Green speeds

[Michael Morandi]

Jaime Díaz advocates for slower green speeds on the Golf Channel after watching the Open today. His argument: pace of play, more hole positions, freer putting strokes. The Open stats show that it has the fewest 3-putts in major championships. Highest percentage of 15 foot putts made. Thoughts?

[Charlie Goerges]

Jaime Díaz advocates for slower green speeds on the Golf Channel after watching the Open today. His argument: pace of play, more hole positions, freer putting strokes. The Open stats show that it has the fewest 3-putts in major championships. Highest percentage of 15 foot putts made. Thoughts?

I can’t say it any better, I agree. Raise the fairway height of cut while you’re at it!

[Craig Sweet]

99% of golfers have no idea how fast a green stimps.   They swear they do, but no.


I play at Old Works nearly everyday. During the State Am last week I was paired with another Old Work's regular. After a putt he said the greens were running 12 -12.5    I burst out laughing....The greens were no faster than normal---9.5-10. I nice speed for the volume of golfers and it brought out the subtle contours in the greens.  Anything faster and there would be 5-6 hour rounds and the tourists would totally blow through the contours...besides, I don't think our General Manager/Superintendent knows how to get the greens that fast.

[Tim Leahy]

With the weather at the British Open any stimp higher than 10 would be too much affected by the wind and contours of the greens. Leave the 12+ for the other majors.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jaime Díaz advocates for slower green speeds on the Golf Channel after watching the Open today. His argument: pace of play, more hole positions, freer putting strokes. The Open stats show that it has the fewest 3-putts in major championships. Highest percentage of 15 foot putts made. Thoughts?

A couple of things here:


- The info above seems to blow out the water the idea that is proliferated on this website that “slow the greens down because the pro’s find slower greens harder whilst it makes it easier for us amateurs”.


- Faster greens are usually easier to make firmer which at The Open makes approaches more fun / harder. They also bring out the borrows on flatter surfaces. Hence the key is not to get hung up on green speed other than matching it to the design and weather. Therefore each course should have its different and optimal green speeds.

[Sean_A]

One aspect of slower green speeds I like in GB&I is speed of fairways and greens are more in sync than at places with fast greens. For my liking firm and 9-10 works very well...but firm is more important than 9-10 speed.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I have no problem with "slower" greens. 10 BTW for your average course isn't "slow".  Where "slow" greens really help is on the short game around the greens, you don't need to be as precise. Thus I like greens fast enough where the wind won't play a factor in oscillating the ball and for The Open courses that could be many of them. A place like TOC with huge greens, the lag putting is a big determining factor for the champion I recall reading.

[Ally Mcintosh]

One aspect of slower green speeds I like in GB&I is speed of fairways and greens are more in sync than at places with fast greens. For my liking firm and 9-10 works very well...but firm is more important than 9-10 speed.

Ciao

I like this point. Although I guess we can all cite examples of links courses in mid-summer where the fairways are actually playing faster than the greens.

[Thomas Dai]

'Speed' is a distraction.
Trueness of roll is what matters.
atb




PS - Michael - you seem to have started 2 threads on this subject -https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72123.0.html

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately, the people in positions to decide these matters do not agree with this narrative.


The R & A don't really want players to make more 15-foot putts . . . they don't want their scoring records to reflect how much easier the game is today.  The only reason the greens are slow at The Open is so they don't have to suspend play when it gets windy.


Superintendents don't want greens to be slower . . . they get paid more when the greens are faster.


Green chairmen want to have the fastest greens in town, not the slowest.  When members complain that the greens are too fast, it's easy to dismiss them as bad players.  But if someone complains the greens are too slow, it's like they're insulting your kids.


The incentives are all wrong to slow down green speeds.  The only way it will happen is if regulations on fertilizers and chemicals get stricter, so that you can't get really fast greens without risking them dying from the stress.  At that point, any sane superintendent would back off and make sure his grass was healthy.

[Kyle Harris]

Superintendents don't want greens to be slower . . . they get paid more when the greens are faster.

I get paid more for giving the stakeholders what they want.

Or effectively steering them away from what they don't want.

[Tom_Doak]

Superintendents don't want greens to be slower . . . they get paid more when the greens are faster.

I get paid more for giving the stakeholders what they want.

Or effectively steering them away from what they don't want.

So you didn't have that class I sat in on at Michigan State, where the professor explained that "the higher your maintenance budget, the more money you'll make" ?

[Kyle Harris]

Superintendents don't want greens to be slower . . . they get paid more when the greens are faster.

I get paid more for giving the stakeholders what they want.

Or effectively steering them away from what they don't want.

So you didn't have that class I sat in on at Michigan State, where the professor explained that "the higher your maintenance budget, the more money you'll make" ?

It's evolved into "spend your entire budget or you'll lose it" by the time I was in the same class at Rutgers.

I prefer to add value. I don't agree with either.

[Thomas Dai]

Putters these days have circa 2*/3* loft. In times gone by the norm was more like 5*/6*.
Using too little loft can send a mis-message to the player that the greens are slow when in fact the greens are firm, true and a sensible pace for the conditions but the putter has too little loft. Even more so when factors like drizzling rain, evening dew, bunker sand-splash, surface blemishes from poorly or unrepaired pitchmarks, shoe scrapes and wind etc are taken into account.
Atb

[jeffwarne]

Jaime Díaz advocates for slower green speeds on the Golf Channel after watching the Open today. His argument: pace of play, more hole positions, freer putting strokes. The Open stats show that it has the fewest 3-putts in major championships. Highest percentage of 15 foot putts made. Thoughts?

I can’t say it any better, I agree. Raise the fairway height of cut while you’re at it!

Plus 1.
To say nothing of the playability, fun and interest as well as the cost and environmental savings of not shaving grass.


the "tyranny of the minority" is alive and well in the golf world.


I've been playing a course the last two days with incredibly interesting sloped greens.
Greens that frankly I had forgotten how interesting hey are.
No chance these would be built today with greens that ran above 10.5 and if they were even at 10.5, they would have to find the most benign boring pins possible.
Uphill putts must be struck SOLID, downhillers must be judged, not nudged.
(on a super fast modern surface, pins are merely placed where a mere nudge allows the ball to settle at the hole-that's not judgement, that's just repetitive.)

[Peter Sayegh]

99% of golfers have no idea how fast a green stimps.   They swear they do, but no.

...or how "slow" a green stimps.
I've only been shown/told what the stimp speed was five times in my life. Each time, it meant nothing to me. Two of those rounds were on #2.
Kyle-and other supers:
is it a losing battle? Do you hide the stimp speed? How often have you wanted to challenge/educate people on this topic?

Is there a study that shows the average golfer's guess of ACTUAL stimp readings compared to their perception?

[Rob Marshall]

I’m on the greens committee at my club. Someone on our board ordered a sign with a green speed slot for the first tee with the days hole location. The committee was completely against posting speeds as was our super. When no speed was posted some A-holes started to put question marks on it. Another wrote “slow” when the greens were like lightning. I suggested we put 10 up and never change it but the chairman said let’s post it and see what happens. He went out with the super and stimped them at 8 in the morning. They were 11’11”. We posted 11. This was on a Thursday. I played around 1 and was having dinner when some guys finish up around 6pm and challenge me on the speed. “No way there are 11”. I said they were 11”11 at 8 this morning. Would you like us to change the sign hourly through the day? ….paraphrasing as there were a couple of F bombs included.


Imo nothing good can ever come from posting green speeds.

[Matt_Cohn]

What if there were some rating of green smoothness and that could be posted on the first tee? Of course then you'd have to get players to fix their ball marks...

[Rob Marshall]

What if there were some rating of green smoothness and that could be posted on the first tee? Of course then you'd have to get players to fix their ball marks...

Exactly

[jeffwarne]

What if there were some rating of green smoothness and that could be posted on the first tee? Of course then you'd have to get players to fix their ball marks...

Ughhh..
Yet another absurd arms race.


What if we just played the course as we found it?
and accepted that dealing with some randomness is part of the skill set.


I'm also not sure of Ally's contention that "faster"(via HOC) helps greens to be firmer.
Perhaps in the UK/Ireland where temperatures cooperate, but in the US the super tight cut tends to demand more moisture to stay alive in our summer heat and ends up softer.
I would argue a higher HOC would allow the grass to be fed and watered less , be less succeptible to stress and therefore be able to be healthy AND firm.
But I will defer to the turf experts on this one.I'm sure it depends upon multiple factors.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Superintendents don't want greens to be slower . . . they get paid more when the greens are faster.

I get paid more for giving the stakeholders what they want.

Or effectively steering them away from what they don't want.

So you didn't have that class I sat in on at Michigan State, where the professor explained that "the higher your maintenance budget, the more money you'll make" ?

Nope. I never recall Dr. Rogers or Dr. Crum ever mention that.