Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Anthony Gray on March 19, 2012, 08:18:31 PM
-
Mike Nuzzo post on a recent thread got me thinking . Didnt we see more roller coasters in the past?
Anthony
-
Disscuss ...
Antony
-
Disscuss ...
Antony
Sure. You just don't see many courses with greens like The Castle Course. But look at those old photos and they're popular.
Manthony
-
Only at courses that have allowed the speed to take the fun out if the greens.
-
When the ball grinds to a halt going down a 4% slope because the greens 8 feet on the stimp you lose a hell of a lot of what makes the game great.
Why would anyone worry about missing right on 16 at Augusta if the greens are 8 feet?
-
I disagree. Wild greens that are unaltered are at their most fun when they are fast. I've complained about a lot of things on a lot of golf courses, but I've never complained about greens being too fast.
-
fast greens & fast fairways!!
watching people putt off greens is fun (as long as they are the 'them' and not part of 'us').
-
8) 8) 8)
I love lightning fast greens ....but the cost to maintain them is huge. Stress increases and demands tremendous oversight. Also, the scores reflect the difficulty speed brings.....fine for us purists but when our customers shoot high scores, they lose interest. So it is a slippery slope!
-
I think we are getting a little goofy with fast greens. I think the course that does it best is Scranton CC.
Anthony
-
I played in a match at Wolf Point this past Saturday with the greens no faster than 7 feet. A wet/mild winter leave the greens needing some filling in, as most everyone with bermuda in Texas is dealing with right now. Don positioned the pins in some ridiculously aggressive areas due to the speed. But one key aspect remained, the greens were very hard. I struggled with speed all day, missing A LOT of really well struck putts (inside joke).
I learned Saturday that really good players don't know how to handle slower, hard greens with lots of contour. I wonder how much easier and less expensive it is to manage Wolf's greens at 8-10 ft and keep them very firm as compared to flat, fast, soft greens that must be stressed to keep at speed.
-
>:( ;D ;D
Love them firm and medium. You got the right maintenance meld Ben!
-
I played in a match at Wolf Point this past Saturday with the greens no faster than 7 feet. A wet/mild winter leave the greens needing some filling in, as most everyone with bermuda in Texas is dealing with right now. Don positioned the pins in some ridiculously aggressive areas due to the speed. But one key aspect remained, the greens were very hard. I struggled with speed all day, missing A LOT of really well struck putts (inside joke).
I learned Saturday that really good players don't know how to handle slower, hard greens with lots of contour. I wonder how much easier and less expensive it is to manage Wolf's greens at 8-10 ft and keep them very firm as compared to flat, fast, soft greens that must be stressed to keep at speed.
You never see "ridiculous aggressive" areas used for pins on courses that stimp 11-12.
That's sad.
and Jim, I know we've discussed this before, (slow vs. fast) but does a ball really grind to a halt on a 4 % slope with the greens at 8?
(i have no idea what exactly a 4% slope is but from what I think I know ;) that's a pretty good slope)
the reason someone would worry about missing right on 16 at Augusta would be if the green(still) had enough slope to make the speed used (in this case 8 ) relevant.
When i worked at Long Cove the greens routinely ran at 8 for everyday play--I had plenty of fast/ difficult/sloping putts.
My guess is they have to use less interesting pins now.
The other thing is, if greens are designed for everyday play at 8, and the super amps them up to 10 for an event, you get something exciting and different (albeit perhaps at the loss of certain really sloped pins)
But if the greens are routinely run at 12, how useful, or fun, or different,( or possible) is it to suddenly get them 25% faster? (as the jump from 8-10 is).
and are any good pins left?
food for thought .
as Ben says, if you want to identify the good putters, slow down the greens, and use the slopes.
Those who can't hit it solid and have imagination have no chance
-
I've always felt that flatter faster greens and slower sloping greens CAN BE about the same amount of fun. Similar, just different.
Whether I fear "de-greening" a putt due to slope or speed, or both, its all about the same.
And no one has ever really been able to convince me that reading a 3" break is any easier or less fun than reading a 3 ft break. Granted, the larger breaks, if misread, probably tend to make you miss by more left and right, and I doubt that missing short or long is terribly affected by green speed (at least it isn't in my experience.....)
I have always wondered, since working with Larry "accurate long shots but average putter" Nelson instructed me to build rolling greens to "level things out for guys like me."
Just my $0.02
-
I've always felt that flatter faster greens and slower sloping greens CAN BE about the same amount of fun. Similar, just different.
Whether I fear "de-greening" a putt due to slope or speed, or both, its all about the same.
And no one has ever really been able to convince me that reading a 3" break is any easier or less fun than reading a 3 ft break. Granted, the larger breaks, if misread, probably tend to make you miss by more left and right, and I doubt that missing short or long is terribly affected by green speed (at least it isn't in my experience.....)
I have always wondered, since working with Larry "accurate long shots but average putter" Nelson instructed me to build rolling greens to "level things out for guys like me."
Jeff,
All of that may be true, or at least a matter of personal taste for the golfer-when putting.....
but, softer(because of the need to keep them alive at faster speeds), faster, and more level greens make angles for approach and recovery far less meaningful.
If I'm approaching from the right edge of the fairway a firm green with a right to left 4-7 degree slope, it's infinitely more difficult to hold that green than it is from the same distance/angle to a softer, faster green with a correspondingly less slope.
I'm making the asumption that on average, most green could be made firmer at lower speeds due to the turf being healthier, but even if the same firmness, more slope influences bad angles more-speed of greens doesn't matter until the ball is rolling (and that could be either direction once the spin hits, esp. on a softer, flatter green)
-
Jeff,
I use the cross slope on greens to make one side more or less difficult to approach from, but have never studied that aspect of it. With new USGA greens that I build (or similar) vs topsoil, I am not sure that there are softer and faster greens, are there? It would seem the longer turf would cushion shots more, but I am not sure there is enough effect to make a difference, and as architect, its beyond my control anyway.
I have studied the front to back slope of greens and found that while I would think steeper slopes would stop shots more, in essence, for average players anything over 1.25% uphill seemingly stops shots about the same, whereas less than that to flat, to reverse doesn't. For really good players, steeper slopes (over 2.25% maybe) run the risk of too much backspin, and I have seen them stop shots even on reverse slopes of 1.5% or so.
Most of my studies were on medium speed greens.
I am guessing a slight side slope would work about the same, unless you happened to hit the backside of a tier or knob that was 5-9% and I have seen those kick balls off greens. Of course, many would argue that such a back slope knob is "unfair" in how it treats a shot that hits the green, while others would consider it "rub of the green" that you wouldn't try to design out, as per other threads.....
-
Jeff,
I use the cross slope on greens to make one side more or less difficult to approach from, but have never studied that aspect of it. With new USGA greens that I build (or similar) vs topsoil, I am not sure that there are softer and faster greens, are there? It would seem the longer turf would cushion shots more, but I am not sure there is enough effect to make a difference, and as architect, its beyond my control anyway.
I have studied the front to back slope of greens and found that while I would think steeper slopes would stop shots more, in essence, for average players anything over 1.25% uphill seemingly stops shots about the same, whereas less than that to flat, to reverse doesn't. For really good players, steeper slopes (over 2.25% maybe) run the risk of too much backspin, and I have seen them stop shots even on reverse slopes of 1.5% or so.
Most of my studies were on medium speed greens.
I am guessing a slight side slope would work about the same, unless you happened to hit the backside of a tier or knob that was 5-9% and I have seen those kick balls off greens. Of course, many would argue that such a back slope knob is "unfair" in how it treats a shot that hits the green, while others would consider it "rub of the green" that you wouldn't try to design out, as per other threads.....
Jeff,
My experiences are merely anecdotal from observation of players at the facilities I've worked and my own play/travels.
I'm making 2 broad assumptions.
1. that all things equal, unless tremendoes budget differences are involved, faster greens tend to be kept softer/wetter as thinner turf/shorter cut demand a bit more water (there are of course noteable exceptions). I think this is especially true in lower budget markets where courses are competing with each other based on "fast" greens, yet limited funds-an increasingly common situation.
2. that a green approached from a poor angle is hitting a green such that the ball is in effect hitting a downslope(because of the poor angle of approach), or at best a level green.(the 5-7% right sideslope mitigates any slope toward the front that one would get from straight on)
example being well on the right side of the fairway (or rough) into a green sloped right to left. (obviously best approached from the left)
a green with 7% of right to left slope is going to repel the ball more than a green with 3-4% slope no? (even if the greens are the same firmness)
but I'm listening
-
Paradox is always fun. It takes longer for a 30 foot putt on a fast green to roll out than on a slow green. The longer you watch a ball roll the more fun the shot.
-
Paradox is always fun. It takes longer for a 30 foot putt on a fast green to roll out than on a slow green. The longer you watch a ball roll the more fun the shot.
Its more fun to be agressive.
Anthony
-
Anthony,
The opposite is true here in the Spokane area. A lot of the local courses have slowed their greens down and its taken all the fun out of it.
The most prominent example being Indian Canyon which has been fairly well documented on this site. When I first moved to Spokane, these greens stimped anywhere from 8 to 9 and they were so much fun, being old style greens with lots of break and movement. You would have 15 foot putts that had 8-9 feet of break. And you could hit low running approach shots into the green and watch the ball take crazy paths to its destination.
But this led to more 3 and 4 putts, and slower play, so they have intentionally slowed them way down to 6-7 on any given day and taken all the fun out of them. To boot, they are also bumpy, and in far worse shape than they used to be. I still get out there a few times per year, because its such a fun course to play, but I remain disappointed as they've effectively neutered one of the courses best defenses,(being short as the tips are 6300), and taken all the fun out of the greens.
-
It's difficult to have fun putting when you are decelerating with the putter all day. More fun to charge the hole.
Anthony
-
It's difficult to have fun putting when you are decelerating with the putter all day. More fun to charge the hole.
Anthony
Anthony, if you are decelerating in your forward putting stoke, then sounds like you need a putting lesson or two.. ;)
P.S. You can charge the hole on quick greens too, you just need to be prepared to face the consequences for missing.
-
Paradox is always fun. It takes longer for a 30 foot putt on a fast green to roll out than on a slow green. The longer you watch a ball roll the more fun the shot.
I'm in complete agreement.
but a green doesn't have to be "fast" to achieve that, it just needs enough slope.
I'm all for super fast putts, just not super fast greens-there is a difference
greens with a lot of slope,(not tiers but slope) at the proper speed for the slope highlight, approaches, recovery, AND make an uphill putt DRAMATICALLY different than a downhill putt- a pure test of skill that most fail, then bitch about(lack of) green speed.
-
I will admit that I see far more courses that should speed up their greens compared to courses that should slow them down, however, in most cases, there is a HUGE differential in maintenance costs. I would also say that generally speaking, the faster the greens the wetter the greens and almost to a course the wet greens eliminate the need for positional play to gain optimal approach angles. To me, perfect speed is 9 maybe 10 on firm greens with reasonable movement slopes and contours. I am very pleased to see such a push in the UK for heathland and links to become drier and firmer surfaces - this to me is the key to the best green surfaces. Speed is actually third on the list of importance behind firmness and interesting. Indeed, speed of greens is one of the most over-rated aspects of golf. I feel sorry for Supers who are on the never-ending treadmill of preparing faster and faster greens and then having to continuously fight for higher budgets. We all talk about distance being the biggest problem in golf - it aint. Maintenance costs are the biggest problem.
Ciao
-
I will admit that I see far more courses that should speed up their greens compared to courses that should slow them down, however, in most cases, there is a HUGE differential in maintenance costs. I would also say that generally speaking, the faster the greens the wetter the greens and almost to a course the wet greens eliminate the need for positional play to gain optimal approach angles. To me, perfect speed is 9 maybe 10 on firm greens with reasonable movement slopes and contours. I am very pleased to see such a push in the UK for heathland and links to become drier and firmer surfaces - this to me is the key to the best green surfaces. Speed is actually third on the list of importance behind firmness and interesting. Indeed, speed of greens is one of the most over-rated aspects of golf. I feel sorry for Supers who are on the never-ending treadmill of preparing faster and faster greens and then having to continuously fight for higher budgets. We all talk about distance being the biggest problem in golf - it aint. Maintenance costs are the biggest problem.
Ciao
ditto
-
Sean and Jeff,
I am having trouble envisioning fast and wet greens. Don't think I have ever seen one. Firm and fast I understand.
Aren't most fast greens at least a little bit dry, or more likely with USGA greens, watered precisecly to field capacity or just below? An overwatered green is rarely fast. I don't recall the USGA watering greens to speed them up, they dry them out, roll them, etc.
-
Sean and Jeff,
I am having trouble envisioning fast and wet greens. Don't think I have ever seen one. Firm and fast I understand.
Aren't most fast greens at least a little bit dry, or more likely with USGA greens, watered precisecly to field capacity or just below? An overwatered green is rarely fast. I don't recall the USGA watering greens to speed them up, they dry them out, roll them, etc.
Jeff,
Are you serious?
I can show you greens stimping 13 that leave footprints when you walk.
I can also show you greens stimping at 6 that you couldn't spike if you jumped.
Additionally I can show you greens firm and stimping 12.5
All within 5 miles of each other
The softness/wetness doesn't MAKE them fast, it's what allows them to be maintained at that height of cut or budget, or both.Or it's just to appease a membership that wants fast, yet greens that will "hold".
Firm and fast is a great ideal, but soft and fast is what you most often get. (unless you have a serious budget, climate/time of year. or a hell of a super,combined with an enlightened membership)
If given the choice, I'll take firm and medium with contour over soft and fast with or without contour.
Put another way, greens that are cut short or rolled or both to get "modern" speed tend to need more water to stay alive (all things being equal)
-
Jeff,
I'd like to see greens that are soaked that are over 10-11. I've yet to play a set of greens that were 10 or more on the stimp that weren't firm. Utah was notorious for this given thier hot summers. They would water the hell out of the greens to survive the 100+ degree heat and there wasn't any greens in the entire area that played more than a 8 the entire summer long. When it would cool off in the fall and they turned the water off and cut em lower...that's when the greens would return to being fun again.
-
Jeff,
I'd like to see greens that are soaked that are over 10-11. I've yet to play a set of greens that were 10 or more on the stimp that weren't firm. Utah was notorious for this given thier hot summers. They would water the hell out of the greens to survive the 100+ degree heat and there wasn't any greens in the entire area that played more than a 8 the entire summer long. When it would cool off in the fall and they turned the water off and cut em lower...that's when the greens would return to being fun again.
Look I'm not saying the water speeds them up, I'm saying the demand for "fast" greens has caused many courses to maintain their greens softer than they might otherwise to protect the turf while keeping them fast (ish),particularly as you say in the height of a hot summer.
I am saying with a higher height of cut that they could back off on the water and retain a bit of firmness.
Kalen I'd venture there are 80 high end courses in Metro NY that stimp above 10 with greens that are soft and heavily moisture laden in the height of a hot summer.
I'd also venture perhaps 5-10 more of them are fast AND firm due to a large budget, perfect construction, a great super, or all three at the same time of year.
Obviously not their firmest and fastest of the season, but still firmish and fast.
I'd like to see the 80 that go for fast and soft, go for firm(er) and medium, and use interesting pins while they wait for the weather to cool.
-
Fair enough Jeff,
I admitedly have played very little golf east of the Mississippi...only one course as a matter of fact.
So perhaps with the humidity they are able to maintain those shorter grass lengths. Out West it tends to be a lot drier, especially in Utah and Arizona which are very dry, so that could be the difference.
I certainly need to expand my horizons!!
-
Jeff W,
Well then, name names, please and I will go look at them.
In my experience, golf courses go to USGA or similar greens, plant the newest varieties that take low cut and are meant to be kept lean and dry, etc. Usually, the experiments to try to push, say penncross or poa to shorter cuts is short lived and unsustainable.
However, I don't get every where in the country, so I am by no means sure of my convictions here.
-
Jeff W,
Well then, name names, please and I will go look at them.
In my experience, golf courses go to USGA or similar greens, plant the newest varieties that take low cut and are meant to be kept lean and dry, etc. Usually, the experiments to try to push, say penncross or poa to shorter cuts is short lived and unsustainable.
However, I don't get every where in the country, so I am by no means sure of my convictions here.
PM on the way ;D
Many/most older courses don't have the luxury of replanting the newest varieties,but they stll have the pressure from the course down the road that does or has "faster" greens for whatever reason.
just because they're "high end" doesn't mean many aren't facing extinction and fierce competition for a shrinking pool of candidates
-
Jeff
In my experience bent greens in the summer that run fast are usually wet. Of course, you may have a different definition of wet than I do. To me, firm is when a ball hits the green it doesn't leave a mark. If a crater is created by an approach the green is wet - by definition it must be.
Ciao
-
The greens last year at Congressional were not really firm/dry; anyone know what speed they were rolling? Many courses around Washington have fast greens that, in the summer at least, are also pretty wet.
-
Sean,
Down here in TX, most bermuda greens don't show much ball marks. Greens from bents like G2 are kept pretty dry. Some ball marks, but not to the small divot category. Of course, it varies. In general, its just as hard to keep great turf in a too wet condition as it is too dry. Keeping perfect moisture is tough, I agree.
-
Many courses with bent grass in the south have fast, super soft greens May-September.
hybrid bermuda is changing that
-
Sean,
Down here in TX, most bermuda greens don't show much ball marks. Greens from bents like G2 are kept pretty dry. Some ball marks, but not to the small divot category. Of course, it varies. In general, its just as hard to keep great turf in a too wet condition as it is too dry. Keeping perfect moisture is tough, I agree.
Jeff
At least I am getting some traction with wet greens. I am finding it very difficult to believe that nearly everybody on this site hasn't encountered a great deal of wet greens in the summer - much wetter than could be explained by the weather. It is good to know different hybrids of turf are helping to rectify the situation, but again, the reason for the continued research is to create grasses that can be kept short more consistently and with less water/feed. Why? - speed. I would much rather clubs focused on firm greens and let the rest take care of itself. Unfortunately, speed is often seen as the most important feature of a green and that nearly always leads to higher maintenance costs and lower sustainability. Sure, the rich clubs can continue to re-lay their greens with the latest and greatest grass and say its money spent on a re-model, but in truth, this is money spent on maintenance. Its a cycle I am told has to end soon or we will start to see greens which are no more than 1% grade.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Down here in TX, most bermuda greens don't show much ball marks. Greens from bents like G2 are kept pretty dry. Some ball marks, but not to the small divot category. Of course, it varies. In general, its just as hard to keep great turf in a too wet condition as it is too dry. Keeping perfect moisture is tough, I agree.
Jeff
At least I am getting some traction with wet greens. I am finding it very difficult to believe that nearly everybody on this site hasn't encountered a great deal of wet greens in the summer - much wetter than could be explained by the weather. It is good to know different hybrids of turf are helping to rectify the situation, but again, the reason for the continued research is to create grasses that can be kept short more consistently and with less water/feed. Why? - speed. I would much rather clubs focused on firm greens and let the rest take care of itself. Unfortunately, speed is often seen as the most important feature of a green and that nearly always leads to higher maintenance costs and lower sustainability. Sure, the rich clubs can continue to re-lay their greens with the latest and greatest grass and say its money spent on a re-model, but in truth, this is money spent on maintenance. Its a cycle I am told has to end soon or we will start to see greens which are no more than 1% grade.
Ciao
Sean,
It's better than that, because after the money as you say is spent on "maintenance" which speeds up the greens, they then have to do a "remodel" to accomodate the new speed.
To the original question, speed has not taken the fun out of all greens, it has made many greens more fun. ;D
But it certainly has made it difficult to build fun greens at new courses and keep them at classic clubs, and it definitely has eliminated many great pins and pinnaable areas.
-
I played a fantastic set of greens this week at the Culver Academies course http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/culver-academies/ (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/culver-academies/)
The Academy does not employ a greenkeeper these days and the greens were rolling around 7 - probably about the range of speed that they rolled when they were built by Langford & Moreau in the 1920's.
There are some unbelievable slopes on those greens and even at this speed the ball was breaking, but if you got those greens up to 10 they would be world class. At 11 they might be too much for most golfers.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16492815/1.JPG)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16492815/3.JPG)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16492815/8.JPG)
A round at Culver Academies might be the closest thing you will experience to what it was like to play back in the golden age. Nothing has changed there since it was first built - except that they let the bunkers grow over with grass.
-
As I played Southampton today(what a great March ;D ;D) I thought about how fun and challenging the greens were even at the pace they were rolling which couldn't have been more than 8-9.
If they were built with a max slope of 2 degrees to accomodate "modern speeds" how much fun would they be.
Shouldn't greens be built with pinnable portions at slopes greater than that to accomodate players playing when green speeds are not at their highest?
If we build a green with a slope for speed of 12, the green's only fun at that speed.
What about early/late season, post aerification, super hot summer, or other times when greens aren't at peak speeds.
Put another way, a green with more slope that's ideal at 8-9 is going to be more often fun than a green that needs to be at its' optimal 11-12 to shine.
Why? --because it's a lot easier to consistently deliver 8,9,10 than 12 day in day out for 8 months.
-
Jeff,
For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.
So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?
If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.
-
Jeff,
For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.
So why we are rebuilding classic greens to accommodate ultra fast speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies the champion?
If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.
Hallelujah ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o
Now I've been ranting for days the mantra of firm and slow ;) without a whole lot of actual knowledge ;) ;)
but am I correct that(in general) greens maintained slower are easier to be kept firm due to less stress on the turf, therefore needing less water to get through tough periods,allowing them to be less soft?
-
The simple answer is you can have anything you want. With the newer bent grasses you can have fast and firm. With Poa you can certainly have fast, but firmness is just going to be much more expensive to maintain than it will with the newer bent grasses; tournament level firmness on Poa is effected by weather conditions.
My point is it needs to be understood that speed is not the determining factor in what truly toughens a green. Firmness has much more of an effect on scoring than speed. And I wonder: if that sensibility were more prevalent in golf would there be less pressure put on clubs to soften the slopes on greens that have great character? Would there be more of a willingness to accept a speed of say 10-11 as opposed to 11-12 if it meant saving the greens that have a lot of slope in them?
-
Jeff,
For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.
So why we are rebuilding classic greens to accommodate ultra fast speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies the champion?
If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.
Hallelujah ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o
Now I've been ranting for days the mantra of firm and slow ;) without a whole lot of actual knowledge ;) ;)
but am I correct that(in general) greens maintained slower are easier to be kept firm due to less stress on the turf, therefore needing less water to get through tough periods,allowing them to be less soft?
Jeff the tool Brad is talking about is called the TruFirm and it does a great job of telling you how firm a green is but they run about $9,000. They say that this is 100% dependent on moisture. I personally think they are concluding this without looking at all factors. What type of sand is the green built or topdressed with can make a difference in firmness and there are more that I won't bore you with.
If you cut a green shorter it typically puts more moisture stress on the green, which requires more frequent irrigation. This can be because you are stressing the turfs root system so you have to keep water in the upper root zone and as the TruFirm shows water softens greens. If your cutting higher and the plants root system is healthier you could go longer without moisture. All of that is seriously dependant on mother nature. There are newer bents or the newer bermudas that you can cut extremely low and still sustain a good root system to give you firm and fast. They are producing bent grasses such as V8 that not only tolerate .100 mowing heights but thrive on it. You would get speed and firmness if you wanted it out of a product like that.
No doubt thought, the quality of putting greens have helped tour players go lower as opposed to making a course more difficult.
-
Jeff,
For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.
So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?
If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.
If the Tour doesn't care about speed anymore, then why do their design guidelines insist that hole location areas on greens have no more than 2.25% slope? That number was derived from a green speed of 12 or 13.
-
Jeff,
For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.
So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?
If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.
If the Tour doesn't care about speed anymore, then why do their design guidelines insist that hole location areas on greens have no more than 2.25% slope? That number was derived from a green speed of 12 or 13.
We used to do a pro am the week of the buick open and for the day we would get the greens up around 13 and all the tour guys would say you could never play a tournament on greens like that. Therefore, the only option is to take the slope out of the greens. No mistake about it the tour cares about speed and the players like flat.
-
I played a fantastic set of greens this week at the Culver Academies course http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/culver-academies/ (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/culver-academies/)
The Academy does not employ a greenkeeper these days and the greens were rolling around 7 - probably about the range of speed that they rolled when they were built by Langford & Moreau in the 1920's.
There are some unbelievable slopes on those greens and even at this speed the ball was breaking, but if you got those greens up to 10 they would be world class. At 11 they might be too much for most golfers.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16492815/1.JPG)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16492815/3.JPG)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16492815/8.JPG)
A round at Culver Academies might be the closest thing you will experience to what it was like to play back in the golden age. Nothing has changed there since it was first built - except that they let the bunkers grow over with grass.
Brad good to see you, hope all is well. These pics are hillarious...to see the surroundings in March, no leaves and then you in shorts!!
-
Jeff,
For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.
So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?
If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.
Brad - I went to Culver, was on the golf team for four years and played the Academy course hundreds of times. An old Langford-Moreau course that I hope will be restored someday. The original plan was for 36 holes back in the 20's. I've been trying to track down the drawings. I'm not sure they have survived.
But to your post quoted above - fascinating. Though I'm not as sure as you are about what the survey proves. Could the fact that firmness correlates better than speed with higher scoring be simply a function of Tour players' unfamiliarity with playing firm greens?
Second, firmness and speed are not independent variables. At some point slow, hairy greens affect the roll that even a firm green gives you, no? Which is to say that the value of the PGA survey depends on green speeds being held more or less constant over the courses surveyed.
I would love to see the details of the survey. I am raising questions about it because someone will raise the similar objections at some point along the way and I hope there are good answers to those questions.
I would like to think that firmness matters more than speed. Because with firm greens the architecture of the hole matters more. Approaching a green from a wrong angle can mean death with firm greens. Defending par with fast but softer greens has the opposite effect. It diminishes the importance of architectural features.
Bob
-
Making banket statements fai to take into account variables. Type of grass (Poa, Bent, Fescue (or any combination thereof) and different strains of Bermudas. Subsoil makeup - Perched water table USGA, California, push-up with 4-6" of sand topdressing. Mowing Regime - walk or tri-plex mowed, mowing frequency, single or doube-cut, cut and rolled, rolled on non-cut days. Irrigation - totaly automatic, weatherstation/sensor controlled, sprinker syringed vs hand watered. Wind, Sunlight/shade, Trees (tree roots), and canopy temperatures can a play into how firm or soft a green is. One aspect that has gotten no talk here is that of the amount of Thatch that is present. A green can be relativey dry but have a thick thatch layer which will cause it to be soft. I have seen this with Poa greens that were maintained at double-digit speeds but easiy marked. I think top-dressing plays a role in this.
Actually, for many club members, this is the best of both worlds - fast but soft- because it is harder for them to hold shots on firm greens. But just because they are soft, it doesn't mean that they are wet.
I just saw a survey from England on golfers desires and #1 was True putts not Fast putts. Perhaps in the quest for Truer greens, they were rolled more, cut shorter to mitigate the effects of grain and topdressed more frequently to remove minor surface varients. All these tactics also lead to faster greens. And since speed is easiy to quantify, it becomes the defacto measuring tool.
-
Making banket statements fai to take into account variables. Type of grass (Poa, Bent, Fescue (or any combination thereof) and different strains of Bermudas. Subsoil makeup - Perched water table USGA, California, push-up with 4-6" of sand topdressing. Mowing Regime - walk or tri-plex mowed, mowing frequency, single or doube-cut, cut and rolled, rolled on non-cut days. Irrigation - totaly automatic, weatherstation/sensor controlled, sprinker syringed vs hand watered. Wind, Sunlight/shade, Trees (tree roots), and canopy temperatures can a play into how firm or soft a green is. One aspect that has gotten no talk here is that of the amount of Thatch that is present. A green can be relativey dry but have a thick thatch layer which will cause it to be soft. I have seen this with Poa greens that were maintained at double-digit speeds but easiy marked. I think top-dressing plays a role in this.
Actually, for many club members, this is the best of both worlds - fast but soft- because it is harder for them to hold shots on firm greens. But just because they are soft, it doesn't mean that they are wet.
I just saw a survey from England on golfers desires and #1 was True putts not Fast putts. Perhaps in the quest for Truer greens, they were rolled more, cut shorter to mitigate the effects of grain and topdressed more frequently to remove minor surface varients. All these tactics also lead to faster greens. And since speed is easiy to quantify, it becomes the defacto measuring tool.
Tom most of your points all reveal things that effect the moisture in the soil, which is what the TruFirm data points to as the overriding factor in green firmness. Perched tables, Cal greens, types of sands, Wind, Sunlight/shade which is the tree factor all point to how a green may or may not dry out or the ability of the turf manager to dry the greens out without losing turf. The same with grasses, poa needs for frequent irrigation vs bermuda etc. If a green has to much thatch you need to keep it wet all the time or it will become hydrophobic so high thatch usually means a super has to keep too much water in the system therefore it's soft. Now in the long term high thatch will lead to terrible greens so to even consider having good firm greens you need to control thatch. There is a difference too between thatch/mat and organic matter. The greens you refer to that club members like are higher organic soils not high thatch/mat. You will have a hard time mowing a green short with high thatch/mat it will just buckle and scalp. Rolling also has little effect on a high thatch greens since it's like rolling a mattress, it will bounce right back after you roll it losing most of the effect on speed and firmness from the rolling.
As far as topdressing, certain sands hold more water than others but again it all comes back to moisture. Now you could add soil to a greens mix and then roll it to compaction and get firm but your rooting is going to suffer and turf loss could occur at some point. I do think the more leaf tissue a green has the softer it will be if the soil has the same moisture as a green with shorter turf.
This topic could use a thesis to be honest ;D
-
At clubs where the tour has returned to play each year, since the TruFirm tool came out, there have been years where the greens were firmer due to drier weather conditions in the days leading up to the event. When comparing all the records that were kept on firmness, pin placements and stimpmeter speed readings, the firmness factor had the greatest overall effect on scoring. Speed just does not effect the touring pro's score like it does the average golfer. Which is why I suggest that clubs should not be too hasty to rebuild greens specifically for making them faster for hosting Tour events. Fast greens will not protect par, but firm greens can.
The PGA Tour Course Conditioning Guidelines read as follows:
“In general most Superintendents will be asked to provide consistent greenspeeds in the range of 9½ to 11 feet as measured by a USGA Stimpmeter by the end of Advance Week. This allows the PGA TOUR Rules Official to make a final determination on a tournament speed which can be adjusted up or down as required. Arbitrary and excessive greenspeeds can eliminate prime hole locations for the tournament, and this must be avoided. The Stimpmeter will be used frequently prior to and during the tournament to check the overall pace and consistency of all greens. It is essential that the prescribed greenspeed be maintained as consistently as possible during Tournament Week. Situations where the greenspeed dramatically increases or decreases in speed as the tournament progresses must be avoided. Firm, but not overly hard greens are the goal for tournament play. [emphasis mine] This may require hand watering prior to and during the event. Key staff members should be trained to recognize areas of the greens that dry out and require supplemental irrigation. The use of two SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES FIELD SCOUT TDR 300 Soil Moisture Meters and possibly a LANG PENETROMETER can assist the staff in determining how much water to apply. If conditions are extremely dry, it will probably be necessary to do some overhead watering with the automatic system during Tournament Week. This will help maintain a consistent baseline of moisture in the rootzone. The PGA TOUR Agronomist will work with the Superintendent to determine the best combination of both hand and automatic watering.”
-
At clubs where the tour has returned to play each year, since the TruFirm tool came out, there have been years where the greens were firmer due to drier weather conditions in the days leading up to the event. When comparing all the records that were kept on firmness, pin placements and stimpmeter speed readings, the firmness factor had the greatest overall effect on scoring. Speed just does not effect the touring pro's score like it does the average golfer. Which is why I suggest that clubs should not be too hasty to rebuild greens specifically for making them faster for hosting Tour events. Fast greens will not protect par, but firm greens can.
The PGA Tour Course Conditioning Guidelines read as follows:
“In general most Superintendents will be asked to provide consistent greenspeeds in the range of 9½ to 11 feet as measured by a USGA Stimpmeter by the end of Advance Week. This allows the PGA TOUR Rules Official to make a final determination on a tournament speed which can be adjusted up or down as required. Arbitrary and excessive greenspeeds can eliminate prime hole locations for the tournament, and this must be avoided. The Stimpmeter will be used frequently prior to and during the tournament to check the overall pace and consistency of all greens. It is essential that the prescribed greenspeed be maintained as consistently as possible during Tournament Week. Situations where the greenspeed dramatically increases or decreases in speed as the tournament progresses must be avoided. Firm, but not overly hard greens are the goal for tournament play. [emphasis mine] This may require hand watering prior to and during the event. Key staff members should be trained to recognize areas of the greens that dry out and require supplemental irrigation. The use of two SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES FIELD SCOUT TDR 300 Soil Moisture Meters and possibly a LANG PENETROMETER can assist the staff in determining how much water to apply. If conditions are extremely dry, it will probably be necessary to do some overhead watering with the automatic system during Tournament Week. This will help maintain a consistent baseline of moisture in the rootzone. The PGA TOUR Agronomist will work with the Superintendent to determine the best combination of both hand and automatic watering.”
Good stuff Brad.
-
Aaron,
I just checked my notes from a talk that was given by the PGA Tour Agronomist last fall at Medinah and he indicated that:
- fast greens make a course easier because now we have to use flat and easy pin positions
- at repeat events scores do not go up or down per speed but they do per firmness
- the relationship between dry and hard, or wet and soft is not always correlated (this is because the faster you put water on a green the softer it gets)
-
Aaron,
I just checked my notes from a talk that was given by the PGA Tour Agronomist last fall at Medinah and he indicated that:
- fast greens make a course easier because now we have to use flat and easy pin positions
- at repeat events scores do not go up or down per speed but they do per firmness
- the relationship between dry and hard, or wet and soft is not always correlated (this is because the faster you put water on a green the softer it gets)
Brad I agree with your first two points but watching the TruFirm device the only thing that changes the reading is water. It didn't matter how the water was applied but as soon as any moisture was added to the system the green became less firm.
-
Aaron,
As I recall he indicated that applying water to the soil with a hose and nozzle, over say a 10 minute period, does less to compromise firmness than overhead sprinklers applying the the equivalent volume of water in 3 minutes. Presumably this is because the water has more time to penetrate.
-
Aaron,
As I recall he indicated that applying water to the soil with a hose and nozzle, over say a 10 minute period, does less to compromise firmness than overhead sprinklers applying the the equivalent volume of water in 3 minutes. Presumably this is because the water has more time to penetrate.
Absolutely true, but it's also dependent on perc rate. 10 minutes vs. 3 minutes of same quantity won't mean a thing if the soil doesn't have enough macro pores. Hand watering is the secret of the golf courses that have the time and manpower to do it. Green + firm with anything over 10ft just isn't realistic for most courses. So they concede firm conditions in order to get green and fast, which makes most recreational golfers happy.
-
Aaron,
As I recall he indicated that applying water to the soil with a hose and nozzle, over say a 10 minute period, does less to compromise firmness than overhead sprinklers applying the the equivalent volume of water in 3 minutes. Presumably this is because the water has more time to penetrate.
Absolutely true, but it's also dependent on perc rate. 10 minutes vs. 3 minutes of same quantity won't mean a thing if the soil doesn't have enough macro pores. Hand watering is the secret of the golf courses that have the time and manpower to do it. Green + firm with anything over 10ft just isn't realistic for most courses. So they concede firm conditions in order to get green and fast, which makes most recreational golfers happy.
it depends on what level of consistency your attempting to reach. All I was saying is moisture content is the total driving force of firmness. I saw the data from the US Womens Open at Interlachen and the back nine was consistently softer than the front. When they watched the two employees hand water greens the guy on the front was holding a hose perpendicular to the ground and going back and forth across the green once. The guy on the back was hold his nozzle down and moving quickly across the green going back and forth once. The total difference in water was very small. However, the TruFirm was pouring out data showing the back nine softer than the front. Now can an average golfer tell the difference probably not but the tour players could.
-
Brad - I went to Culver, was on the golf team for four years and played the Academy course hundreds of times. An old Langford-Moreau course that I hope will be restored someday. The original plan was for 36 holes back in the 20's. I've been trying to track down the drawings. I'm not sure they have survived.
But to your post quoted above - fascinating. Though I'm not as sure as you are about what the survey proves. Could the fact that firmness correlates better than speed with higher scoring be simply a function of Tour players' unfamiliarity with playing firm greens?
Second, firmness and speed are not independent variables. At some point slow, hairy greens affect the roll that even a firm green gives you, no? Which is to say that the value of the PGA survey depends on green speeds being held more or less constant over the courses surveyed.
I would love to see the details of the survey. I am raising questions about it because someone will raise the similar objections at some point along the way and I hope there are good answers to those questions.
I would like to think that firmness matters more than speed. Because with firm greens the architecture of the hole matters more. Approaching a green from a wrong angle can mean death with firm greens. Defending par with fast but softer greens has the opposite effect. It diminishes the importance of architectural features.
Bob
Bob, My son goes to Grace College in Winona Lake and we drive by Culver on the way to his school so this time we stopped to play it. I met the golf coach and he indicated that they are talking to Bobby Weed about restoring it. All of the features are there untouched. I honestly think it could be amazing if it were restored properly. Thats pretty cool that you were able to play there. And the school looks like a great institution.
-
Brad -
I have great affection for the Culver course. At some point early in my teenage years it was deemed best that I attend military school. Culver is in the middle of nowhere, so there were few opportunities for any serious mischief. It has/had a wonderful academic faculty who inspired me to read books. What kept me sane, however, was the little nine hole golf course.
I played at every opportunity, which at a military school didn't come around as often as I would have liked. To get there from the campus you hiked along one side of Lake Maxinkuckee then up a narrow path through a thick woods. When you emerged from the woods, crossed a road and climbed a steep embankment, the course suddenly appeared and all was right with the world.
I'm happy to hear the course is holding its own. I saw it last about 15 years ago and it looked a little dog-eared. I am aware of the restoration efforts, but I'm not sure where they stand. I hope they find the L/M drawings and have the resources to build another nine from their plans.
Is Tony Mayfield still the golf coach? If so, give him my best.
Bob