[archie_struthers]

 


As we start to get more and more house bound do to COVID and weather here in the northeast I’ve been thinking 🤔 about golf and my favorite venues.


More and more I’m not liking some of the new stuff as much as old. Why! I think it’s the greens. They just don’t feel as good as the old ones in many cases. I’m ok with losing some trees (obviously) but the new grasses on putting surfaces seem sterile.


Two of my favorites Atlantic City and Philly Cricket fall into this box. Anyone else have like feelings ?

[Tom_Doak]

More and more I’m not liking some of the new stuff as much as old. Why! I think it’s the greens. They just don’t feel as good as the old ones in many cases. I’m ok with losing some trees (obviously) but the new grasses on putting surfaces seem sterile.

Archie:


I agree.  One of the reasons I am reluctant to go back to Merion is that I fear it will be the same.  One of my fondest memories of Walter Woods was hearing him talk about how great the greens were at Merion, back in the day:  he said, "Anyone can take some of these new grasses and have them pure, but it takes real talent to take a mixture of different grasses and develop them into a great putting surface."


Of course, Merion lost their greens and replaced them with the clones 25 years ago.  Now they have just done it with the whole 126 acres!

[MCirba]

Yes, unequivocally.


I have stated repeatedly that I've never seen old, push-up greens improved...or replicated in terms of subtleties...by replacing them with USGA spec greens.  Now, I will admit that I haven't seen a few of the latest high-profile efforts in that regard yet, but I'd be surprised to learn otherwise.

[MCirba]

I would add that some of the rationale for replacing old greens over the years has been as a cure for misdiagnosed symptoms.


Often some combination of tree growth, tree planting, overwatering, and cutting greens to lower and lower than their slopes and contours could support created problematic greens. 


That situation doesn't improve with USGA spec without additional remediation of those other elements.  Without that you just get flatter greens with broader slopes, little subtlety, and soft, mushy, single-strain mess that often no longer has great surface drainage.

[Jim Sherma]

As far as Philly Cricket goes I agree that I also liked the old greens better than new ones. In general I like greens with slope that has variations within it as opposed to flatter areas separated by sharper transition areas. The renovation work is very nice on the course in total, but I didn't really feel like I was playing an old set of Tillinghast greens post renovation. The high spots were all where they were and the low spots were as well. However, the putts were not the flowing types of large breaks that the older greens tended to present.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'll second the case for old push-up greens. The ones where I was a member stayed firm and with the proper care rolled true and seemed to last a long time. I also like to putt on greens with a variety of grasses. I don't even mind a bit of poa in them. It helps me with speed control and it is easier to pick a spot to putt to. Besides I like the look.

[Thomas Dai]

Seemed like a major issue with old push-up greens was drainage, both off-season in more temperate regions and storm.
Have improved drainage techniques, equipment and materials over the last couple of decades meant that there’s now no reason to rebuild old push-ups with USGA spec/recommended versions in more temperate regions?
Atb

[John Emerson]

The problem with old greens is that they require so many inputs compared to modern green construction methods and cultivars.  They might feel better but that “feel” has a much higher price tag.  But, I do agree that many biotic factors (ie:tree shade)cause for older surfaces to underperform.  All things being equal, the newer cultivars are far superior to anything before ~90’s as far as performance goes.  This sounds to be more of a nostalgic feeling post than one of reality.

[Jim Sherma]

My thoughts were less on the surface and more on the architecture. I was speaking in favor of greens with more dominant tilt and variation through the tilt rather than obvious and flatter "pinning areas" with sharper transition slopes and ridges separating them.

[Paul Rudovsky]

I am an absolute untrained amateur when it comes to questions like this, but allow me to make some observations, without deep technical knowledge.


1.  Over the past 6 years or so I have had the opportunity to play 600-700 different courses worldwide.  As I think back regarding conditioning at these courses "in general" the one most outstanding feature is the universal quality of the greens not just at the "best" 50 or so...but almost all of them.  I would attribute that to a number of factors but believe the most important factor is the availability of new hybrid grasses...both Bermuda and Bent.  Third tier courses today have greens that are close to perfect.  So the availability of superb greens is far far greater today than say 1980.


2.  I remember the days back 40 years ago when locations such as St. Louis, Atlanta, Washington-->Philadelphia, etc. literally had no good option for green grasses...the Bermuda of those days would get destroyed by occasional ice storms in the winter (and/or protracted cold weather) and Bend would lose their root structure and resonance in summer heat and humidity.  Today, solutions are available that work almost all the time (albeit perhaps necessitating the use of covers on very cold nights).



3.  Yes, figuring out the idiosyncrasies of old greens was really a challenge and added another dimension to the complexity of the game...but I think it must be balanced against the overall quality of many courses.  Many gca's argue vehemently against the importance of "championship" courses designed only to appropriately challenge the .001% of players who play at PGA Tour level...is there a similarity here?  And I hardly think the lack of imperfections or other markings which can be used to define putting lines is a negative.


4.  One aspect of most new strains that I wish was not part of the equation is the grain running with water flow...and the resulting change in "coloration" which makes it much too east to see and define the changes direction of the slope.  I would love to see a version of these hybrids that eliminated grain or had grain in one directions (like the Bermuda of 40+ years ago...toward the setting sun).

[SL_Solow]

I draw a distinction between the design and the grasses.  I love older greens and find that many newer greens are less interesting.  Whether that is due to construction techniques or design preference, perhaps to accommodate faster speeds, is the question, particularly given the fact that some of my favorites still build interesting greens.  As for grasses, I have come to develop a different view.  I fought replacing our original Washington Bent/poa greens for years.  But when we replaced them with newer bents which rooted much more deeply, we found that we used less water and inputs and were able to maintain green speeds consistent with our membership's wishes.  Our Superintendent is much happier.  The greens roll beautifully and, in response to a prior post, there is essentially no grain.  So I learned something, a not unusual occurrence.

[archie_struthers]

 


John E could be wrong but I'm guessing you a superintendent. Have the highest respect for the profession, hard workers , smart masters of many trades and generally love dogs. Great traits!


While the new strains may be better to work with in many ways I can tell you the feel and roll is not as fun. Haven't played Oakmont in about ten years but those old poa greens were the best. The ones at Pine Valley and Merion weren't too shabby either. Kudos to the superintendents that have watched over them over the years.


Tom talked about the feel of the old grasses too. Having built a course with the new grasses for all the reasons you elucidated and a few more, I still pine for the old stuff. It's not just waxing sentimental, they played differently for sure. Obviously the thoughts of Mr Solow ring true on this issue also but if you could just clone the Oakmont poa we all might think differnetly!

[Jim Sherma]

Archie - The old Poa greens at Baltusrol in the early 90's were as pure as anything, unless you were there when everything was flowering (May or so), but that was the cost of admission. the rest of the year, they were as good as anything from a playing standpoint.

[archie_struthers]

 


Played there and you are so right. Excluding Pine Valley to the the west the old poa greens at Atlantic City CC were off the hook. Thought they were the best at the Jersey Shore.


They always had some trouble with the water there but it surprisingly made the greens better. Supt.  Dick Bator came there right before they sold it to the casino and made it so good. The day of the Fraser tournament qualifier was so much fun as the course was crackling fast and the greens were spectacular. It was September but it was incredible that day and I consider Bator a genius at golf course conditioning.


Jeff Kent is an excellent superintendent who supervised the grow in when Tom Doak did the redo for Goldberg and the casino. The place is pristine now but the greens just aren't the same. May be healthy but now I would consider they roll about 4th or 5th best in the area and I know it's not the construction methods or the new supers fault, its the new strain of grass for sure.

[Mike_Young]

Nothing wrong with blotchy greens ....
As for old vs. new....just follow the money in 99% of the cases....So many clubs were fortunate not to be able to spend money over the years for "improvements" and then once some of these committees came about and were spenders it was off to the races...and in most cases it was the work of a "yes man" archie..JMO

[jeffwarne]

My thoughts were less on the surface and more on the architecture. I was speaking in favor of greens with more dominant tilt and variation through the tilt rather than obvious and flatter "pinning areas" with sharper transition slopes and ridges separating them.

+1

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

While the new strains may be better to work with in many ways I can tell you the feel and roll is not as fun. Haven't played Oakmont in about ten years but those old poa greens were the best. The ones at Pine Valley and Merion weren't too shabby either. Kudos to the superintendents that have watched over them over the years.

Obviously the thoughts of Mr Solow ring true on this issue also but if you could just clone the Oakmont poa we all might think differnetly!

Archie, it's interesting you mentioned those three as PV and Oakmont still have their original (contoured) poa greens, although the rootzones have been heavily modified to help them drain better, whereas Merion has been bentgrass since the 90s (and before the latest redo). So is it the turf?


I guess that debate can be answered with Winged Foot and Baltusrol as they rebuilt their greens using GPS grading to put them back exactly and they used the turf that was removed (poa in WFs case and poa/bent in Baltusrols) so it will be interesting to see if they still don't feel the same as the only difference is the rootzone.


Saying that, I get what you are saying but is it coming from the fact that in these renos the greens are taken back to their original shapes and sizes and therefore give the impression that they are different? (Any slight grade changes to provide more pin positions not withstanding). Is it the receptiveness from the different soil bases? Or the putting quality? Healthy Poa is argueably a better putting surface as it typically has an upright growing pattern, whereas bentgrass prefers to lie over (hence its more susceptible to grain). However the window where Poa is at it's best is typically small as it's either going to seed or struggling to stay alive due to heat stress, where bentgrass - when managed correctly  - gives a consistantly good surface all year. So is it something quantifiable or just the fact that it looks different?


On a seperate note, PSU has for decades tried to create the perfect poa but while they have gotten close, ultimately they were not able to get a plant/seed that would provide consistent results. Poa annua is an extremely adaptable plant so the modified plants quickly changed in their new envirnoments resulting in a different plant to what was seeded. So while its not a real problem to clone Oakmont Poa, getting it to grow in a different envirnoment would be a challenge and it quickly would become a different variety of Poa.

[MCirba]

I think what Archie and Jim Sherma are saying (and me as well) is that it is difficult to achieve naturally occurring micro-contours in USGA greens due to the multi-layering construction technique, and instead you are left with broader shelves of consistent slope and contour (or virtually dead flat in some cases).

[Mark_Fine]

Yes the challenge with USGA greens is the slope of the subgrade technically should match that of the finished grade so you have limited flexibility once the subgrade is completed.  But getting back to the grasses, yes there is nothing like putting on an old green with a mix of strains.  My favorite story I have told often is when the super at The Old Course at St. Andrews was asked during The Open what kind of grass he had on the greens - his answers was he didn't know    Obviously he knew he had a whole host of different grasses that comprise those greens.  Can you imagine how sterile those greens would look if they were all regrassed with one of the new generation of super bent grasses 

[SL_Solow]

Mark,  is it look or "feel"? I am a traditionalist and deemed to be a pretty good putter.  I understand how good poa can be in certain micro climates.  Our old 15th green had a back left corner which was every bit as good as Oakmont.  When we took parts and tried to transplant elsewhere, it did not grow the same way.  I think that our regrassed greens roll as well or better than any traditional greens in the area and are easier to maintain, particularly when the weather gets hot.  Superintendents in our area largely agree.  I suspect that if you putted blindfolded you would agree.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't fight for what you like, just to suggest that there is a different reason you like it.  Incidentally, I concur that it is harder to obtain subtlety in USGA greens but it is not impossible.

[Mark_Fine]

SL,
For me it is both look and feel.  It is hard to replace years and years of what you might call natural selection of grasses on a green or in a fairway.  I talked about this in a different thread - the patina that is the result of certain varieties out competing others over time.  Why would you want to try to correct this biodiversity?  At the same time, I understand the agronomic advantages of certain reconstruction and regrassing projects (but still don't love them).  It might at times improve playability but usually leads to a bland monostand of grass that isn't nearly as appealing to my eye.  On some modern greens, you might as well be putting on artificial carpet. 

[John Emerson]

I agree with the sentimental feel of this thread...old things “feel” warm and fuzzy.  But, we have to understand why we arrived at new ideas, ways, techniques, grasses, materials etc. Inefficiency, unsustainably, and/or detrimental practices in some way shape or form.  There will always be a sense of nostalgia, but that shouldn’t defer the industry from taking leaps toward improvements. 

[Pete Lavallee]

In 1984 I told the wife that if we didn’t play Pebble Beach soon it might cost over $100! We went and played for $75. I found the greens there absolutely confounding; easily the hardest greens to read that I had ever encountered. I suspect that it was due to small areas which had unique micro undulations. We recently returned in October and with a red hot putter I must have made over 100 feet of putts in our first round. The greens were very easy to read and seemed to have a consistent and easily decipherable break. I realize the the PB Corp. has been rebuilding several greens each year to USGA specs. Did they remove the micro undulations in the process?

[SL_Solow]

John Emerson, I think you have this just about perfectly.  I understand the appeal of older looking greens.  I miss the look of Washington Bent in the fall.  I also understand the difficulty of replicating contours on rebuilt greens.  But with products like XGD you can drain push up greens very well.  The newer cultivars that root deeply allow Supers to maintain greens in hot weather much better than the older strains and much much better than poa.  All with less inputs.  So i have been able to put away the nostalgia.  What I don't want to lose is interestingly contoured greens

[archie_struthers]

 


Think 🤔 Jim might have hit it for me it’s not just the surface it’s the visual. My first impression of most new courses greens are that they look sterile.


As to the roll of the “seasoned” greens being the best I believe it’s true. Right now the best rolling greens in our area are well over twenty years old. Of course both have excellent supers and ample budgets.


At the highest levels I don’t think there is much doubt which putt the best. From a maintenance perspective perhaps some of our superintendents on call can weigh in.  I have a few thoughts in this but will defer to the pros ..:::for now 🧐

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()