These greens are not difficult at 14

[Mike_Young]

If you give a guy SMOOTH greens at 10 most will say they are 12...a bumpy, less dense green surface at 12 is no fun...

[Joe Hancock]

Shel,


Thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion. Your points are well taken, and I generally agree with the sentiments of economy and leading golf figures. In a sense, it does solidify my position that, like it or not, televised golf has an effect of all facets of the game.

[BCowan]

Shel,


   I agree, the old fast 10 is now 12-14 at top tier privates.  So we have to be exact, any course built in last 10-15 years has a bit of an edge with choosing better varaties. Now a public course with A1, 007, or PD for example can do really well maint them at 10 or 11.  At top tier privates the race for 12-14 is the new norm and roots really are stressed.  So let's seperate public vs top tier private expectations and costs.


I agree completely that bunkers (a hazard) costs are insane.  Imo it's once one course on the street does it, then domino affect. 


Your best point was that numbers now aren't below what they were prior to last boom.

[Peter Pallotta]

Off Shel's fine recap:

At the professional level especially, skill has always been valued in the game, challenge always prized, good conditioning always appreciated, and the latest technology always sought after.
But to me, the current trends that JN's comment reflect (and, sadly, probably encourage) seem a development and culmination of a fundamental kind:
Here, finally, is perfection being nakedly and unabashedly sought -- the elimination of anything that could possibly be deemed random or unfair, of anything that could possibly been seen to mitigate or impinge upon or devalue the much vaunted skills of the human actors, the individual egos, participating on this natural stage. The golfer's skill is now all, to be cherished and supported and showcased above all else and at all costs; the landscape, nature, sustainability, great architecture, frugality, common sense, the vagaries of life and of fate, and a sane humility all must take a back seat now. It seems just one more step closer to the playing of this most outdoor game, indoors.

[Sean_A]

Greens which have high stimp readings are not only boring but are easier for good putters. If a club wants to challenge the lower handicap and professional player then lower stimp readings and more contours are the way to do this.


Just to show how lacking in intellect the whole discussion is about stimp readings is the whole thing about the higher the stimp reading the faster the green is was the discussion I had with one of the leading experts who I will not name after he stated 'a higher stimp means the green is faster'. 'Really' was my reply 'I would respectfully suggest the green's speed is zero as it is not going anywhere. It is a stationary object'  'Ah' he countered 'I meant of course the ball will roll faster'. 'not so' I said' the ball's maximum speed is the at the bottom of the stimp meter and therefore the same for all greens. The higher stimp only means that the ball will roll out further. This also means that to cover the same distance the ball will have to roll slower on a higher stimping green. Ergo, higher stimp readings mean slower greens not faster and also a higher likelihood of the ball dropping into the hole.'


The discussion ended there but he did say I had given him food for thought as he left.


I sometimes despair at how the golf industry often is selling a fantasy to the golfing public and at how gullible so many are.


Jon

I think Charlie Rymer summarized this nicely a couple of years ago:  "Greens are fast; balls roll slow.  Greens are slow, balls roll fast."

 

Joe, While true, on an old school sloped/tilted green, when putting uphill, the balls roll quite fast because the difference between uphill and downhill is so great, compared to a flatter, faster green, where the speed of roll is less pronounced from uphill and downhill.


What amazes me is people think there weren't lightning fast putts 30 or even 50 years ago that merely required a touch-when downhill..
and a virtual full turn uphill.


Which required technique ,judgement and skill,
not a never more than six inch delicate stroke

I recall my first trip south playing bermuda greens....maybe 91.  Jeez, it was like a different game.  The problem is you are down there for a few days playing a few courses so getting used to the grain wasn't an option.  I didn't care for it all...extremely frustrating to suddenly have none of your experience count for anything. I sure don't miss that grain stuff.  I can understand if you were a member and could learn the grain, but for one and doners, grain is a deal breaker. I recall pulling back the grass and thinking it looks like shag carpet...seriously long grass. 


Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

I've never told my wife to get down off the stepper because I would love her just the same without a tight ass. Faster and tighter, it's never too much. We're not here long so let's get the best we can get. Every damn day.

[Mike_Young]

Greens which have high stimp readings are not only boring but are easier for good putters. If a club wants to challenge the lower handicap and professional player then lower stimp readings and more contours are the way to do this.


Just to show how lacking in intellect the whole discussion is about stimp readings is the whole thing about the higher the stimp reading the faster the green is was the discussion I had with one of the leading experts who I will not name after he stated 'a higher stimp means the green is faster'. 'Really' was my reply 'I would respectfully suggest the green's speed is zero as it is not going anywhere. It is a stationary object'  'Ah' he countered 'I meant of course the ball will roll faster'. 'not so' I said' the ball's maximum speed is the at the bottom of the stimp meter and therefore the same for all greens. The higher stimp only means that the ball will roll out further. This also means that to cover the same distance the ball will have to roll slower on a higher stimping green. Ergo, higher stimp readings mean slower greens not faster and also a higher likelihood of the ball dropping into the hole.'


The discussion ended there but he did say I had given him food for thought as he left.


I sometimes despair at how the golf industry often is selling a fantasy to the golfing public and at how gullible so many are.


Jon

I think Charlie Rymer summarized this nicely a couple of years ago:  "Greens are fast; balls roll slow.  Greens are slow, balls roll fast."

 

Joe, While true, on an old school sloped/tilted green, when putting uphill, the balls roll quite fast because the difference between uphill and downhill is so great, compared to a flatter, faster green, where the speed of roll is less pronounced from uphill and downhill.


What amazes me is people think there weren't lightning fast putts 30 or even 50 years ago that merely required a touch-when downhill..
and a virtual full turn uphill.


Which required technique ,judgement and skill,
not a never more than six inch delicate stroke

I recall my first trip south playing bermuda greens....maybe 91.  Jeez, it was like a different game.  The problem is you are down there for a few days playing a few courses so getting used to the grain wasn't an option.  I didn't care for it all...extremely frustrating to suddenly have none of your experience count for anything. I sure don't miss that grain stuff.  I can understand if you were a member and could learn the grain, but for one and donners, grain is a deal breaker. I recall pulling back the grass and thinking it looks like shag carpet...seriously long grass. 


Ciao

Not anymore dude.....

[jeffwarne]

Off Shel's fine recap:

At the professional level especially, skill has always been valued in the game, challenge always prized, good conditioning always appreciated, and the latest technology always sought after.
But to me, the current trends that JN's comment reflect (and, sadly, probably encourage) seem a development and culmination of a fundamental kind:
Here, finally, is perfection being nakedly and unabashedly sought -- the elimination of anything that could possibly be deemed random or unfair, of anything that could possibly been seen to mitigate or impinge upon or devalue the much vaunted skills of the human actors, the individual egos, participating on this natural stage. The golfer's skill is now all, to be cherished and supported and showcased above all else and at all costs; the landscape, nature, sustainability, great architecture, frugality, common sense, the vagaries of life and of fate, and a sane humility all must take a back seat now. It seems just one more step closer to the playing of this most outdoor game, indoors.

Peter,
It's a different definition of skill to me.
Judgement, green reading, being able to stroke a super slow uphill putt on one hole and gently nudge a super fsat one on the nextetc. all are skills.
As is the ability to PLAY from a divot, or bounce back after getting an "unfair" break.
May golf never appoach simulator status cause seemingly quantifying the skills will take the charm out of the game.
Courses that are black and white and offer no recovery (OB both sides, unfindable gunch etc.) approach that already.

[jeffwarne]

I've never told my wife to get down off the stepper because I would love her just the same without a tight ass. Faster and tighter, it's never too much. We're not here long so let's get the best we can get. Every damn day.

she could develop slope and tilt just as easily

[John Kavanaugh]

I could bounce a quarter off her ass. Four and a quarter on a good night.


Why do we care how someone else defines fun? If there is one thing in this world we have enough of it's a course down the street with slow greens.

[SL_Solow]

Peter;

[SL_Solow]

Peter,

   Thanks for the kind words.  I don't think this search to eliminate randomness is anything new, its just that it is now reflected in maintenance.  Refer back to the exchanges between Max Behr and Joshua Crane in which Crane argued for the elimination of randomness and chance because they interfered with determining the best player.  Taken to an extreme, this philosophy reduces golf to target shooting and seeks to make architecture a series of readily identifiable challenges where each shot is rewarded or punished proportionally with regard to its execution.  Unexpected results are to be discouraged.  Apply that design philosophy to maintenance and what do you get.  Yet how often do you hear players complain that certain holes or conditions are "unfair"?

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel, Jeff -  you both make good and relevant points and I think you're both right. What I see today is a difference not so much in kind as in degree - the degree to which perfection is being sought, and the degree to which most golfers, slowly but inexorably, have come to expect it. I simply can't imagine any real or lasting good to come from it.

[BCowan]

The new  bent grasses are using less apps and have greatly reduced their water consumption, around 40% for a close friend of mine. I'd say there is much to celebrate.  It's nice that my SUV can do 180 mph, even though 80-90 is the fastest I drive on the eway.

Unfortunately like my odometer with the uneeded speed, just because we can get greens to 12-16, doesn't mean we should.  It we be much better to discuss for more tilt and bolder internal contours.

 Playing a course tomorrow that isn't going to tell it's member the speed of the new greens.  Hopefully the restrain lasts and folks continue to enjoy the bold edgy features. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Assessing someone's knowledge is so subjective.  Maintenance and course condition  results are subject to budgets , weather.  How about soils and sometimes luck.


Even experience is not barometer of talent or knowledge in every case. Perhaps politics won  someone the job.


We've seen arguments that being able to play golf automatically doesn't make you great at GCA.  Yet many of our successful architects come from the player ranks. Or is that marketability ?   Hmnnnn ? 

So , lets not get to hung up with pedigree when it comes to knowledge . Only a few really get it !













 

[A.G._Crockett]

A comment like this is yet another reason that Mr. Nicklaus has little credibility, at least in my mind, when he talks about growing the game, pace of play, or much else.  There will be golfers asking the pro or the super at their club why THEIR greens can't be faster, with ZERO knowledge of how that is done for one week per year, or what it means to a maintenance budget, or what it means to pace of play and/or enjoyment of the game, and on and on.

14 is sort of a silly speed, I think, even on Tour, and I'm even not sure that 16 exists.  But coming from THE guy who has single-handedly done more to make golf slow and expensive than any other human, living or dead, it is an unfortunate comment, to say the least.

[John Kavanaugh]

A comment like this is yet another reason that Mr. Nicklaus has little credibility, at least in my mind, when he talks about growing the game, pace of play, or much else.  There will be golfers asking the pro or the super at their club why THEIR greens can't be faster, with ZERO knowledge of how that is done for one week per year, or what it means to a maintenance budget, or what it means to pace of play and/or enjoyment of the game, and on and on.

14 is sort of a silly speed, I think, even on Tour, and I'm even not sure that 16 exists.  But coming from THE guy who has single-handedly done more to make golf slow and expensive than any other human, living or dead, it is an unfortunate comment, to say the least.

I don't believe that golfers are that stupid. I would think that most people who have taken the time to learn such a difficult game understand that fast greens come at a price. Let market forces decide if that price is something golfers want to pay.


The only reason fast greens slow down play is because it's so much damn fun that everyone want to play.

[jeffwarne]

I'll take it a step farther


Eventually someone will say


"the greens are easy at 20"


and they'll be right because they will be dead flat

[A.G._Crockett]

A comment like this is yet another reason that Mr. Nicklaus has little credibility, at least in my mind, when he talks about growing the game, pace of play, or much else.  There will be golfers asking the pro or the super at their club why THEIR greens can't be faster, with ZERO knowledge of how that is done for one week per year, or what it means to a maintenance budget, or what it means to pace of play and/or enjoyment of the game, and on and on.

14 is sort of a silly speed, I think, even on Tour, and I'm even not sure that 16 exists.  But coming from THE guy who has single-handedly done more to make golf slow and expensive than any other human, living or dead, it is an unfortunate comment, to say the least.

I don't believe that golfers are that stupid. I would think that most people who have taken the time to learn such a difficult game understand that fast greens come at a price. Let market forces decide if that price is something golfers want to pay.


The only reason fast greens slow down play is because it's so much damn fun that everyone want to play.

John,
I'm sure that it is possible to be more wrong, but it would be difficult. 

Golfers ARE that stupid, and then some.  Ask ANY greenskeeper what the most common question/complaint they get from members is, and they'll likely say, "Why did your aerate the greens; they were perfect!"  Golfer who can't grow grass in their own 1/4 acre yard know LOTS about how a golf course should work!

As to pace of play, you are pretty good, and fast greens are fun for you; I feel the same way.  But you are mistaken about pace of play; fast greens equal slower play not because it's do much fun, but because lots of extra putts (including putting off the green!) add lots of extra time. 

There's nothing more fun than watching the group ahead of you marking 2 foot putts and really grinding because if they miss the ball will roll 4' by.  Now THAT is some fun...

[Anthony_Nysse]

I could bounce a quarter off her ass. Four and a quarter on a good night.


Why do we care how someone else defines fun? If there is one thing in this world we have enough of it's a course down the street with slow greens.

I actually agree with you.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I'll take it a step farther


Eventually someone will say


"the greens are easy at 20"


and they'll be right because they will be dead flat

I hope they're easy at 20" 

[John Kavanaugh]

Don't courses that are no longer fun eventually become empty? Is it conceivable to complain about slow play if you are the only group on the course? Why is there always a wait list for the fastest greens, slowest rounds of the year...the member/guest?

[John Connolly]

Don't courses that are no longer fun eventually become empty? Is it conceivable to complain about slow play if you are the only group on the course? Why is there always a wait list for the fastest greens, slowest rounds of the year...the member/guest?

Because guys are looking forward to playing with their brother or long lost college roommate. A lot of guys play despite the course set up, not because of it.

[John Kavanaugh]

Don't courses that are no longer fun eventually become empty? Is it conceivable to complain about slow play if you are the only group on the course? Why is there always a wait list for the fastest greens, slowest rounds of the year...the member/guest?

Because guys are looking forward to playing with their brother or long lost college roommate. A lot of guys play despite the course set up, not because of it.

I apologize, golfers are stupid.

[SL_Solow]

John C.    If people were really playing in spite of the conditions at private clubs, they would get the conditions changed.   I think there are a lot of reasons why courses try to present what they think are "tour like" conditions for special events.  A fair amount is keeping up with the Jones'.  But if they really were unhappy, they wouldn't put up with it.  So its really a matter of taste and it appears that most players prefer faster greens.  Incidentally, I agree that we shouldn't post speeds (we won't at our course).  Very few can tell the difference until greens get real slow (by current standards) or get out of control.