Are There Two Kinds of "Firm" ?

[Tom_Doak]

Watching the Tour event at Memorial Park last month, I was intrigued by the firmness of the greens.  The world's best players were able to hold their iron shots on the green from the fairway, but I hardly ever saw a ball spin back on an approach shot.


Most people attributed that to the greens being new, but I was also privy to the Tour's daily testing of the firmness of the greens.  Early in the week they were nowhere near as firm as a typical Tour event, and though they did firm them up some by Sunday, they still never got to the Tour average for firmness.  So why could the players not spin the ball back on the greens?


It got me thinking that firmness is also about (a) the moisture content in the greens, and (b) the amount of roots and thatch that are there for the ball to grab onto, and allow it to spin back.  Memorial Park did not have either one of those things to help the players out; most mature courses have one or both.


I'm curious what the greenkeepers here have to say on the topic.  To me, it suggests that even with all the measurement the Tours do on greens now, there are elements they're missing that may have a major effect on scoring.

[JESII]

It's an interesting question. I've often felt there were at least two types of firm as well. I didn't relate it to roots and thatch, maybe because I don't play nearly as many new courses as you, but that may be the answer. Curious to hear what the professionals say.


I've always felt the work Scott Anderson does at Huntingdon Valley is best appreciated after it rains. He's gotten plenty of praise for the lean program he's espoused for so many years but from a playability perspective, I've never seen a non-links course get back to firm quicker than HVCC.


This means, in the Mid-Atlantic area, if we get a week or more of dry weather, any course that claims to be a firm and fast course (and there are many of them now) can get the ball to bounce some. HVCC would measure firmness by the height of a bounce when you hit a wedge; does it bounce over the flagstick, or not?  My appreciation comes from once it rains, how long does it take that course to get back to firm?  HVCC gets there in a day or two which means you get many, many more playing days with truly firm and fast conditions.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Just watching pro golf on ultradwarf bermuda vs. bent or poa, it seems that the UD consistently plays firmer. It is much rarer to see balls backing up on UD than cool season. East Lake is an example of more mature UD greens that play consistently firm.


Even at Winged Foot where they were literally watering dry areas with water bottles and their VMC was down very close to zero, balls would catch little softer spots here and there.

[Pete_Pittock]

would a small tined aerated green be inherently firmer than a large tined aerated green?

[David Ober]

The overwhelming majority of golfers have rarely, if ever, played greens that are "tough Tour stop" firm. It's amazing what that can do to scoring. If you're on your game and are compressing/spinning the ball sufficiently, you can navigate them reasonably well. But if you're skanking it around, you're in for a LONNNNG day when greens are super firm -- especially if you are approaching them from poor angles or if you miss in the wrong spots.

[Matt_Cohn]

I'm interested in the replies. There are firm greens that can spin a lot, and some that never do. There are soft greens that kind of "plug" and there are soft greens that spin like crazy. I'm interested if there's an agronomic explanation for these.

[Grant Saunders]

Im not sure that a ball backing up should be attributed largely to firmness/softness of the greens. Green speed, slope and pitch of green relative to approach likely have a big impact as well.


We just recently hosted a national amateur event and the golfing body that were responsible for course setup in regards to hole locations commented afterwards that our greens are they firmest they have been involved with (this is in New Zealand)


Our greens havent been cored or received any form of organic matter removal for 4 years now. They are regularly vertidrained with 8mm solid tines (approx 6 times per year) and receive dustings of sand every 2 - 3 weeks. Nitrogen levels are kept relatively low and moisture levels monitored closely.  For a tournament situation, moisture levels are reduced slightly at the surface and combined with an increase in lightweight rolling, they firm up very rapidly. We currently dont have any form of specific measurement to objectively record their firmness but use simple tests like dropping golf balls and banging the turf with a putter to hear the sound they make. We also watch a variety of shots being played into the greens from different positions to see how the balls react.


I do think that the type of grass and therefore organic matter produced will have a notable impact on firmness. Heavily creeping grasses with stoloniferous growth habits will produce a lot of bulky matter at the surface which I believe will have a differing impact absorption capacities to a rhizomatous plant producing matter under the surface.


Interestingly I recall reading a study conducted by the AGCSA Tech on firmness of sands and they concluded some sands were firmer when wetter and others when drier.


I dont think they have maybe come up with a great measurement yet  and can see high speed video equipment recording golf balls being shot into a turf surface maybe yielding some good feedback on what different compositions do to a golf ball when it hits.

[Thomas Dai]

Toms OP highlighted a mens pro event and wondered what professional greenkeepers think on this matter. Fair enough and Grants post is particularly insightful from this perspective.
But there are so many other variables involved from player skill level to club grooves to ball type to wind and weather to ball/turf interaction (not on landing but on the ball strike) to grass types, fairway firmness, green shape to sun and shade etc etc etc.
As to elite level mens golf, one thing TV commentators, at least the ones on the channel I watch, are constantly mentioning on short iron and partial wedge shots into greens is taking spin off the ball (they like to use the phrase 'dead-arm' shots).
Elite players will likely adjust to circumstances, lessor players, well as a smiling club pro once said to me "for all the good it does them 90% of folks who play ProV1's and similar high spec balls might as well be playing rock-flights or low compression balls. That's fine by me though coz my profit margin is bigger on the high spec, high price balls!!".
atb
 

[Kyle Harris]

There's more than two. Jim Sullivan mentioned the old "flagstick high" bounce thing at HVCC.

I'd suggest that the type of firmness is more about what happens with the second bounce and subsequent rollout. Too many other variables on the first bounce - including green contours - that influence the ball's behavior. However, the second bounce is going to tell you more about how the surface conditions influenced the initial landing than any quantitative/qualitative measure of the first bounce.

[John Emerson]

would a small tined aerated green be inherently firmer than a large tined aerated green?

Really, no.  Firmness is due to lack of thatch, verdue-sand interface compaction via rolling, crowns of plants being surrounded by sand, lack of water(in the top couple inches), and height of cut.  Height of cut being last of importance.  This is usually a common misnomer and people think this is the most important.

[John Emerson]

I might add that now in The NFL there is field standards that must be met on a weekly basis.  One of them is firmness.  This is determined by a machine that measures surface firmness. I’m sure it’s been used by some super somewhere.  I haven’t used it personally, but they are “a thing”. 

[Tom_Doak]

I might add that now in The NFL there is field standards that must be met on a weekly basis.  One of them is firmness.  This is determined by a machine that measures surface firmness. I’m sure it’s been used by some super somewhere.  I haven’t used it personally, but they are “a thing”.

John:


I don't know if they use the same tool as the NFL, but the PGA Tour has a device to measure green firmness and they use it to test each green multiple times per day to try and make them consistent.


It's not brand new; I first saw that level of preparation for the US Women's Open at Sebonack in 2013.  They were measuring green speed, moisture content, and firmness across each green, 3x per day.

[Dan_Callahan]

the PGA Tour has a device to measure green firmness and they use it to test each green multiple times per day to try and make them consistent.

I remember way back in the day when I was writing for a golf magazine, playing TPC River Highlands before the GHO and watching the maintenance guys removing sand from the bunkers and replacing it with "Tour" sand. I had no idea how much preparation went into getting the course set up in a manner that was acceptable to the pros. And we wonder why their scores are so low! It isn't just a result of the distances they are hitting it.

Maybe I'm getting old, but wouldn't the game be better with more variability of conditions? The whole "play it as it lies" thing? I get that you don't want one green to be super fast and another slow. But if you cut them at the same height, why isn't that enough? If one green is exposed to the sun and wind and another is protected, by the end of the day, wouldn't you expect the exposed green to play faster and firmer than the protected one? Isn't that part of the fun of the game? A battle of wits with mother nature?

Maybe this is what I like so much about links courses. The imperfections and inconsistencies. The bad bounces and hidden bunkers. The variability.

[Steve Lang]

the PGA Tour has a device to measure green firmness and they use it to test each green multiple times per day to try and make them consistent.

I remember way back in the day when I was writing for a golf magazine, playing TPC River Highlands before the GHO and watching the maintenance guys removing sand from the bunkers and replacing it with "Tour" sand. I had no idea how much preparation went into getting the course set up in a manner that was acceptable to the pros. And we wonder why their scores are so low! It isn't just a result of the distances they are hitting it.
...

At the WCC's TPC we normally saw PGA folks here months in advance keeping an eye on agronomy and as the SHO approached they had greater and greater control over course setup, now with Champions events, they're still involved, but while I hear much less about it, things are very speedy and normally great overall presentation... and its character lasts for a couple of weeks.     yes it does seem an alternate reality for "these guys are good"

[BCrosby]

I might add that now in The NFL there is field standards that must be met on a weekly basis.  One of them is firmness.  This is determined by a machine that measures surface firmness. I’m sure it’s been used by some super somewhere.  I haven’t used it personally, but they are “a thing”.

I don't know if they use the same tool as the NFL, but the PGA Tour has a device to measure green firmness and they use it to test each green multiple times per day to try and make them consistent.

It's not brand new; I first saw that level of preparation for the US Women's Open at Sebonack in 2013.  They were measuring green speed, moisture content, and firmness across each green, 3x per day.

The USGA calls that machine the "Thumper." 


Bob

[Anthony_Nysse]

The following firmness meters are typically used. The first one I have used for PGA Events as recent as last year. Usually 3 measurements/green, 2x/ day-morning & night.




Firmness Meter, Putting Green  | 108GFM-K | 108GFM-K | PrecisionUSA | GFM-K | Item Detail




Firmness Meter, Fieldscout  | 1266490S | 1266490S | Spectrum | 6490S | Item Detail (precisionusa.com)

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:


What is the unit of measurement on those devices?  Are they all the same?


I was only told the number they were aiming for and the tolerance between greens, but not what the number meant!  I guess they didn't want me asking too many questions 😉

[jeffwarne]

the PGA Tour has a device to measure green firmness and they use it to test each green multiple times per day to try and make them consistent.

Maybe I'm getting old, but wouldn't the game be better with more variability of conditions? The whole "play it as it lies" thing? I get that you don't want one green to be super fast and another slow. But if you cut them at the same height, why isn't that enough? If one green is exposed to the sun and wind and another is protected, by the end of the day, wouldn't you expect the exposed green to play faster and firmer than the protected one? Isn't that part of the fun of the game? A battle of wits with mother nature?

Maybe this is what I like so much about links courses. The imperfections and inconsistencies. The bad bounces and hidden bunkers. The variability.

You mean judgement,experience and course knowledge?
The forgotten skills..
Nowadays most skill is gained in the gym-or so they tell me.


One of the attractions of golf is that it is an outdoor game, yet so many are trying to modify the training, the playing, the teaching, and the conditions to that of an indoor, perfect minimal variable "experience".


As you said, precisely why many of us enjoy the links, but even they are not immune to the phenomenon.


The Thumper has been around awhile-the USGA was using it at The Bridge during the 2010 Mid-Am.


Regarding two kinds of firm-I'd say thatch plays a huge role.
I'd bet you could get the same Thumper reading on two different greens, yet one would repel shots more than the other if it had less thatch.
Gregg Stanley went years at when he first arrived at The Bridge not aerifying the greens in an effort to develop more thatch.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Anthony:


What is the unit of measurement on those devices?  Are they all the same?


I was only told the number they were aiming for and the tolerance between greens, but not what the number meant!  I guess they didn't want me asking too many questions 😉

I have used both kinds of gauges, but most recently at a PGA Tour event last year, we used to the first one. You actually dropped a steel ball from a specific height & use a gauge to measure the indentation. (think ball mark)


While Superintendent at Pine Tree & Old Marsh, we tried to keep greens between .18"-.22" during prime season.


50678944412_1ff530abce_o.jpg (640×480) (staticflickr.com)

[Mark_Fine]

Not read all the posts but I am sure moisture level, sand content, amount of thatch, and the actual amount of grass on the greens all impact firmness.  But if you really want to play firm greens, play what we played today at Lehigh - frozen greens    That would be the third type of firmness and frozen greens are for a fact the most firm 

[Peter Pallotta]

It’s striking how deeply embedded the concept of fairness is in the American game. I never realized until just now that Sandy Tatum’s goal of ‘identifying the world’s best golfers, not embarrassing them’ was actually a heartfelt paean to fairness.
Maybe Mr. Tatum didn’t realize it either.

[BCrosby]

It’s striking how deeply embedded the concept of fairness is in the American game. I never realized until just now that Sandy Tatum’s goal of ‘identifying the world’s best golfers, not embarrassing them’ was actually a heartfelt paean to fairness.
Maybe Mr. Tatum didn’t realize it either.

Bingo! 


 




   

[Tom_Doak]

It’s striking how deeply embedded the concept of fairness is in the American game. I never realized until just now that Sandy Tatum’s goal of ‘identifying the world’s best golfers, not embarrassing them’ was actually a heartfelt paean to fairness.
Maybe Mr. Tatum didn’t realize it either.

No I am sure he didn't realize where that would lead.


Too much of golf - and especially American golf - has been influenced by what we see on TV and by the pro tours.  The PGA Tour players' ideal is for all golf courses to be maintained precisely alike, so they can show up on Wednesday and understand what to do, instead of having to figure out the nuances that Dan and Jeff W [and I] admire.


All of these thumpers and Stimpmeters and the like are the result of defensiveness . . . of the governing bodies trying to apply science to prove that they know what they are doing, when the players complain loudly about their setups.  Golf course maintenance should not be paint-by-numbers -- nothing in golf should be! -- but that's what we are going to get when the game is run by a bunch of guys protecting their seven-figure salaries.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Anthony:


What is the unit of measurement on those devices?  Are they all the same?


I was only told the number they were aiming for and the tolerance between greens, but not what the number meant!  I guess they didn't want me asking too many questions 😉

The tool Ryan and Conner were using (at Memorial) was measuring the depth of the impression caused by dropping the ball from the set height.


Cheers

[AChao]

Yes!  Tour pros are wwaaayyy too important and big of an influence on golf.  We may play fun / recreational golf, but pro golf has big money and too much of a business.  Just like when you walk into McDonald's and want a Big Mac to be the same every time, Tour Pros get golf courses that are "standardized" which takes away from a “charm” or “soul” of a golf course.  Ruling bodies, with a few exceptions, strike me as generally incompetent at worst or way too self-protecting at best. 


If there's no bifurcation in equipment, I wish that the ruling bodies or someone would fund the top eight or ten architects a course each to design (probably 7,600 to 8,800 ish) for tour pros and tournaments and play most of the tournaments on those courses.  The ruling bodies totally lost control of equipment and the manufacturers did a great job exploiting it.  200 yards is a 7 or 8-iron for tour pro, 4-iron for a good amateur, driver for an average amateur, and unreachable for many.     

It’s striking how deeply embedded the concept of fairness is in the American game. I never realized until just now that Sandy Tatum’s goal of ‘identifying the world’s best golfers, not embarrassing them’ was actually a heartfelt paean to fairness.
Maybe Mr. Tatum didn’t realize it either.

No I am sure he didn't realize where that would lead.


Too much of golf - and especially American golf - has been influenced by what we see on TV and by the pro tours.  The PGA Tour players' ideal is for all golf courses to be maintained precisely alike, so they can show up on Wednesday and understand what to do, instead of having to figure out the nuances that Dan and Jeff W [and I] admire.


All of these thumpers and Stimpmeters and the like are the result of defensiveness . . . of the governing bodies trying to apply science to prove that they know what they are doing, when the players complain loudly about their setups.  Golf course maintenance should not be paint-by-numbers -- nothing in golf should be! -- but that's what we are going to get when the game is run by a bunch of guys protecting their seven-figure salaries.