[Dan Herrmann]

Just a question - do you think that slower greens (such as what we had in the 1930's) would increase scores on major tournament courses?

Personally, I think significantly slower greens take more skill than slick ones because longer putts will actually require wrist action.

Would it help resistance to scoring?

[DPL11]

I think faster greens require more skill. Every little break and contour impacts a rolling golf ball. Slower greens just do not break that much due to more friction from the higher turf.

Doug

[Brian_Gracely]

No, good players will adjust.  The Europeans made plenty of putts during the 2001 Ryder Cup on those slowed-down greens at The Belfry.

[A.G._Crockett]

Fewer long putts are made on slow greens, but there are fewer three putts as well.  So, do the pros:
      a. make more birdies than three putt
                or
      b. three putt more than birdie

The answer, of course, is "a", so I believe slow greens would tend to make courses more resistant to low scoring, thought that difference would probably relatively insignificant.  However, the real answer on the greens is, of course...

Make the pros play on BAD greens! (A sure antidote to low scores that is certain to NEVER be enacted!)

[JLahrman]

Grow the fairway grass longer.  Fewer airport runway-quality bounces on drives, less spin to attack pins on approaches.

[McCloskey]

Probably not, BUT
greens cut randomly and varying heights
would slow down the scoring immediately.
Reading break in a putt is directly related to the speed of the putt.    IF the speed is not a given, then the read becomes infinitely harder to determine.

It wouldn't be that hard of a greens crew either.   Just alter the height of the reels on the mowers and make sure they are randomly mown.

[DPL11]

McCloskey,

That tricking up a course, and is not a true test of golf. Wheather greens are slow or fast, they should all be the same.

Doug

[Jim Sweeney]

USGA Executive Direcor Davids Fay has been quoted as saying he believes the pros would have a toughter time making outts on slower greens.

One doesn't need to consiously trick up the course by grooming greens to be different speeds and textures. One simply needs to cut all the greens the same, but throw away the stimp meter, and let the speeds fall where they may. Every green will be slightly different in texture and speed as determined by its micro-climate.

You'd make more putts over time if every green you played on every golf course you played were smooth and 11 on the stimp.

[McCloskey]

DP11
Who made the rule that the speed needs to be the same on all greens.
The discussion, as I read it, was what can slow down the assault on par by the golf professionals.
I do not think that as a regular day to day maintenance that the green heights should be different.
I don't think that changing heights randomly is tricking the course up any more than cutting the height at speeds that are contrary to what the architect designed them to be.  Remember the 18th at Olympic and the 18th at Southern Hills for the US Open title, no less.  The speed on the green did not match with the pitch on the green that the architect presumably designed.   That is tricking up a course, and it is done all the time.
Even pin placements are part of making the course "trickier", so I don't see changing the speeds as being any different.
I am not saying a would necessarily advocate this, but I am saying that it would be the quickest way to raise scores in a professional tournament.  
Golf pros hate different green speeds.  It gives them something else to have to calcuate and the equation to make putts just got harder.

[DPL11]

McCloskey,

Who said anything about a rule? The 2 examples you bring up were extreme circumstances, and I don't think anyone (USGA, players, or audience) was all that happy with the way those 2 greens played. As a spectator, watching those 2 tournaments, I wasn't riveted by 1 green out of the whole course being slower.
Most of these old courses have been taken past their speed limit, and then you are faced with 2 options. One is to slow all the greens down to match the one or two that are unplayable, or alter the greens in question. Personally, I am not in favor of alterations to accomadate speed, but it has been done.
A course that I worked at had a green which we mowed higher, and it was still unplayable. This fall the green was altered.
IMHO, I think mis-matched speeds is goofy. There are other alternatives to bringing down scoring other than what you suggest.

Doug

[Bruce Katona]

By slowing down the speed of the greens, additional pin positions would be available in areas with more contour, making longer putts more difficult to make and bringing in the chance for a three putt.  I am not advocating tricking up courses, but many older classic courses have lost pinnable area due to increae in green speed.  Imagine for example, trying to two putt on a slow green from the valley in the 9th green at Yale.  you may have to consider piching the ball up the slope to get to a far rear pin position.

[A_Clay_Man]

A big part of this game is awareness, correct? So where did this pre-conception that, all greens must be equal, come from? Was it a natural evolution of the sport? Or the demands of the market?

In this years Open Championship I heard Tiger mention the greens inconsistency at RSG. Almost as an excuse for not putting well.

With all this talk about 400 yard drives and 10,000 yard courses juxtaposed to the .083 cor or whatever the micro side numbers are, seems like asking a pro to pay closer attention to green speeds is a frugal way to up the anti.

[DPL11]

Adam,

Would luck not play a bigger part of scoring if you, as a player, have no clue what the approx. speed is from green to green?
It doesn't say anywhere that consistant speeds is a rule, but I think different speeds throughout a course borders on unfair.
Lets take it a step further, and keep some greens hard as a rock, and others soaked. What would be the difference? It would all qualify as an unknown.

Doug

[A_Clay_Man]

I guess that's where I was going with this, Doug. Bordering on the unfair seems subjective from the players perspective considering they appear to have designed implements appropriate for the task at hand.

If the course could fight back, don't you think it would do so in this manner? Especially under budget.

[Donnie Beck]

McCloskey
I can see raising the height of cut, but different hights of cuts is definately UNFAIR

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()