[BCrosby]

There is an axiom somewhere that says only fast greens provide a real test. That fast greens equal good greens.

I've never understood why that has to be true. Heck, I've never even heard the notion debated.

In Golf My Way, Nicklaus says that he putts much better on fast greens. He says he generally putts poorly on slow greens.

I feel the same  way. I have had more bad putting rounds on slow greens than on fast greens.  The hardest putt in golf is a 5 footer on a slow green. It is harder, I believe, than a nasty downhill putt on a fast green.

So tell me again why it is so important to keep green speeds fast. Is it a prestige thing? Is Nicklaus misguided?

The issue wouldn't matter so much except that modern green speeds are one of the reasons that contouring on older courses is being flatttened. In light of that on-going destruction, there better be one whale of a good reason for maintaining high stimp numbers on those older courses.

I'm having trouble figuring out what that reason might be.

Might courses like Crystal Downs, Merion, Oakmont, ANGC actually be more challenging if their green speeds were kept slow? At the speeds of, say, thirty years ago? There is no question that they were not designed for the speeds at which they maintain their greens now.

Bob

[THuckaby2]

Bob:

Great question.

My feeling is that most golfers putt worse on slow greens because in general, slow = bumpy and fast = smooth and true.  Bumpy greens make putting just plain luck, as you know, and smooth greens means at the very least the ball goes where you intended it, so if you miss, there's only one person to blame.  

So I believe that at first, when it became known how to more easily maintain faster greens, courses did so because the greens became SMOOTHER, and it's hard for anyone to be against that.

But over time, the green speed arms raced started, and now we are where we are, with infinite putting scenarios at places like Pasatiempo.

Why did this happen?  You got me.  Maybe it's because of the fame places like Oakmont and Augusta achieved for having lightning fast greens... people want to try and copy the best... you know, the famed Augusta Effect....

But I too wonder why faster = better to the extreme.  Yes, smoother = better, and smoother generally = faster... but there remains no good reason to take this to a silly extreme.  A well-maintained green stimping at 8 or 9 is no less smooth and putts no less true than one stimping at 11 or 12.

And of course, as with many other issues discussed here, I could be completely off my rocker.  

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Pasa is is great example.

A reason for my post is that I have never even heard the issue discussed. The more I thought about it, the less I understood why all "good" greens must always be fast greens.

One plausible rationale is that fast greens are harder to hold with approach shots. While that is often true, I don't think it is necessarily true. For example, the Open was played on many unirrigated courses over the years. The courses were hard as rocks. But I would guess that the greens on those British courses never stimped higher that a 9. At least that's what it looks like on TV. The greens were hard to hold yet not "fast" by any modern standard.

The other sustaining myth is that faster greens are tougher to putt, and thus help defend par. That may be true for the average golfer. Or the golfer who doesn't play regularly. But my guess is that the opposite is true for a Tour player. And at least one fairly prominent one has said he feels that way.

So I don't get it.

Bob    

[A.G._Crockett]

Bob,
I know you're an Atlanta guy, so you probably have a fair amount of experience (or more!) going from bent to bermuda and back.  I've always felt that it is much, much easier to go from slow greens to fast than vice versa, and my theory is that it has to do with grain.  Most golfers who play their golf on bent grass greens (a.k.a., faster) are used to reading slopes and trying to "die" putts.  On bermuda, where grain is often more important than slope and die putting is a good way to die, the majority of golfers really struggle.  Accounting for grain is just really difficult for most of us.

Rather than the degree of difficulty, though, I would guess that it is more of a preference on the part of most golfers,  once they make the initial adjustments.  I think good bent grass greens are just much more fun to play on that bermuda.

[rgkeller]

IMO, firm, even hard, greens and medium speeds offer the best test of a golfer's skill and highlight an architect's ability to present challenging yet solvable problems.

[THuckaby2]

I really don't get it either, Bob.  Oh sure, silly-fast greens can protect par if they are combined with large amounts of contour - think back pin on 11 Pasa, with the green stimping at over 10... but that is not golf, that's absurdity.  And since that absurdity is generally recognized, there's a limit that most will go to in terms of course set up - remember how decried the pin position on 18 Olympic Lake was in the Open, when Stewart's putt wouldn't stay by the hole - so the end result is that fast greens never hurt the good golfer - they are smoother and truer and thus allow for more putts to go in.

I've always thought if they really wanted to protect par, make the greens stimp at 2.  Luck will be a huge issue, as will chipping ability!

In any case you're also right on re the links of the UK - it's funny how they play firm and slow (relative to most US greens).

So ok, that was three paragraphs worth of more speculation and questions, no answers.  I sure as heck don't get this either and if someone could explain it I'd love it!

TH

[Joe Hancock]

If we can dismiss variables such as grain and bumpiness/ smoothness for a moment....

To me, the most difficult putting is when you have to rely on your putting stroke. On slow greens, hitting the sweet spot is more difficult and more important than when on fast greens.

Could just be me though.....

Joe

[THuckaby2]

Joe:

Good point - yes, the more a strike is required, the more the better-skilled putter will prevail, for exactly the reason you state.

BUT... I don't think one can dismiss the smoothness issue.  On a bumpy green, all skill is thrown out the window for the most part - you are in the hands of the golf gods as to whether the putt goes in, or hits the wrong side of the bump and is deflected off.

Funny thing is, most links greens over there are slow and smooth also....

Is this yet another issue on which they have it right and we Americans have it wrong?  

TH

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,

You have clearly picked the point of my post out of the rubble. The putting stroke becomes the issue when the comparison is fast vs. slow greens, IMO. I also believe it's an American thing that makes us think that slow and bumpy go hand in hand....because they do for the most part. If a club goes to the effort to create smooth greens, more often than not they want them fast as well. I can't think of a course that promotes smooth and slow greens....

I think of Ben Crenshaw when pondering great putters. I would guess he hits the sweet spot of his putter more often than most anyone else that played the game.

Interesting, Tom, that you mention we Americans might have it wrong, while "they" have it right. I've never been "there", but do they do slow and smooth? Is it a better test of putting ability, as I suspect it would be?

Joe

[Jim_Kennedy]

BCrosby,
The fast greens at Augusta might offer a partial answer to your question. They make the players cautious, even on uphill putts, and caution doesn't encourage a free stroke.
Another partial answer might be recovery shots that won't allow the player to apply the necessary spin. A pitch from light rough, a semi-buried bunker shot, a downhill chip, etc..
Those shots are a lot less dangerous when played to slower greens.

[Joe Hancock]

Well crap, Jim. There you go throwing another element into this....highly contoured greens and the fear factor! I thought I had it all figured out....

Joe

[THuckaby2]

Joe:

I don't know if the great links "promote" this - I just think it's part of their reality... Someone like Rich Goodale can likely correct me, but I don't remember many really fast greens over there, not fast like they can get here anyway.  But I also don't remember many bumpy greens either... Each time I've played over there I do marvel at firm greens that putt relatively slow.  But it could just be me!

It also could just be the nature of fescue...

But I am just guessing, speaking from recollection with absolutely no expertise on any of this.  

And Jim, yep, you sure have thrown another variable into this mix.  Slower would make shots around the green such as you state less scary.  But FIRMNESS has a lot to do with that also... A fast yet soft green will never be that scary for any of those shots, because you know the softness of the green will allow the ball to stop.  A firm green would entail that first large bounce would could most definitely screw things up, even if the subsequent roll is shorter....

Damn none of this is ever all that easy!  

TH

[BCrosby]

A.G. -

I too really struggle with grain in Bermuda and I grew up on the stuff. Yes, some people do putt better on slow greens. But why is it always the case that all tournaments all the time try to set up fast greens? Without exception.

In other words, why has the fast greens = good greens axiom escaped analysis for so long?

rgkeller

Well said. Couldn't agree with you more. There is a combination of hard surfaces and "normal" green speeds that is the way good courses are supposed to play. It is a delicate balance. And if it gets out of wack, shot qualities get loopy.

(Though there are some not so good courses where it may not matter much.)

Tom -

Crystal Downs is another example where modern notions of fast/good greens have rendered an otherwise magnificent course into something like a circus funhouse.

A tournament played at a stimp of 2 is a great idea. (Isn't that about the speed of a good fairway?)

Bob    

[THuckaby2]

Bob - I had heard that about Crystal Downs.  Man, I belabor the point all the time on here about "infinite putting" and it remains as much of a mystery now as when I first thought about it, quite a few years ago now.  The fact that great courses like Pasa and CD fall prey to it just makes it all the more baffling - you'd think they'd know better!

Thankfully it seems they are seeing the light at Pasa - when we did the NCGA rating there in early October, green speeds were given to us by the super as being not off the charts fast, as they had been before... and all my experiences playing there over the last 2-3 years have shown this is true also... goofy golf seems to be going by the wayside there.

TH

[BCrosby]

Jim -

Yes, holding recoveries and putts on downslopes is harder on fast greens.

But my instincts tell me that that difficulty is counter-balanced on slower greens by the increased difficulty of short putts. A four or five foot putt (that is, the length putt left after a decent chip or long approach putt) is harder to make than a putt of similar length on a fast green. (The increased break you have to play on fast greens, notwithstanding.)

Why is that the case? Because you need a bigger, longer stroke on slower greens and that introduces more errors of execution. I think that is what Nicklaus is getting at.

Again, the above is just my instincts talking. I have no independent, empirical evidence to back up any of it.

There is one way you could test this, however. ANGC went from Bermuda to bent in the late 1970's. I wonder if putts per round went up or down?

Bob
 

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I hate putting and its half the game!  Give me firm, medium speed greens so that hole multiple hole placements can be used without creating absurdity!  This also creates greater short game difficulty for those of us missing putting surfaces.

Somehow we must get away from these ridiculous green speeds!

[LKoonce]

Part of the tendency towards lightning-fast greens has clearly been caused by use of the Mr. Stimpson's device as a comparative measure between courses, which when taken to the extreme is ludicrous on its face because IT ONLY MEASURES ONE VARIABLE.  (Similar to the concept of comparing the merits of different courses by only comparing length.)  

I think the following article (from Grounds Maintenance magazine) is worth reading in its entirety on this topic.  In particular, the author's analogy with respect to course comparisons is spot on, so I've quoted it after the link:

http://grounds-mag.com/ar/grounds_maintenance_tools_trade/

"Let's face it: It is hard to resist the temptation to compare golf courses, and it is exceedingly hard to comprehend why a green speed of 10 feet at one golf course should not be compared to a 10-foot green speed at another golf course. So in an attempt to explain why green speeds should not be compared from course to course, I offer the following analogy.

A lone driver on a western desert road delights at the wide-open spaces and the exhilarating feeling of driving 80 mph while driving toward a distant majestic mountain range.

As the driver approaches the base of the mountain range, the road begins to have long sloping curves as the flat surface of the desert begins to be left behind. As the driver gets closer still to the mountains, there are hills and valleys incorporated with the long sloping curves.

Finally, the driver enters the mountain pass where numerous treacherous hairpin turns dictate that one miscue at the wheel could result in a fatal error. At this point, the thought of 80 mph is long gone, but the exhilaration of the drive has not diminished. In fact, some would say the true exhilaration and test of driving skills are found in the mountain pass.

It is true that 80 mph is 80 mph is 80 mph, but that does not mean that driving a car at 80 mph is always warranted. In fact, 35 mph on the hairpin curves of the mountain pass may actually be more exhilarating and may indeed even seem faster than the 80 mph experience on the flat desert road."

[DPL11]

One factor about fast vs. slow greens is the ability to read greens. Slow greens=higher turf=greater friction=less break. When putting fast greens, a lot more emphasis is needed on proper reads. A slow green becomes a bang it and hope, where fast surfaces allow all the contours to persuade a putt to get off line.
Fast greens bring out the better readers of greens, and the more rounded players.  

Doug

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()