliber tournaments with wins do so without a fair amount of luck.


For starters, I'd say any golfer on Tour who won a tournament between August of 1999 and, oh, the summer of 2002 had an enormous out of luck because Tiger had an off week.

Maybe the Tour should change their slogan to "These Guys are Lucky" 

[Jon Wiggett]

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.

Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.

Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.

I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.

Sam,


the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.


Jon

Jon - Please explain that part about good players, fast greens, and NO CHALLENGE again ... I'm getting a good laugh.

Mike,


it is easy for someone to mock that which they do not comprehend. Laugh away


Jon

[Sean_A]

I have to admit Jon, I never understood the fast greens is easier argument.  Assuming the greens have some movement and contour, and they are truly quick (for me that means 11ish whereas 9-10 is the speed I would rather see on firm, true rolling greens) my take is....


1. If above the hole, putting is far more difficult.


2. If level with the hole, putting is far more difficult.


3. If below the hole and not too far away, putting is easier.


Same could be said when chipping from any of the above positions. 


It is difficult to say about approaching because usually I associate quicker greens with wetter greens and therefore easier to approach.  Though, I am told some clubs get greens flying and firm...only experienced this once at Brora and the greens were crusty/bumpy...so not ideal.  I think the last time I played greens which I think were too quick was at Old Town...and that was marginal, nothing terrible, just unnecessary given their firmness and difficulty. 


Granted, experience helps, but there is no getting around the idea that large areas of greens are no go zones when greens run fast.  I grew up on undulating greens that were quick, and I always knew right away when I was in trouble after an approach. Often times, there was no way to stop the ball...that of course means that eventually you become gun shy about attacking flags...often leaving tough two putts. 


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,


firstly you need to stop thinking about speed as stimp readings have nothing to do with speed but rather resistance to forward momentum. A ball on a green stimping at 15 does not travel faster than on a green stimping at 8 but it does travel further. Many people say they understand this and maybe they do but most still think/imagine the ball speed when thinking about degree of difficulty.


look at it this way. A downhill putt can only increase in speed to the point where the ball will not stop rolling. Once it reaches this point then it does not matter how fast the ball is actually rolling as it will not stop. Therefore there is a finite speed to a downhill putt to a playable pin position.


A good putter will generally hit a putt so that it finishes about 12"-18" past the hole on a mid length putt (8'-20') and will do this regardless of the speed of the green. A ball that will finish this distance past the hole  travelling on a green stimping at 8 will be travelling faster as it gets to the hole than if it were on a green stimping at 15. A ball that is travelling slower i.e. on a higher stimping green, will need to catch less of the hole edge in order to drop in rather than spin out. Ergo, the hole on a higher stipming green offers a larger target. A larger target is easier to hit. Higher stimping greens present a larger target and are therefore easier to putt on for a good putter who can judge the speed.


Learning to hit a 30' putt to within 2' is no harder on a green stimping at 15 than it is on a green stimping at 10' or 8'. The reson that most players cannot judge distance is because they spend too little time on it. Without wishing to upset anyone I have seen thousands of golfers who have handicaps above 10 and of those I can only recall a handfull that I would consider to be good putters.

Good putting is like good pitching about distance control not speed. I bet you never worry about how fast the ball is flying on a pitch yet I bet you do worry about the speed on a putt. If you worry about the wrong thing why do you think it will be easy?

Jon

[Sean_A]

Higher stimping greens present a larger target and are therefore easier to putt on for a good putter who can judge the speed.

Jon...with the above stipulation your entire argument is nonsense when most golfers aren't even close to good putters because it isn't their profession.  You even say that a small percentage of handicap players are good putters...so why are you classifying difficulty by judging good putters?

I didn't say the putts were quicker...I said they were more difficult.  IMO, there is absolutely no doubt that it is more difficult to two putt from above/level with holes on greens with slope and/or contour and running at 11 compared to 9...assuming similar quality of roll.  It takes a much finer touch (or if you will...there is more margin of error..which translates to more skill) to keep an approach putt close enough for comfortble tap ins.  If you played such greens you would know that it can be damn near impossible to get putts close to holes when they are running quick.  Hence the reason why greens get flattened by either smooting down slopes or raising parts of greens. 

Yes, experience helps (this increases skill), but it can be difficult for some Brits to grasp this concept because they simply don't face this sort of putting in GB&I...it doesn't exist because greens aren't cut as short and often times they aren't nearly as sloping. You can forget about your idea of good putting because we are handicap players and handicap players make mistakes with practically every stroke...think in terms of margin for error.  When a player has to apply less force to move the ball the desired distance then the margin for error is increased...and when that error increases there is less chance to hit the hole.  Bottom line, slow greens may be harder to one putt from distance, but they are comfortably easier to two putt from distance...if we are talking about handicap players...which is what I always reference unless I say otherwise. 

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

There are too many variables and situations to determine a definitive "most difficult green speed". But, for any of us, including the pro's the one thing that could confound would be variable green speeds...from week to week, course to course, and, yes, sometimes from green to green on any given day. Unfortunately, for many of us, and for sure the pro's, anything that is deemed inconsistent is also deemed bad, wrong or unfair. And it costs superintendents their jobs if they don't appease and conform. Maybe that's why the not-real Matt Shafer said what he said.

[Sean_A]

The idea of inconsistent green speeds gas been bandied about before...but I gotta say it sounds like a dopey idea to me.  Okay...do to the pros whatever evil you wish, but why make the handicap player suffer?  Jon has already pointed out we suck because the hole doesn't look like a sewer cap when putting down a mountain side, so why the need to humiliate us as well? We can barely think above a 75 golf IQ and you want to take some of that low IQ away?  What gives....a crap bottle of red ale last night?

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

The idea of inconsistent green speeds gas been bandied about before...but I gotta say it sounds like a dopey idea to me.  Okay...do to the pros whatever evil you wish, but why make the handicap player suffer?  Jon has already pointed out we suck, so why the need to humiliate us as well? We can barely think above a 75 golf IQ and you want to take some of that low IQ away?  What gives....a crap bottle of red ale last night?


Ciao

Or we can propose a Stimp reading of 10 every day, every course, every green. No need to let a thinking golfer figure out the green up on the hill will be faster than the one down in the valley. Or the course on a windy, sandy site might be different than a tree lined parkland course. Take the think out of it, make it all about a repetitive, mechanical ability.

All very democratic. And within every greenkeepers capabilities. Win-win.

[Jon Wiggett]

Higher stimping greens present a larger target and are therefore easier to putt on for a good putter who can judge the speed.

Jon...with the above stipulation your entire argument is nonsense when most golfers aren't even close to good putters because it isn't their profession.  You even say that a small percentage of handicap players are good putters...so why are you classifying difficulty by judging good putters?

I didn't say the putts were quicker...I said they were more difficult.  IMO, there is absolutely no doubt that it is more difficult to two putt from above/level with holes on greens with slope and/or contour and running at 11 compared to 9...assuming similar quality of roll.  It takes a much finer touch (or if you will...there is more margin of error..which translates to more skill) to keep an approach putt close enough for comfortble tap ins.  If you played such greens you would know that it can be damn near impossible to get putts close to holes when they are running quick.  Hence the reason why greens get flattened by either smooting down slopes or raising parts of greens. 

Yes, experience helps (this increases skill), but it can be difficult for some Brits to grasp this concept because they simply don't face this sort of putting in GB&I...it doesn't exist because greens aren't cut as short and often times they aren't nearly as sloping. You can forget about your idea of good putting because we are handicap players and handicap players make mistakes with practically every stroke...think in terms of margin for error.  When a player has to apply less force to move the ball the desired distance then the margin for error is increased...and when that error increases there is less chance to hit the hole.  Bottom line, slow greens may be harder to one putt from distance, but they are comfortably easier to two putt from distance...if we are talking about handicap players...which is what I always reference unless I say otherwise. 

Ciao

It's like banging your head on the proverbial brick wall sometimes. Yes Sean, if you pick one line from what I said and then take it out of context you are of course correct.


I have always talked about the good putter have I not? What you are arguing from the point of view of an average player is correct and exactly what I was saying but just from the other side of the equation. However, you never clarified that in your post to which I responded leaving your post as coming from the same side of the equation as mine the good putter's point of view in which your arguments just do not stack up.


In short, I am against high stimping greens as it makes putting easier for good putters and harder for the rest. IMO, for the good of the game they should look at playing championship golf on greens with a lower stimp reading and more contours.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon


That doesn't sound revolutionary when we all know the context. 


Why is it that so many people reference the best players when talking about course design/maintenance/set-up? 


Joe


You can propose your 10 round the board...it will probably fly about as far as 18 greens of different speeds 


BTW...10 across the board sounds pretty damn good to me....so would the all year round moderate temps to support it!   


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon


That doesn't sound revolutionary when we all know the context. 


Why is it that so many people reference the best players when talking about course design/maintenance/set-up? 


Joe


You can propose your 10 round the board...it will probably fly about as far as 18 greens of different speeds 


BTW...10 across the board sounds pretty damn good to me....so would the all year round moderate temps to support it!   


Ciao

Because the tours are what have been used to sell the game in the last 30 years. It used to be in the UK that you joined a club for the social aspect or for business reasons with very few to do with the quality of the course now it is to do with image. Yes 10 across the board would be good.


Jon

[Mike Wagner]

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.

Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.

Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.

I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.

Sam,


the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.


Jon

Jon - Please explain that part about good players, fast greens, and NO CHALLENGE again ... I'm getting a good laugh.

Mike,


it is easy for someone to mock that which they do not comprehend. Laugh away


Jon

Jon -


What's your handicap? 
How many tournaments have you played where the entire field is scratch or better?

[Jon Wiggett]

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