These greens are not difficult at 14

[jeffwarne]

Jack Nicklaus on Muirfield this year.


wow...
just wow

[Joe Zucker]

I heard him say that too!  Then he said they can get a little crazy if the wind blows and they get up to 16.  How is it possible to putt on greens that are 16?  I can't believe they really have flat parts of the greens rolling that fast, but who knows at a place trying to be like Augusta.

[Ben Kodadek]

He also said that virtually all of Poa was eradicated.   That's definitely not the case. 

[BCowan]

Of all the people who you would think would get it, the greatest lag putter I can think of. Lag putting is an art


They must have flattened the greens over last 20 plus years since I played it.  They like to redo the course as much as ANGC. 


Greens look awful to me, poa, poa

[Joe Hancock]

I don't really care how hard it is for the pro's, nor do I care how the greens look, or how fast they really are. I do care, however, about the message it sends.


Despite what the industry attempts to publicize, it does the opposite and wonders why there's a problem with participation. The conflict I have with all this on a professional level is that I understand how difficult and tenuous these conditions are to achieve. I appreciate the talent, I just disagree with the end product....and, if it was behind closed doors, I would care a lot less. But it's out there, with JN endorsing it...


It always boils down to one, simple phrase: No one gets paid more for doing less.

[BCowan]

Participation has no bearing on green speeds. In fact most golfers u meet at any public or private course judge a course on how fast the greens are. If anything fast greens would increase participation.


It would be great to have an adult conversation as do we want Dr Mack style bold greens that run great at 10 or pancake greens running at 15. Just because new grasses enable 14 or 15 doesn't mean it matches contours.  But hey a course in Michigan brags about how many greens members have putted off of. 

[jeffwarne]

I don't really care how hard it is for the pro's, nor do I care how the greens look, or how fast they really are. I do care, however, about the message it sends.


Despite what the industry attempts to publicize, it does the opposite and wonders why there's a problem with participation. The conflict I have with all this on a professional level is that I understand how difficult and tenuous these conditions are to achieve. I appreciate the talent, I just disagree with the end product....and, if it was behind closed doors, I would care a lot less. But it's out there, with JN endorsing it...

The message is awful.
14? Sounds like Mike Davis.
I'm so sick of watching 15 footers on TV roll in like pool tables.
Watching those fantastic Roberto De Vicenzo(RIP) clips was fantastic when you needed to make an actual read and stroke not a silly microtap.
That's all the rant I have after an hour on Sirius XM (different rant)


Ben of course it impacts participation-higher cost to maintain.
If people demand it, and costs go up to meet that perceived demand, they then say the golf costs too much.
To say nothing of making golf LESS interesting.
I'm totally with you on the 8-10 speeds and interesting greens with actual tilt and slope (not flattish tiers-which I really hate)


I honestly have no problem with interesting greens amped up speedwise for a special event.
But the everyday that fast nonsense and design around crazy fast everyday speeds promoted by people who should know better (Davis, Nicklaus) drives me nuts

[BCowan]

I don't really care how hard it is for the pro's, nor do I care how the greens look, or how fast they really are. I do care, however, about the message it sends.


Despite what the industry attempts to publicize, it does the opposite and wonders why there's a problem with participation. The conflict I have with all this on a professional level is that I understand how difficult and tenuous these conditions are to achieve. I appreciate the talent, I just disagree with the end product....and, if it was behind closed doors, I would care a lot less. But it's out there, with JN endorsing it...

Ben of course it impacts participation-higher cost to maintain.
If people demand it, and costs go up to meet that perceived demand, they then say the golf costs too much.
To say nothing of making golf LESS interesting.
I'm totally with you on the 8-10 speeds and interesting greens with actual tilt and slope (not flattish tiers-which I really hate)


I honestly have no problem with interesting greens amped up speedwise for a special event.

Jeff,


Please spare me, of the 2 of us I have actually worked maint. I can show u courses that have $400,000 maint budgets that can get greens that fast certain times of the year. Agronomy advances.  Square footage of green is nominal with apps and maint staff can shift focus from bunker maint to greens.  This is where the conversation turns idealistic.  You are telling the market that demands faster greens that green fees are going up for demanding faster greens.  I got news for you 8 on the stimp means $20 green fees and race to the bottom. 

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,


Green speeds alone are not the reason participation numbers are down, but they do increase difficulty for most golfers, especially on recovery shots. You misunderstand me if you think I'm talking about golfers already in love with the game.


I'm not sure what the adult conversation is that you're alluding to. There's plenty of contours on the few courses that are being built nowadays, and I'm not just talking about the regular names of this discussion board. Brandon Johnson of Arnold Palmer Golf Designs did a new project near Tampa that has a gracious plenty contour in the greens, and wisely done at that. So, the speeds aren't stifling new designs as I see it. There's the rub; where creative greens are being built is rarely what the public sees on TV, and televised golf is the face of golf for people who aren't already in the game.People who may have an interest in taking up the game are a lot more vulnerable to what the televised message is; they don't have the years of experience with the game that you and I have. In fact, I would say you and I have little business trying to understand what a prospective new golfer thinks about the game. We should try, but who has time to conduct a poll? Not me.

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,


You throw around on this board that you used to work maintenance. Were you ever in charge of the budget? You know, the actual decision making process about prioritizing how you spent someone else's money? It's not enough to do the work. If you haven't been in the responsible position of deciding how, and how much, money is spent to maintain a golf course, then you should consider yourself equal in that department to everyone other than owners and superintendents. If you have been in that position, I'd love to know about it.


Thanks

[Peter Pallotta]

I find it sometimes useful to try to hear what another is saying not from my perspective/as I understand him, but from his perspective. i.e. how he understands himself.


I have been trying this with what JN said. In his own mind, I wonder, is it a bit of pride and self-congratulation coming out in words? From his perspective as an architect and great golfer, is he saying something like: "I know how good the pros are and that you need very fast greens to challenge them, so I was astute enough to design these greens to be playable even at 14"?


And/or, is he actually throwing up his hands and trying to make a point to the golf-world as a whole, pointing a finger of blame: "There's nothing more we can do; technology is ruining the game. There is no more length I can add or contours I can flatten or green speeds I can ratchet up that can prevent today's pros from shooting 65s"?   

[Sean_A]

There is a balance between agronomy and what is achieveable in terms of green speeds and architecture.  I suggest that once green speeds go very far into double digits, then architecture starts to lose its importance step by step.  I am part of that generation which grew up prizing green speeds, but that was when 10 was crazy fast and balls hit surfaces like darts.  I can still recall many impossible putts as a teenager, but recognized the greens were large enough that playablity wasn't an issue once one had some experience. 

Ciao

[BCowan]

Ben,


Green speeds alone are not the reason participation numbers are down, but they do increase difficulty for most golfers, especially on recovery shots. You misunderstand me if you think I'm talking about golfers already in love with the game.


I'm not sure what the adult conversation is that you're alluding to. There's plenty of contours on the few courses that are being built nowadays, and I'm not just talking about the regular names of this discussion board. Brandon Johnson of Arnold Palmer Golf Designs did a new project near Tampa that has a gracious plenty contour in the greens, and wisely done at that. So, the speeds aren't stifling new designs as I see it. There's the rub; where creative greens are being built is rarely what the public sees on TV, and televised golf is the face of golf for people who aren't already in the game.People who may have an interest in taking up the game are a lot more vulnerable to what the televised message is; they don't have the years of experience with the game that you and I have. In fact, I would say you and I have little business trying to understand what a prospective new golfer thinks about the game. We should try, but who has time to conduct a poll? Not me.

Joe,


I've actually have boots on the ground experience helping teach at junior clinics. Never once have I heard I don't want to play golf because the greens are too fast.  A Newby playing munis and 9 holers have enough sense to know their $20 green fee isn't going to have the same maint expectations of MVGC.  I play publics all the time, the other notion that organizations grow the game, I asked many people how they got into the game, not ever was it the USGA did this.


Putting is the least difficult aspect of the game. I don't care if it's newbies or hardcore golfers, they all love fast greens.  You should try and learn what new golfers and repeat public golfers want. Is said new golfer playing a $40 public joint?  Or at a $20 pitch and putt or muni?


An adult conversation is owed to them. Don't insult their intelligence.  That contour and speed go hand in hand.  That if you don't want pancake greens, one has to question if high speeds are necessary on bold contoured greens. That will bring about one to start thinking.

[BCowan]

Ben,


You throw around on this board that you used to work maintenance. Were you ever in charge of the budget? You know, the actual decision making process about prioritizing how you spent someone else's money? It's not enough to do the work. If you haven't been in the responsible position of deciding how, and how much, money is spent to maintain a golf course, then you should consider yourself equal in that department to everyone other than owners and superintendents. If you have been in that position, I'd love to know about it.


Thanks

No, I wasn't in charge of the budget but I know what was very important to the owner which was not a golfer .  I also know what was spent annually.  Better yet I know what the market wanted.  People that actually work maint have a closer knowledge of what goes on maint wise at a course IMO.


You are welcome

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


That's an interesting point to speculate, but I'm in no position to know what JN is thinking.


I just wish ANYONE in a leadership role in the golf world would say "Golf is a wonderful game that gets people out of doors together, to enjoy fresh air and nature and fellowship while playing a game that teaches us good virtues; Honesty, courtesy, friendliness and mentoring, among others." And then back it up with promoting that message, in a meaningful way.


Instead, it's a (often personally)financially driven whine whenever we (me included) complain about the state of the game and the participation levels we currently see.

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,


No knives out, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a fight, but it helps the discussion to understand what you do or don't know when you tell others they are wrong....when really you are just expressing an opinion rather than fact.

[BCowan]

I played twice this winter. Both times there were 100+ people out playing golf. They never got a memo to go play.


Many courses rounds are up in Michigan and a friend in the south has his rounds up too.  Counting people that played 1 or 2 rounds in 2005 apart of the millions that participate is rather dissengenous.  Let's go in depth with how they arrive at those numbers Joe


I'm trying to convey that the public golfer isn't a dumb rube that is manipulated by TV.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Joe,

I've actually have boots on the ground experience helping teach at junior clinics. Never once have I heard I don't want to play golf because the greens are too fast. 

Faster greens increase pace of play which is a deterrent to new and old players.

[BCowan]

Mike,


I played memorial day, the greens ran at 8. Round took 5hrs and 20 mins.  I've played greens that run at 12 and round took 345

[BCowan]

Question.


 If ANGC greens ran at 8 and your local $40 Art Hills course ran greens at 11, would public Hills course rounds go down, up, or stay the same?  The Hills course green maint stays the same.


  Now hypothetical GCAer becomes ANGC member and declares 2018 Masters the greens will stimp at 8. 

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,


You're trying to simplify the discussion to make sure you are right. It's not black or white, right or wrong. But don't ignore the possibility that what people see elsewhere helps form their opinions and tastes. And TV has a lot of influence on peoples lives, choices, etc. That's why there are so many commercials.

[Sean_A]

Question.


 If ANGC greens ran at 8 and your local Art Hills course ran greens at 11, would public Hills course rounds go down, up, or stay the same?

If ANGC's greens ran 8 given their costs, I think a public Hills course running at 11 would have astronomical green fees.  I don't know if the rounds would go up or down.  It wouldn't matter because it would be a rich man's game.

I don't think folks are saying fast greens put people off playing.  They are saying fast greens increase green fees by a ton, which puts people off playing.  Its the knockon effect of unnecessary maintenance costs.

Ciao

[BCowan]

Joe,


TV commercials sell a product or a service. I offered the question as way to inject critical thinking into the discussion.  It was a great question imo.


If viewership dropped because networks televised brown firm and fast like we like, would they be wrong to bring back green? 

[BCowan]

Question.


 If ANGC greens ran at 8 and your local Art Hills course ran greens at 11, would public Hills course rounds go down, up, or stay the same?

If ANGC's greens ran 8 given their costs, I think a public Hills course running at 11 would have astronomical green fees.  I don't know if the rounds would go up or down.  It wouldn't matter because it would be a rich man's game.

I don't think folks are saying fast greens put people off playing.  They are saying fast greens increase green fees by a ton, which puts people off playing.  Its the knockon effect of unnecessary maintenance costs.

Ciao

Sean,


I will update the prior post, $40 Hills public course.  A hypothetical, GCAer becomes member of ANGC and then tournament chair, he declares greens run at 8 for 2018 Masters.  Hills course maint doesn't go up to maint greens at 11. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike,


I played memorial day, the greens ran at 8. Round took 5hrs and 20 mins.  I've played greens that run at 12 and round took 345

If you increase the speed of the greens on a given day it will slow down play as compared to a comparable day.
Your argument is a single data point among hundreds of millions of rounds per year.