[TEPaul]

Joe Stansell:

Yes, I suppose that article does sort of say the same thing I am. That article does use a lot of criteria to make the point though and to come up with a maximum reasonable speed which I suppose is necessary for some clubs.

But my point, in essence, is pretty damn simple. All I'm saying is the annual or constant quest for INCREASED SPEED MUST STOP. To do that simply find that greenspeed at any golf course that is a reasonable maximum FOR THAT GOLF COURSE, then stimp the damn thing, record the stimp number and put it into the bylaws of the golf club, if that's what it takes, that that speed will never be exceeded! EVER!!! Not next year by the next green chairman or in 2030 by the person who's the green chairman then! NEVER!

If somebody comes along that forces the club to exceed that speed or stimpmeter number to something like 13 or 15 then take the idiot out on the course, if you have to, find a downhill slope and tell him that's the way that you're supposed to stimp greens!! The idiot will probably not know the difference and be satisfied!!    

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I would be surprised if Moraghan is behind this recommendation.  I haven't read the article but I highly doubt it.  If so, I'd be very surprised and very disappointed.  Don't know what else to tell you.  Maybe Geoff will comment more on this as he knows Tim.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Just read the article.  I wouldn't call it terrible.  What do some of you recommend you do with severe sloping greens?  The one green in the article was as high as 8% slope.  Manufacturers has one (or at least used to have one) #9.  The best place to put that pin was ten yards short of the green in the approach because that is where you usually ended up.  I'm sure many of you can recall other examples.  I am by no means an advocate of softening green contours but even guys like Doak do it (they just don't talk about it).  Right or wrong, he just recently softened at least one at SFGC.  

[TEPaul]

This is certainly inexact science (physics) but if an old course somehow still has a green that slopes at 8% that may have reasonably been built for a top speed and stimp reading of say 5, what do some of you recommend doing about that green's slope? Do you recommend leaving that slope as is and capping for the rest of time the greenspeed on that green at 5 which may be the reasonable maximum speed on the stimpmeter on that green? And what about the rest of the greens on the golf course? If you believe in consistency of greenspeed throughout the greens on a golf course--the very thing and the only thing the stimpmeter was invented for in the first place--do you then believe that the maximum greenspeed on the rest of the course be capped at 5 on the stimpmeter too for the rest of time?

[A_Clay_Man]

If you believe in consistency of greenspeed throughout the greens on a golf course--

Tom- This brings up an interesting question. While this practice has become normal, what if that premise didn't exist? Isn't it incumbent upon me, the golfer, to be aware enough to judge the inconsistencies of turf, on every swing? Why then do we demand "all things being equal' as it reltaes to green speeds?

(Sorry to sound like another poster with all those questions)

Here at Riverview the two nines were built 44 years apart. Mario, the super, has the daunting task of trying to match speeds on greens that are completely different in their turf make-up. The front is 90 percent Poa annua and the backnine is 95 percent Not Poa. The result is an appreciation for Mario's diligence but also it translates to slllloooooowwwww speeds on grass that is capable of being much faster. I get off on the challenge of the figuring it out but somewhere in the back of my mind, I can't help but think that the "Average Joe" (client) has little sensitivity to the difference and therefore is wasted effort. And for those who do have the awareness to figure out the different speeds, it's not as much fun to putt. I'd rather just KNOW that there is a difference and act accordingly rather that having someone else attempt or dictate consistency.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

"Greens are to a golf course what a face is to a portrait."

Charles Blair Macdonald, Scotland's Gift: Golf

[Dan_Belden]

Interesting topic.   We are facing exactly this at Brookside. And having several members whom are also members at PV, numbers 2 and 5 have been used as examples for changing our greens.  
    We have two greens in particular that some would like to change.  Our 6th green and our 16th green.  I will confess that I am fifty fifty on whether to change them or to leave them.  Granted a green that slopes 9 to 10 feet from back to front, with several 4% and 5% slopes built into the green seems a little bit extreme in this day and age, but on the other hand it is unique to have something like this in our day.  
  It looks as though they are going to remain the same for now, and I have suggested that firmer greens, which we will have after our subsequent project, might help make the green seem a little faster than it is.  A chip that takes a few bounces up the hill instead of just biting should make the green seem faster than it is.  
   Also being a private club that rarely does more than 20,000 rounds a year, we have the luxury of not having to wear out the few pin locations that we do have on these greens.  We have also restored them to their original sizes, which should help us with a few more placements that can accomdate a stimp speed of 10-11plus.  I'll try to post a picture of the 16th and 6th greens later today.

[Dan Herrmann]

I think our greenkeeper said it best:

Q: Do you use a stimpmeter?  At what speed will the greens be kept?

A: We will not use a stimpmeter and green speeds will not be posted.

The more important factors are the health of the turf and the purity of the greens.  Our goal is to provide the most enjoyable playing conditions possible.  The selection of bentgrass used should provide for very smooth and relatively speedy putting surfaces.

(Greens are creeping bentgrass and are a blend of A-4, and G-6.)

----------------------------------------

The greens are excellent and plenty fast.  I know that nobody's complaining that they're too slow.  And - they have a lot of very interesting countours that add to the fun.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Did you read the article ?

Does the publishing of this article, directly or indirectly endorse the process of flattening greens ?

If you think not, then why was it published, if not to aid clubs in the process of flattening their greens.

TEPaul,

You're missing the point.

When clubs supe up their greens for events, whether it be the Crump Cup or the Singles, word spreads thoughout the golfing world, and then, every green or tournament chairman at clubs throughout the country supe up their greens for their tournaments.

Then, certain elements within the membership ask,
"why can't our greens be this way all the time",
and the pressure builds on the superintendent to increase the speed of all of the greens, all of the time.

Thus, the cycle is complete, the damage done.

I believe that fast greens require a higher level of skill, and that that skill should be tested, but, there has to be a speed at which the test becomes excessive, if not absurd.

Are excessive green speeds being used as the last line of defense against high tech ?

Why should these great putting surfaces be mediocratized, made bland, removing most of their character, just to accomodate higher speeds, for which they were never intended to support ?

It's nothing more then a form of sterilization.

How would you react if a proposal was made to remove the contours from # 1, # 3 and # 6 green at NGLA ?

And, lastly, just because you can't detect the work, doesn't mean that the process is acceptable, and the club gets a pass for "fooling the naked eye"

But,

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

I am surprised that you would ask me, but yes, I did read the article.

I do not think that the publication of this article constitutes an endorsement of contour flattening by the USGA.

As Mr. Stansell has pointed out, if you look around on the site, the USGA has provided for our edification a number of articles on the topic of green speeds, which include such nuggets as -

"In short, too much emphasis is being placed on the value of extremely fast green speeds."

and

"It is incorrect to state that only fast greens are good and that all slower greens are bad. Also, because the hallmark of a good course is consistent putting, the Stimpmeter is as important for maintaining putting greens at ten feet as it is for eight feet. Gone are the days when fast was always good, and faster yet was even better!"

[TEPaul]

a clay man asked;

"Tom- This brings up an interesting question. While this practice has become normal, what if that premise didn't exist? Isn't it incumbent upon me, the golfer, to be aware enough to judge the inconsistencies of turf, on every swing? Why then do we demand "all things being equal' as it reltaes to green speeds?"

Adam;

On that question I should say that I have never heard of a single architect, early, middle or late, or anyone else interested and knowledgeable about architecture who has ever actually recommended something like that as a goal or a good thing in golf. Just the opposite in fact. With that apparent fact in mind, I guess I should answer your question by saying there're enough important battles to fight these days that really were supported by some significant architectural minds so it would probably be useless and counter-productive to add something like that to them!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

No, I'm not missing the point but you're either missing the most important point here or else you're just talking around it and continuously asking more and more questions and neglecting to supply some answers that might lead to some logical solutions to continually increasing greenspeeds and all that that can lead to such as poor turf health and softening and recontouring of greens in the name of name of ever increasing speeds.

I seriously doubt that anyone on this website really needs to be informed of the dangers of excessive and continually increasing greenspeeds. All those on here understand that and understand it well. They don't need to be informed of that.

What is useful, though, is to discuss what to do about it and to offer recommendations that can lead to solving the problem. I offered my proposal that a general recommendation should be offered by anyone and everyone who understands all the dangers involved in excessive and continually increasing greenspeed to stop the increase and cap the greenspeed that's the maximum in reasonableness for your particular golf course. It really isn't that hard to do--very simple really and any golf course along with their super could do it in less than an hour if they really wanted to and were encourage to!!

You asked a very good question in one of your posts on this thread which was where does it stop? Well, that's where it stops! Is there something you don't understand about that recommendation or is there some problem you have with it?

My advice would be for everyone to get that word out including the USGA.

If you think a PVGC or an ANGC or an Oakmont should be held responsible for the excessive speeds and increasing green speeds of the greens on other golf courses you'd be dead wrong, in my opinion. Those three courses and other well known ones that run high greenspeeds are responsible for their own golf courses, their own turf and it's health and their own golfers--and nobody elses!

As long as they know what they're doing regarding their own courses and their own golfers what else matters? PVGC and the others really aren't increasing their greenspeeds anyway. Oakmont and PVGC have been running those speeds for years, for almost a couple decades now actually. I know what I'm talking about because I've played a couple of them at those high speeds for almost that amount of time.

So one could logically say those courses that some might think are on the cutting edge of excessive and continuously increasing greenspeeds aren't at all. And in point of fact those courses have obviously already found that speed of maximum resonableness for their particular course and their particular slopes and contours and are holding it there, have for many years and are likely too for the rest of time! Obviously they understand they aren't going to reinvent physics unless somebody comes up with a golf ball that increases adhesion somehow which ain't likely to ever happen. So there solution is to hold their speeds where they been for a number of years now. Maybe that's the word that should be gotten out there if other courses are so intent on following the lead of the PVGCs, ANGCs and Oakmonts!!

I do not think the intent of that USGA article is to ENCOURAGE golf courses to either continually increase their greenspeeds or to recontour or soften their greens. What they are doing is explaining to them that if they are SET ON DOING that there's a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong!

But still my recommendation to the USGA is to follow up an article like that with an even stronger article recommending to other courses to cap their greenspeed at the course's maximum reasonableness and never exceed that---EVER! Maybe they can even mention that in point of fact that's what the likes of PVGC, ANGC and Oakmont have done--so follow their lead on that!

So what's your recommendation? Let's have one instead of more posts asking more questions or claiming that everyone is missing the point.

And on that note take a look at my post #28 and try to give us all what you think is a reasonable answer to the question asked in it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moorre,

One could say, that talk is cheap, and that the proof is in the pudding.

Or one could say, do as I say, not as I do.

In either case, there appears to be a conflict in your interpretation of the USGA's position on this matter, because, according to you, they seem to be saying one thing, but putting quite another into practice during their championships.

In the article, they specifically reference, flattening the contours.

Why educate golf clubs in the ways of disfiguring their golf courses ?

This is not a spanking new technique.
I recommended it a few years ago with respect to redoing a certain 12th hole, in order to preserve the feel and play of green that I was in favor of restoring.

But, publicizing it to the golfing world, can't have good results.

It's like publicizing how to make bombs, no good can come of it

TEPaul,

Do you really think that the golfing world looks to, and emulates the Manufactures, Rolling Hills and Commonwealths of the world ?  Are other clubs influenced by the actions of those clubs or clubs like them ?  

Or, does the golfing world take note when a Pine Valley, NGLA, Seminole or other highly regarded course establishes a program, maintainance pattern, or standard of conditions ?

When the best amateur golfers in the country are putting off of the 18th green at Seminole, half way down the fairway, or doing the same thing at the 5th at Pine Valley, and the 12th at NGLA, and when these same golfers are 4, 5, and 6 putting some of those greens, those clubs too, have gone to far, mostly in a ridiculous attempt to protect par.

Now, I understand that it is their club, and they can do whatever they want.  We've heard that before.  
But, don't certain clubs have a higher calling in the world of golf ?
These clubs know that they are looked up to, they know that whatever they do, the golfing world will be watching and in all probability, emulating.

Has the high tech revolution put such pressure on them that they must resort to extremes in order to preserve the scoring integrity of their golf course ?

There is a reason that they don't house hardened criminals and juveniles together.  It accelerates the learning curve !

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I was wandering the Louvre a while back, it occurred to me that the smug woman named Mona really need a bit of a makeover.....I called a painter I know and we decided to do a little work on her nose and spent some time wiping that smug little smile off that B.......es face.  

Is this much different than what the USGA article describes?  Has it occured to the folks at these fine clubs that 75/1000's of an inch is too low for grass mowing?  Has it occured to any one that double cutting and rolling is not really a positive thing on Saturday mornings?

We over water, creating soft green surfaces, then to put the difficulty back into the game we mow to microscopic heights.  Now that speeds have climbed to ridiculous levels, the solution is to flatten the interesting contours.  

I am convinced it is time to slap some people around.  Grow the greens a little longer, cut back the H2O and go for firmness instead of unrelenting speed.  

I carry a pretty solid three, hit 12- 13 greens on any given day and find constant defensive putting to be tedious!   I get all charged up over trying to get up and down on firm greens when the game expands from fifty feet to fifty yards.  

No wonder golf is struggling.  Try going out with an 18 handicap and putt a green at 10 1/2 or 11.  Is it really a question why these players aren't having any fun?  

I may have to consider my membership in the USGA after seeing this article.

[TEPaul]

Jeeesus Christ Patrick, how the hell many different ways do I have to frame it for you to get the message??

Let's take PVGC and their greenspeeds as an example!! Is that one OK with you since you've mentioned it so much recently as a bad example??

Probably twenty years ago now PVGC conducted a Crump Cup where the greenspeed was out of control. Sigel like 5 putted the second or third hole and other players were in a state of controlled panic and frustration!

Now listen to me and this question very, very very carefully--OK?

Do you think PVGC learned their lesson from that incident regarding excessive and increased greenspeed or don't you???

That was close to twenty years ago Pat. That means those greens were probably faster then than anything they've run since! Does that sound like PVGC learned what speed is the maximum reasonable speed for them or doesn't it? I repeat that was about 20 years ago! Does that sound like they've been increasing their speeds since then?? I can absolutely assure you that they have not increased their maximum reasonable speed since then and have not softened or recontoured those greens either!

So what does that mean to you Pat?? What it means to me is if other clubs are so damned interested in emulating the likes of PVGC why in the f...ing hell don't they use their Goddamned heads and emulate that--emulate the fact that PVGC probably actually slowed their speeds down from that excessive point to the point of what I'd call "maximum reasonableness" and in effect have capped the speed they run on their course at that point and won't increase from there.

This, in case you've failed to notice it, is the very thing I'm recommending for all clubs to do who are into an endless campaign of excessive and increasing greenspeed!

If other clubs are so very interested in what the likes of PVGC is doing and in emulating them why are those same people so ignorant as to not understand that important fact??  Is it really PVGC's responsibility to educate the f...ing idiots.

But if you feel so strongly about this why don't you and me write to the USGA and tell them what PVGC has done with their greenspeeds and ask the USGA to include that in an article and then maybe some of these idiots out there will see the truth about this myth a little clearer of excessive and constantly increasing greenspeeds at a place like PVGC!

[Michael Moore]

In either case, there appears to be a conflict in your interpretation of the USGA's position on this matter, because, according to you, they seem to be saying one thing, but putting quite another into practice during their championships.

Pat -

The USGA does not have a position on green speeds. They do not say "one thing" on the matter.

They do have some interesting recommendations on where to put the hole and whether the ball should be able to stop near the hole.

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore;

Forget about trying to explain something to Patrick or to clarify something--it ain't gonna work. All Patrick can do these days is continuously tell us all that we're missing points, misinterpreting everything etc, etc ad nauseum!  

Pat:

How about if you try to answer the questions in my post #28? Stop avoiding that! Any kind of answer on your part will give us some inkling into what you might think is a logical solution!! Stop telling all of us what the problem is--we already know that many times over!

[TEPaul]

Maybe now is the time to ask any and all of you if you even have an idea how a stimpmeter reading is done. All be honest and tell us even if someone answers correctly first if you really knew how it was done before all this posting.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

1) find a flat spot

2) Roll the ball off of the Stimp Three times(?) Measure

3) Turn around and roll the ball the opposite direction same as before.

Average all of the rolls and that is your Stimp reading

What do I win?  

Prior to  enlightenment I was convinced this would be a great thing for the game.  Now we have astro turf golf courses.  Might as well putt on a pool table.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Green speeds have increased tremendously over time. What  negative and material impact(excuse me Pat) would softening the slope of a green impart on a course?
I am not talking about changing any of the internal countouring, no matter how severe, just a reduction of the overall slope. Wouldn't this be an acceptable way to mesh modern day speeds with any severely contoured and sloped greens, especially if none of the architect's original intentions for the greens contours were destroyed?
 
TEPaul, forgot to answer the stimp question;
Find a level area on the green that is large enought to do the test. Mark a spot to begin then roll 3 balls off the stimpmeter from there. Average the results then mark this spot. Roll 3 balls the other way from this spot towards the starting spot and average those results. Combine the two averages, divide the total by two and voila, you have the stimp reading.
The test should be done on dry, newly mown greens with little to no wind.  

[ed_getka]

For stimping:
  Find a relatively flat area
  Raise the stimpmeter until the ball rolls down and measure the distance. Do that 2-3times (not sure on the number)
   Roll the ball in the opposite direction over the area being measured the same number of times.
   Average the distances the ball rolled in both directions.

[Mark_F]

TE Paul,

If Pine Valley's greens were faster twenty years ago, then why are they worrying/thinking now about flattening any of them?  

Maybe, also, they are going around in circles?  Twenty years ago they were too fast, so they slowed them down, now they want to speed them up again, and voila! everyone says Pine Valley are making their greens faster, we better too.

Whether they want to have any influence on the golf world is irrelevant.  Clubs and courses like that do.  just like all the girls at university look like Britney Spears...

And finally, i'm with Pat, it isn't whether or not you can see if a change is done, it's the knowledge that it isn't an original.  You mean to tell me that, if you didn't know Pammy had breast implants and you got her in the sack, and then found out, umm, during things, they weren't real, you wouldn't be a teensy bit disappointed?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Publishing that article is a subtle or indirect endorsement.

TEPaul,

Regarding post # 28, I can't address a hypothetical situation with exagerated perameters.  It's a waste of time.

Regarding Pine Valley, do you think that the golfing world knows what the green speeds are, in any year, on:
March 26th ?
May 15th
June 21
July 4th,
August 18th
September 23 th
October 19 th ?

Do you think that the golfing world knows what the green speeds are at Pine Valley during the Crump Cup ?

And therein lies the difference.

With respect to taking the greens above 12.
Isaac Newton would probably prohibit getting a round in, during daylight hours. The attempt would be disastrous.
So to answer your question, I think PV knows the speed that will bring the greens to the brink, and, they probably get pretty close to that during the Crump Cup.

You're not going to try to tell this board that the greens at PV put the same during the rest of the year as they do for the Crump Cup are you ??

How about the Singles, do you feel that the greens putt at the same speed during the entire course of the year, or are they, like  PV, stepped up to close to their maximum for tournaments ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your post #47 just answer the damn question on my post #28 will you? And cut out this mumbo jumbo on PV.  You can do one hell of a lot better with an answer than that! Forget all those dates--has PV's maximum greenspeeds increased from years ago that I cited or haven't they and isn't that what those other clubs who want to emulate them should know and understand? Again, just answer the question--has PV been increasing their greenspeeds and eliminating their green contours as you claim other courses are doing? And if they haven't then why don't those other courses you seem so worried about who you say want to emulate PV, emulate that?

[Doug Siebert]

I would say ten years ago the average golfer was most concerned with the smoothness of greens (I know I was, and still am). Nowadays I hear avg. golfers talking about how great the course was because the greens are so FAST. They look at it as a survival contest and some demonstration of their machismo I suppose. Good greens=fast greens is the mindset now it seems.
  In my mind at higher greenspeeds, putting loses some of its fun. I golfed at a course that is generally acknowledged on this site as a top course. In June the greens were quick, but not scary. Later in the year they were a little over the top and your only thought was not to 3 putt. Once you cross the line in greenspeeds where your thought process changes from making putts, to not three-putting, the speed is TOO FAST!

Usually fast greens are good greens, since you can't keep poor greens fast (not for very long, at least)  While it is quite possible to have great greens that are slow, you don't see that very often.  Courses with slower greens usually are skimping on their greens maintenance (or all maintenance) and thus their greens can't support much speed and are also pretty unenjoyable to putt.  A lot of it is because courses that can (financially and agronomically) make their greens fast do so because that's seen as a goal to achieve these days, but it sure accounts for why fast greens = good greens is so widespread.  It is true 90% of the time that fast = good and slow = bad.  90% of that remaining 10% is bad fast greens, there are a very tiny portion of really good quality true rolling slower greens out there.  At least in my experience, but I don't play all the exclusive NE clubs a lot of the GCA readership does.

As far as it being bad to have a mindset of avoiding three putts, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE!  That puts a much higher value on shotmaking which is sorely missed in today's game.  If you know you can have a pretty good shot at a two putt from any reasonable distance from any direction at the pin, there is little incentive to avoid firing at the pin (modulo it being tucked behind a fearsome hazard) and thus little incentive to place the ball on a given side of the fairway, avoid rough, etc.  You just play the "hit it long and keep it between the trees" off the tee and "fire it at the pin every time" for all approach shots.  That's darts, not golf, but unfortunately on greens that don't scare you a bit from at least one direction that's what you end up with today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()