[ForkaB]

Vis a vis the original question, I think it is irrefutable that there are some greens out there which are largely "unplayable" at modern speeds.  We have talked about a few of them where such speeds are apparently achieved regularly as a mater of policy (e.g. Pasatiempo, Crystal Downs) and some where such speeds are not achieved, again as a matter of policy (e.g. The Old course).  It would seem to be to be obvious that if you have "wild" greens, and you wish your course to be satisfyingly played by mere mortals, you must either maintain them at less than the fastest possible speeds (e.g. TOC) or rebuild them (a la the USGA suggestions).  As Tom and Pat note properly, varying the speeds over the yearly cycle, following both nature and nurture, to allow for "at the edge of death" speeds at annual tournaments is a very good model to follow, if your turf and your membership are amenable.

I played a torunament at a great course with great green contours this August which was "at the edge of death" (for both the grass and the competitors!) and it was the most exhilarating three days of golf I have played for a long time, perhaps ever.  I know, however, that that course could never sustain such green speeds (agronomically or member/visitor-wise) for more than a few days each year.  The rest of the time it "stimps" lower, but still offers great challenge and fun.  I think this is the way that things should be.

[Brad Klein]

Tim Moraghan doesn't work for the USGA Green Section; he's an employee of the USGA championship committee and is their staff agronomist. So don't blame him for this. Geoff Shackelford (and others) should not let this factual error stand without correction.

It's also misleading to take this article out of context. This is a "how-to" article. But Chris Hartwiger, USGA Green Section-Southeeast Region, based in Birmingham, Ala., has also been writing and lecturing for years about how to keep green speeds in line w/o having to recontour putting surfaces, and he has argued repeatedly that excessive speeds need to be resisted for agronomic as well as playability reasons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

There is no doubt that the article is a "how to" article.

I liken it to a "how to" article instructing the readers on how to build a bomb.  No good can come out of it.

By appearing on the coverpage of the USGA website, it conveys the wrong message to the golf world.

Eliminating or reducing contours and slopes also has a dramatic effect on the approach and recovery shots, and the strategy of the hole.

It certainly can't be good for those aspects of the game.

Jim Kennedy,

I don't understand what you're saying.
You don't want to impact the internal contouring, but you want to soften the general slope ??

That would seem to call for a total rebuilding of the green.

One of the features that makes GCGC so good, and allows it to resist scoring is the slope of their greens.

There is very little in the way of internal contouring at GCGC, but almost every green has pitch to it.

Eliminating that pitch would quickly take the heart and soul out of the golf course.

TEPaul,

I don't know if PV has increased the speed of their greens over the last 20 years, kept them the same, or reduced them.
My guess would be that they are consistently faster.

I've always had a theory with respect to those that supe up their greens, both in advocacy and practice.
Let them supe them up, then  let me place their ball on each of the 18 greens at varying lengths, and for every putt over 36, they pay me $5,000, and for every putt under 36, I pay them $ 5,000, and we'll see how much resolve is in their super fast greens advocacy.

I have always liked fast greens, but, when great players are putting off of greens half way down a fairway, something is desperately wrong, and the answer isn't to reslope the green, it's to cut back on the speed, and ignore improved scores.

If it was Humpty Dumpty Links that had softened their slopes instead of PV, I suspect your perspective would be altered.

Rather then address your hypothetical situation, which is fruitless, let's substitute the 1st green at NGLA with your imaginary green.

Let me then say, that I would oppose any elimination or reduction in slope and/or contour.  

And, that the solution is for the superintendent to find a speed within the tolerance of the design and the membership's ability to navigate the greens.

Once you advocate eliminating or reducing the slopes of greens, you're no different from all of those others before you that disfigured their classic golf courses in the name of their pet cause.

[Brad Klein]

Pat Mucci, maybe you should read the article more closely rather than responding to it emotionally. This article - written by two superintendents - is not about eliminating contours wholesale. It's about adjusting greens to today's agronomic conditions while preserving their classical character, in this case of Baltimore CC (Tillinghast) and Chevy Chase (Ross). So they're not "eliminating" slope, simply softening it. And if you want to blame people, blame the turf industry, agronomists, golfers who demand quicker speeds, and the mower manufacturers, but what this has to do with any USGA rules, decisions or equipment issues is not at all evident.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

How do you preserve "classic character" if you soften the greens ?  Isn't that a conflict in principle ?

Will this be a one time process, or will they be re-softened again, 10-15 years from now ?

Irrespective of where the fault lies, it's a step in the wrong direction.

One that will lead to homogenous greens.

If it was # 9 green at Yale that was being softened, would you support the effort ?

[Brad Klein]

Pat, there is a world of difference between "whether" and "how to" and my point is don't criticize those offering technical help for making a normative judgment.

Even the authors of the article suggest that there are inherent problems in such a strategy but they simply claim that if you're going to do it, there's a right way and a wrong way. Generally, I would prefer not to soften greens, but I would never tell people who are going to do it that they should do it the wrong way. And like the authors, I would tell them to do it in a way that's consistent with the other greens on the course. Notice, they are not softening all of the greens at Baltimore CC or Chevy Chase, simply the most extreme ones.  

As for Yale, my argument had to do with exterior slopes of bunkers and putting surfaces, for which there is never a good reason to soften.

[A_Clay_Man]

Dr.Klein- Would it be possible for you to expound on why you don't think "they" should alter their greens? Whether here or in an article for GW/SN. It's not so much for me, but since being a rich person does not neccessarily mean having brains, it would be for them. Could use small words too, just in case?  

[TEPaul]

Again, I completely agree with those on here who've said that the article on the USGA website is much more a "how to do it right and not wrong" article and should not be looked at as an encouragement to increase greenspeeds or run excessive speeds that obsolete the functionality of slope and contour on existing greens.

On the other hand, if some think, as Pat does, that that article is sending the wrong message anyway the USGA should follow that article up with another one that makes it abundantly clear that's not what they're intending or encouraging and that reasonable speeds for existing slope and contour is what they're encouraging (they've already done that but apparently Pat hasn't noticed that or thinks others haven't either).

But the larger point to me is despite what the USGA says what is the best way to bring a halt to excessive or ever increasing greenspeeds?

There's no question whatsoever that the best way to do that is to find that greenspeed (or call it a stimp number) that's at what can be called the "maximum reasonableness" for any golf course's EXISTING green slope and contour and just cap the speed run on those greens at that point for the rest of time!!

I just can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with that and also why Pat can't understand and agree with that policy. It's incredibly easy to do once a club understands the logic and efficacy of it!

The next thing for clubs and golfers to understand is the maximum greenspeed is at hand anyway and can't really be increased from here due to playability and that that is NEVER GOING TO CHANGE due to physics!! Certainly the agronomic danger to maintaining those speeds has been pointed out by the USGA but with the way the agromic industry is changing that too might change and there in lies the problem!

However, somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 on the stimpmeter is all any situation anywhere would ever want to do for playability and I'd say that any golf course anywhere could offer almost anyone all the fun, interest and challenge they'd ever want or need on a daily basis in the neigbhorhood of 10 on the stimpmeter.

If people really are recklessly throwing around stimp numbers in some sort of "macho" or "bragging rights" effort that fact should be pointed out to them! If you ever hear anyone say their greens are in the 13 range or in excess of that I can tell you right now they don't really know what they're talking about and have probably never seen a stimp reading done nor do they know how its done.

About five years ago I did see and play a course that was set up at about 15 on the stimp and some of the greens did have some good slope on them. If you want to see a good way to get people to understand what excessive speeds really are and to understand the speed not only should not be increased but can no longer be increased for playability reasons, that's the way to do it. I've never seen so many angry golfers on one course in my life. Was their reaction to soften and recontour those greens? Of course not! Their reaction was to get them back into reasonableness for that course!

A stimp number not exceeding 10 would basically work well on any golf course that doesn't have outrageous slope and contour and on some courses for special occasions taking that up about one foot, if possible, would be OK, but that should be the recognized top limit for golf greens for the rest of time and that should be made clear by the USGA and everyone else.

The real problem arises on those existing greens that get out of control around 9 or slightly over or under. That's a situation where the club will have to understand that's their "maximum reasonableness" for the rest of time and if they want to push things slightly higher to around 10 max then consider what the USGA is saying in that article.

But around 10 should be advertized as the maximum anyone would ever want to run on a daily basis--EVER--for the rest of time! That fact alone should stop the syndrome of trying to continually increase speed! Going slightly over that for special events is OK but then the greens should be brought back down to around 10 the rest of the time.

Going up around 13 is something Oakmont does sometimes regularly but their a special case and always have been. But they know that is their maximum and they won't exceed that. If other clubs want to emulate that then they'll just have to accept a lot more 4-5 putting as Oakmont members obviously have for many years. I don't believe Oakmont is thinking of softening or recontouring their slopes or contours and that message should be advertized as well!!

[ChasLawler]

Tom,

I can't speak for Pat Mucci, but the problem I see with your idea of respective clubs maintaining a maximum "spead limit" of sorts has more to do with the execution of such a policy than with the policy itself.

Your plan sounds great to me and probably to many others as well, but the average club member just doesn't see things the same way. Like someone posted earlier, most golfers equate good greens with fast greens - the faster the better. If someone sets a speed limit on their greens, they are going to very unhappy.

Somehow the message needs to get out that slower (10, 9, even 8 ) greens with interesting contours can be ideal. Unfortunately most of the highly recognized clubs in the US (ANGC in particular) have fallen into the speed trap as well, and that is where the average golfer looks to form his/her opinion. You can't watch a golf tournament these days without hearing about how fast the greens are rolling - especially a US Open.

What the USGA needs to do is stage a US Open on severely contoured, firm greens stimping around a 9 or 10 and promote the hell out of thing. Pinehurst in 2005 might be a good opportunity. Someone needs to lead the way - to get the message out, and I can't think of a better stage upon which to lead that way than a US Open. Maybe the Masters would be better, but I don't see Hootie slowing those greens down anytime soon.

[TEPaul]

R Junah;

Interesting ideas, particularly the one with the USGA holding a US Open with contoured greens in the 9-10 range and promoting the hell out of that. I doubt that will ever happen and I really don't think it needs to for various reasons.

When I mentioned establishing a greenspeed limit of sorts for any particular golf course by establishing a point of "maximum reasonableness" for any club's greenspeed I did not intend to suggest that a club run those speeds all the time. It wouldn't be much different than an automobile that has a governor on it. The governor is so a particular speed will NEVER be exceeded. But we all know just because that automobile has that governor set at a particular speed that the driver need not think that he must or should drive at that maximum speed all the time. The very same thing can and should be said for the speed of putting greens.

There're a number of reasons why, the primary one being most of us know that to try to maintain greenspeeds on a golf course at that speed or "maximum reasonableness" might in this day and age be dangerously stressful to the turf and dangerous to its health eventually!

Unfortunately, that day may be coming soon due to agronomic and maintenance advances when that will no longer be the case. In other words, it should be expected that soon greens may be able to be maintained at the speed of "maximum reasonableness" all the time without being stressful or harmful to the agronomy. And when I mention that speed of "maximum reasonableness" in that context I mean that speed which will be at the limit of "reasonableness" of playability for even the best players in the world. And depending on the particular golf course that speed of "maximum reasonableness" of playability for the best players in the world may vary from 9-13 on the stimpmeter!

At that point, another factor enters the picture which is at what speeds will greens become excessive for playability of other levels of golfers? Those speeds needs to be determined too even if it has nothing to do with stress on the agronomy and everything to do with a "maximum reasonabeness" for the playbility of a particular level of player skill! Those speeds would obviously all be below the point of "maximum reasonableness" for the best players in the world.

The overall point of doing all this is to encourage clubs to NOT think to soften and recontour their existing greens but to live with them at those points of established "maximum reasonableness" for their existing slopes and contours. And in most cases they probably will find that that point will be not much lower than 10 on the stimpmeter---a point where anyone, even the best players in the world, could have all the fun and challenge they'd need particularly on highly sloped and contoured greens.

This whole procedure though will not solve that problem that exists where one or two greens may be real anomalies in slope and contour compared with the rest of the course's greens. Those anomalie greens may need to be softened for a course to maintain top speeds even in the 9-10 max range.

I don't see any other solution since it surely won't be reasonable to go back again to the low speeds those original greens were designed for which probably had greenspeeds that stimped no higher than 5-6!!

All golfers should also be told by the USGA or anyone else that when it comes to greenspeed as they relate to a stimpmeter number the limit of reasonableness even for the flattest greens will be at or near 13 anyway and that will not and cannot change in the future simply because of problems of playability for even the best golfers in the world.

Over about 13 even the flattest greens in the world will enter that area of ridiculousness as to playability for even the best golfers. This I know for a fact and I also know that the physics of golf say that will never change--it can't possibly--not unless they start manufacturing "adhesion" into golf balls!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your directions to everyone about the article are similar to the directions provided by a Judge, when he tells the jury to "disregard those remarks, or testimony"
 
However, once words are spoken they can't be retracted, and the damage is done.  The jury has received the message that they weren't supposed to receive, and, it's difficult to purge it from their minds.

Having the article on the front page of the USGA website sends another message, one of support for a process, despite what you and others feel the fine print or core of the article says.

Sort of like the National Enquirer and those other magazines.
The impression one gets from the front page and the core of the articles often differ.

With regard to Oakmont, I find it difficult to believe that green speeds of 13 are common for membership play.

As one who has a stimpmeter, and has used it to buy carpet for my den, 13' on a flat floor is difficult for the average golfer, let alone on greens with pitch and contour.

Perhaps Mark Studer can enlighten us with respect to the green speed readings and policy for membership play at Oakmont ?

[TEPaul]

Well, Pat, just a couple of things.

First, you keep harping on the potential problems the USGA is creating by putting that article on the front page of their website. Do you really think that that article is going to be the encouragement that will make courses all over America start softening and recontouring their greens? Don't you have any understanding that this type of thing has been going on for a long time despite the USGA? Can't you at least see that the USGA is trying to deal with a reality here and to recommend something that can at least make that reality less destructive?

But ultimately, instead of continually harping on that USGA article as the sole reason the sky seems to be falling on greens why don't you offer some solutions to the problem of softening and recontouring in the name of every increasing greenspeeds?  Again, we don't need to be told what the problem is--we all know that well enough---what we need is some reasonable solutions. Do you think there's any possible way you could offer a solution instead of reiterating the problems that everyone understands?

As for Oakmont and the maximum speed they would ever want to run don't bother to take my word on that-- but would you take the word of the super on that? Probably not, but you should because I asked him?

[Dan Kelly]

Patrick Mucci --

Look on the bright side.

So few people have actually read the article in question that NO ONE, apparently, has told them that they've purposelessly reprinted all four captions at the end of it, after identifying the authors.

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

All --

I hope this isn't redundant. I've merely skimmed the thread.

It is an assumption of the USGA article that "modern green speeds" are "fast" -- and that, therefore, the "simple" answer to too-contoured greens is to recontour them.

This is obviously false. The "simple" answer is to slow them down.

I wonder:

Is the truly simple answer so unthinkable that it seems, to those in the business, no answer at all, not even worth thinking about?

Is anyone, anywhere, building (or even proposing to build) greens MEANT to be played at considerably slower than the so-called "modern" speeds? (Specifically, to Jeff Brauer: At what speed did you envision The Quarry's greens being maintained, for daily play?)

Or is there no stomach for Slow, no matter how interesting and challenging Slow might be, among those who pay the golf-course architects' fees?

Wouldn't such greens help to distinguish a course --  to help it stand out from the crowd? Or is there no stomach for Slow, no matter how interesting and challenging Slow might be, among those who pay the green fees?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

To me the real answer and solution to this problem is to simply tell clubs not to consider recontouring their greens as an option, period, but instead to try to establish that speed near the limit where they all still function in playability with their existing slopes and contours.

And I'll also say that if any club did that they'd probably find that almost no greens would need to fall below about 10 on the stimp at their top speed. Another thing I'm certain of is if clubs would do this and maintain speeds around 10 that most members will think they're about 13 anyway. My experience has been that these people who are just into increasing speed think that greens are running at a stimp number that's higher than the greens really are. I think if everyday club members really did get to putt on greens that are a real 13 on the stimpmeter they'd be in for one rude awakening!! What they'd find out in one day is whether they enjoy 4-5 putting or not!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Do you really think that that article is going to be the encouragement that will make courses all over America start softening and recontouring their greens?

I've never said that.  But, it seems to be a tacit endorsement.

But ultimately, instead of continually harping on that USGA article as the sole reason the sky seems to be falling on greens why don't you offer some solutions to the problem of softening and recontouring in the name of every increasing greenspeeds?

I've never said that the USGA is the sole reason.  You once again make your own leap to extremes to support a non-existent position

As for Oakmont and the maximum speed they would ever want to run don't bother to take my word on that-- but would you take the word of the super on that? Probably not, but you should because I asked him?

Once again, you've misunderstood, and mistated my remarks.  I never referenced the maximum speed that they would ever want to run.  I challenged your statement that the greens typically run at near 13 for the general membership

There is quite a difference between measuring the maximum potential speed of a green and the average speed of the greens for membership play.

[david h. carroll]

sorry to be late to this thread as it directly relates to my home course, BCC Five Farms.  First and foremost, I think everyone has missed the fact that we could not have more than three pin placements on these 3 greens at stimp speeds of 10, NOT 13.  Secondly, the most severe contours of the greens were maintained such as the middle of #3, the right of #9 and the left front of #12 so that the greens are still very sloped, if albeit slow because of the weather/growth problems mentioned in the article.  Third, folks on this posting also seem to have neglected to read the statement by Mr. Kennelly in the article that "The grounds staff were equally frustrated with so much traffic concentrated in too few areas on the greens " which led to poor surfaces over the season or even over the weekend.  His assessment is correct and for those of you who have never played Five Farms, the front and left of #9 would always be chewed up by mid season and the same could be said of #12 with only about a third of the green being usable--and remember it's a 7700 sq ft green!

Just thought I'd shed a little light on the specific situation and not the general hypothetical discussion in its current form.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat Mucci owns a stimpmeter? Why? Those things should be illegal to own by anyone who holds a club membership

[Dan Kelly]

First and foremost, I think everyone has missed the fact that we could not have more than three pin placements on these 3 greens at stimp speeds of 10, NOT 13.

I didn't miss that fact -- but I still wonder (about your course specifically, about many other courses generally):

How many pin placements would there be on those greens at, say, a Stimp of 8?

How would the rest of the course play at 8?

[TEPaul]

dcarrol:

If you guys at Five Farms have a real problem with a few of your greens at 10 take the whole course down to 9 and everyone will probably have an even better time. If you still have a problem with those same greens at 9 then go to the USGA website and take a look at that article despite the fact Pat Mucci thinks it's going to encourage the end of the world for older highly sloped and contoured green surfaces!  

[david h. carroll]

Dan-good question ....I don't think the problems at 9 and 12 would change with a stimp of 8, but three would have gained more placements toward the front and all the way back.  As to the rest of the course, it's tough to say, because, again we're being hypothetical, but I don't think we'd gain a bunch more spots on other greens yet they would certainly be a bunch easier as you'd lose a fair amount of the strategy of positioning yourself in the proper place on most of the greens.

[Pat Brockwell]

As a superintendent, USGA member and player I think the USGA should stick to it's stated mission to protect the game.  Increased green speeds do not fufill the mission in any way.  The traditional putting surfaces have contours and challenge the golfer to choose from many options in line, from the approach to the pitch and chip shot right down to the putt.  Flat (featureless) greens with very low height of cut (below a tenth of an inch at some courses) promotes only high lobs into a target with no other consideration.  Ultra low height of cut (HOC) creates shallower rooting and more frequent watering and greens more prone to weakness under any and every type of stress.  So if the USGA wants soft, flat and expensive to maintain greens, flat and low is the way to go.  Speed kills.  Get back to traditional values and lets give that four footer a good rap into the back of the cup.  With bold contours you can get a great sense of speed coming down the hill without living in fear of every little putt going six feet by.  I would like to see the USGA endorse a green speed of 8 to 9 feet on the stimpmeter for daily play, and recommend that speeds over 10 feet be avoided.  It would be good for the game and the turf on our putting surfaces.  The PGA also bears some responsibility on this issue as they like to set up fast greens too.  With a slightly higher cut (deeper rooted turf) it would be easier to firm up greens so that approach shots would require more skill in tactics and execution.  I think the governing bodies are missing the boat.  Just because we can lower a mower doesn't mean we should, any more than just because we can make a ball go 400 yards we should.  I'm tired of playing rounds where I never see a putt with more that a few inches of break all day long.  

[david h. carroll]

TEPaul--please note that I'm a double "r" double "l" Carroll and I think we should just narrow all the fairways/grow in the rough, add 400 more yards and water the crap out of the greens

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

I obtained a stimpmeter for a specific purpose.

To buy carpet for my den that would putt at around 10' or above.

I walked into the carpet store armed with my stimpmeter and indicated to the salesperson that I wanted to by carpet for my den.  I gave them the dimensions of the room, told them the colors I would consider, and, that the carpet had to putt at 10' or better.

I found out that just like a green, carpets have grain and
putt faster in one direction then the other, and that they are not installed perfectly flat.

I've considered calling TEPaul to have him come and reduce the contours and slope in my den.
I've also been worried that my German Shepherd hasn't been eating well lately.
Maybe his visit will solve both problems  

[TEPaul]

dcarrol:

Think of all the pin placements you'd have at 5! Tell your members they'll not believe all the incredible pin placements they'll have at 5! Do you think they'd go for that?  

Pat Mucci thinks the members of Sitwell Park should take their maximum greenspeed back to 1 and that way they'll be able to completely restore that wildest green ever built--that 140yd par 3 that had over a ten foot fall on tiers from back to front!  

Pat:

If GCGC completely restored the original contours on #12 what kind of maximum speed do you think they could run on that green? Do you think they could somehow push the max speed on that one all the way up to 5??

[Dan Kelly]

... we're being hypothetical, but I don't think we'd gain a bunch more spots on other greens yet they would certainly be a bunch easier as you'd lose a fair amount of the strategy of positioning yourself in the proper place on most of the greens.

Thanks for answering.

BUT! Those pictures of the reconstruction don't look at all hypothetical to me!

What I'm saying is: Wouldn't it make abundant good sense for a golf club (yours, or anyone's) to test out such hypothetical ideas (it's easily done) as a first step ... before ripping up the greens? I don't know your course, but maybe your course would play BETTER at 8 or 8.5 or 9 -- particularly if the fairways and green surrounds were maintained firm and fast!

There's one way to find out whether such hypothetical ideas should remain merely hypothetical -- and that way is cheaper and simpler than the USGA's "simple" answer.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()