Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jerry Kluger on June 13, 2016, 05:01:55 PM
-
It has been reported that Mike Davis wants to get the greens at Oakmont running at 14 feet for the US Open and to me this really hurts the game. It makes other courses try and see how fast they can make their greens even if they were never designed with those speeds in mind. I know of courses that have taken interesting contours out of their greens during renovations just so they can find hole locations for the high green speeds that the members want. Personally, I love greens that have really significant contours and there is no need for them to run at incredibly high speeds. I have to imagine that architects take into account the expected green speeds in designing courses today but my fear is that the demand for the high speeds make the game so difficult that we will lose players.
-
Jerry,
in this case he is probably trying to slow the greens down.http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif
-
Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.
-
Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.
ditto. i've worked an many clubs and played many more where the green speeds are far too fast for both the slopes on the greens and also for the golfers attempting to putt on them! It's become "chic" to make your club golfers look silly by three and four putting ten times a round. Congrats!!!!!
-
Like anything else in golf, there's a place for greens running 15, just as there's a place for greens with wild slopes. All things in moderation.
The problem arises in that so many courses are lemming-like in their efforts to replicate these kinds of things.
But I don't think we can blame Oakmont for that (which is not to say that you were doing so, Jerry).
-
Where exactly is there a place for greens stimping at 15? Maybe for a superintendent's revenge outing, but for everyday or tournament play, that's utterly ridiculous.
-
Where exactly is there a place for greens stimping at 15? Maybe for a superintendent's revenge outing, but for everyday or tournament play, that's utterly ridiculous.
Oakmont, for one. It seems to be working pretty well there. I don't hear their members complaining.
-
I stand corrected. I didn't know a drone also carried a microphone to pick up member commentary.
In tournament golf, however, those speeds are untenable.
-
I stand corrected. I didn't know a drone also carried a microphone to pick up member commentary.
In tournament golf, however, those speeds are untenable.
I'm not really sure I understand your remark about the drone microphone, but in any event, you asked me "where, exactly, is there a place for greens stimping at 15." My point is simply that there seems to be a place for them at Oakmont, given that they've been maintained that way for quite some time, and the members of the club who, presumably, play the golf course rather often, have decided that they like it that way. Clearly, those speeds are tenable for everyday play there.
Whether they're tenable for tournament play isn't relevant to my point, which is simply that the problems arise when courses and clubs without the ability to replicate those conditions or the greens on which they work attempt to mimic them.
-
Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.
Come on now Jerry, I tried to put a smiley face at the end.
-
I said I stand corrected in response to your comment that Oakmont maintains green speeds at 15 for member play. I have not played Oakmont, so I will take your word for it. I still think it's rather ridiculous, but it's their course and their choice.
My point, which was the point of the thread, I believe, is that ramping up green speeds in tournament play is untenable because (a) it leads to unrealistic expectations amongst golfers to expect similar speeds at their own courses, and (b) the field will not finish play in less that 5 hours.
-
I don't disagree with either of those things, Brian. I just don't think we can blame the club for what others decide to do or expect at their own courses as a result.
I think that's better aimed at the organization running the events, the golfers whose expectations for their own clubs don't line up with reality, and the clubs that don't seem to be able to grasp that what may work for Oakmont on a daily basis (tournament or not) almost certainly won't work at theirs.
-
jerry,
The members like their course hard. The pros play the same course except for the rough.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/head-pro-oakmont-course-difficulty-pros-and-members/ (http://www.golfchannel.com/media/head-pro-oakmont-course-difficulty-pros-and-members/)
-
What fools they are! Do they not know that faster greens are easier for the top players? That a ball is more likely to go in on a faster green.
They should listen to Peter Thomson who said in his interview on the website
'Observing professional golf, I have noticed that slow greens are more difficult to putt on. How often do you hear players complain about slow greens, saying they couldn’t get the play up to the hole. And if slow greens are a problem to deal with, then that’s what we should have when there is a championship.'
Alas, the people in charge are so convinced in their doctrine 'fast is hard' they fail to see the truth staring them in the face.
-
Isn't 'trueness of roll' more what we should be trying to achieve?
As to pace, a point I'd like to make is that the slower the greens the more 'hit' is required in a putt and more 'hit' tends to mean a greater number of less than perfect strikes, which is maybe where Peter Thomson is coming from.
Another couple of aspects worth mentioning -
- the loft on modern putters is less than in the old days when slower greens were the norm.
- if greens had always been slow we might not have seen the long-putter and anchoring debate - it's pretty difficult to hit long slow putt with a long-anchored putter, maybe more chance of hitting your foot than the ball (sic).
Atb
-
I don't disagree with either of those things, Brian. I just don't think we can blame the club for what others decide to do or expect at their own courses as a result.
I think that's better aimed at the organization running the events, the golfers whose expectations for their own clubs don't line up with reality, and the clubs that don't seem to be able to grasp that what may work for Oakmont on a daily basis (tournament or not) almost certainly won't work at theirs.
I agree Jon. I have never been a fan of concluding that just because Oakmont has fast greens, or Augusta has its particular conditioning, that it "makes" other clubs try to replicate them. A club will try or not based on their own choices. If a greens chairman or membership decides to speed up their greens strictly because Oakmont has fast greens, I say shame on them. My seven year old daughter tries to justify things by saying "Well Abby does it!" My response is "I don't care what Abby does." Why can't clubs have the same response?
My club would never try to get the greens faster than about a 10...some greens are so sloped that it wouldn't work. We strive for pure, smooth greens, like Thomas mentioned. And to list another club where ultra-fast greens work, I played Chicago GC a few years ago with Mr. Shean, and they were rolling at a 15 (the week of the Ryder Cup). He said it doesn't get there very often, but when they do the membership enjoys it.
-
;D
Jerry, I've only played Oakmont once but that day the greens were perfect and really , really fast. It's been said that they might be more than fourteen on the stimp for daily play and its most likely a true fact . There was lots of golf,on the course that day and our pace of play was quite good. This club does it right on a daily basis !
Sure you can make an argument that speed kills pace of play , but its more about the mindset of the player . The slowest players we see are those that aren't ready to play , talk incessantly with their partner or caddy , or have ridiculously elaborate pre-shot routines. Green speed can certainly contribute to slower play , but its far from the number one culprit.
If the costs of maintaining is the issue , you've got a good point for the average club.
-
A green rolling and playable at 15 is either a
myth
fantasy
flat
or a boring pin
But most likely a myth.
Just disturbing when leaders of organizations perpetuate myths by throwing out stupid stimp
numbers
-
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.
Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.
Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.
I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.
-
A green rolling and playable at 15 is either a
myth
fantasy
flat
or a boring pin
But most likely a myth.
Just disturbing when leaders of organizations perpetuate myths by throwing out stupid stimp
numbers
A bit of personal experience might be of interest to some:
After a few days of rain and foggy conditions, the sun and wind returned to Olympia Fields in time for weekend play at the 2003 US Open. As grounds chair, I watched the USGA oversee double cutting and triple rolling of the greens and saw the Stimpmeter reading of 15 which necessitated some alterations of hole locations owing to excessive slope. In that event, they simply tucked the hole as near a greenside bunker as possible. The low scores went bye bye and only three players broke par for the championship. It's all about the setup decisions. Had they not cut the rough to three inches the green speeds may not have gotten that fast.
-
I've seen you say this before Judge and it's so disappointing that the USGA cannot maintain the foresight to prepare a course as they want and the courage of their convictions to carry it through. From a more distant position, I witnessed similar insecurity at Shinnecock in 2004(?).
Set a plan appropriate for the course, stick to it and let the chips fall where they may.
-
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.
Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.
Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.
I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.
What Jim Sullivan said!
It would be nice to see the chips fall where they may indeed.
and I am a big fan of continuing to play championships at classic courses
Sam,
i think everyone here agrees with your sentiment-that fast putts are fun and an integral challenge-and that greens come alive at a higher pace.
It's just that what is fast?
10? 12? 15? It all depends on the slopes and contours of the greens
at some point, all greens and more quickly-many pins-become unuseable.
and as stimps rise, greens(by redesign) and hole locations(by setup) have to get flatter-see Terry Lavin's post
What's scarier and harder to judge?
a 6 degree slope down to a hole cut on a 3 degree slope that is barely tapped?(on a green stimping 9)
or a 2 degree slope down to a hole on a 1 % slope that is stroked at the same pace (on a green stimping 13-I refuse to deal with fantasy 15 numbers ::) ::) [size=78%])[/size]
Much harder to make that judgement when on the previous hole you were putting uphill at the speed of the first example (stimp 9)
-
I had a young man tell me that there is no such thing as a green that's too fast, no matter how much slope there is in the green...he thinks all greens should be above 16 on the stimp, no matter what it would do to people's scores and pace of play.
The horror...the horror....
-
I can't imagine 15 stimp...it doesn't compute for a guy who thinks 11 is fast if the greens have any interest at all and if they are anything close to firm. That said, would think the faster the greens, the less rough there should be around greens. If an interesting green is stimping 12 and the typical US rough surrounding the surface is employed...it would become very boring very quickly trying to hit high lob shots for every recovery when most of us don't have that skill to dig balls out of 2 inches of rough and land softly.
I disagree with the concept of 15 stimp, or 14 or 13 or 12, but there is no way its Oakmont's fault if clubs go that route.
Ciao
-
My experience with a 15 stimp was, as mentioned earlier, at Chicago GC a few years ago. When I first stepped on the putting green, I could tell they were very fast. I tossed a ball down, picked out a hole about 25 feet away, and figured I had to hit it very soft. I tried my best, and it still went at least 15 feet by. That was Wednesday of Ryder Cup week, and my host said they were measured at 15 that Monday. I obviously have no first-hand knowledge on its authenticity, but I think my host is a very respected guy whom I have no reason to doubt.
It took a while, but I got used to the speed. And after a few holes, I quite honestly didn't think about it. I just got the feel for how hard to hit each putt, and it seemed to work out. After a bogey on #1, I parred 2-8, so it is doable on those greens with those speeds. I have never played Oakmont, so I can't say if their greens are sloped more or less than CGC. But on the day I played CGC, the green speeds were acceptable. You just can't let your guard down on any putt, especially a down hill putt. And Sean...when I think of it, I realize I got up-and-down for pars from short grass, not rough around the green (with the exception of back-right behind the 8th). I seemed to miss short if I missed, and therefore didn't have to contend with much greenside rough. Probably one of the reasons why I was okay with the speeds.
-
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.
Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.
Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.
I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.
Sam,
the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.
Jon
-
My experience with a 15 stimp was, as mentioned earlier, at Chicago GC a few years ago. When I first stepped on the putting green, I could tell they were very fast. I tossed a ball down, picked out a hole about 25 feet away, and figured I had to hit it very soft. I tried my best, and it still went at least 15 feet by. That was Wednesday of Ryder Cup week, and my host said they were measured at 15 that Monday. I obviously have no first-hand knowledge on its authenticity, but I think my host is a very respected guy whom I have no reason to doubt.
It took a while, but I got used to the speed. And after a few holes, I quite honestly didn't think about it. I just got the feel for how hard to hit each putt, and it seemed to work out. After a bogey on #1, I parred 2-8, so it is doable on those greens with those speeds. I have never played Oakmont, so I can't say if their greens are sloped more or less than CGC. But on the day I played CGC, the green speeds were acceptable. You just can't let your guard down on any putt, especially a down hill putt. And Sean...when I think of it, I realize I got up-and-down for pars from short grass, not rough around the green (with the exception of back-right behind the 8th). I seemed to miss short if I missed, and therefore didn't have to contend with much greenside rough. Probably one of the reasons why I was okay with the speeds.
Oddly enough I played that very day at CGC and I can report that the greens were in fact running at 15. I played with my good friend, Bill Shean, the legendary amateur who won the US and Senior Amateur championships. I think the superintendent was showing off a little bit because of all of the international visitors and the greens went over the edge. It happens. I four-putted from 20 feet on the first hole and Jeff Rude, then of Golfweek, putted into a bunker on 10 from 15 feet away from the hole. The putt rolled another thirty feet into the bunker. Crossing over the line into the land of random break and random heartbreak is something that doesn't happen all that often, but when it occurs in a national championship (Shinny, Olympic, Pebble, Pinehurst) it is entirely regrettable, because it's usually entirely avoidable.
-
I think the most interesting point about the green speeds at Oakmont is that the putting surfaces consist of a form of poa that is native to Oakmont and has been maintained at the highest speeds possible for as long as anyone can remember. Therefore, the poa has become a strain of grass that can allow for such incredible green speeds on a daily basis. I remember reading somewhere else that they once tried to transplant/harvest some of the poa to see if they could replicate it someplace else, but it has never worked.
-
the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.
Jon--
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
I generally concur that there are hole locations that work at slower speeds but not at faster ones, but I will say such a phenomenon seems extraordinarily infrequent to me. I look at courses like Oakmont, Augusta and Winged Foot and can't recall really any hole locations that were formerly usable and now no longer are. I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but if they have lost hole locations I really haven't noticed.
That having been said, I know Augusta regrades their green complexes rather frequently so I wouldn't rule out there being some flattening going on there between seasons to preserve the more contour-heavy hole positions. For example, I know Jack had to redo the 9th green at some point in order to flatten out some of the steeper areas.
As far as your second point goes--while I do agree the slower ball does widen the hole (ever so slightly), the similarly slow moving ball is so much more significantly impacted by contour. Therefore, the dramatically narrowed margin of error inherent in the required harmonization of speed/line seems (to me) to outpace the slightly widened margin of error on lip outs/ins.
I can certainly say that if I had to make a 10 foot putt to save my mother's life, I would SO much rather it be on a slow (but true) left center putt (that I can hit basically any speed I want) than a lightening fast putt I have to play six inches outside the left edge and make sure I give juuuuust the right amount of weight to take juuuuuuust the right amount of break.
Just my opinion, but if you backed Oakmont off to 9/10 on the stimp you might be able to squeeze out a few extra hole locations but would do so at the expense of what ought to be a wonderful test to watch on/around the greens.
-
Sam,
it is basic laws of physics. The lower the resistance the less slope required to keep the ball rolling. As soon as the ball can not come to rest on a slope it is an unpinable slope. The examples of courses flattening their greens to cope with high stimp readings are many and well documented. Higher stimping green are by necessity flatter and therefore do not break more than a slower greens of equal influence. If I had a 10 foot putt that broke by 6" I would rather have it stimping at 15 than 5.
-
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.
Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.
Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.
I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.
Sam,
the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.
Jon
Jon - Please explain that part about good players, fast greens, and NO CHALLENGE again ... I'm getting a good laugh.
-
A green rolling and playable at 15 is either a
myth
fantasy
flat
or a boring pin
But most likely a myth.
Just disturbing when leaders of organizations perpetuate myths by throwing out stupid stimp
numbers
I agree with this.
I truly believe green speeds are almost always estimated about 1.5 too fast. Greens at 12.5 are really almost a startling fast speed for 90% of golfers.
Part of the reason for this is it's to the benefit of Supers and Pros to often mislead the membership about the speed of the greens. Easier to just say the number is higher than it is than to educate in most cases.
-
This thread again...
There's 1500 people on the internet that will scream until their faces are blue are too fast.
And then there's the rest of the golfing population that will scream until their faces are blue that greens are too slow.
-
A green rolling and playable at 15 is either a
myth
fantasy
flat
or a boring pin
But most likely a myth.
Just disturbing when leaders of organizations perpetuate myths by throwing out stupid stimp
numbers
A bit of personal experience might be of interest to some:
After a few days of rain and foggy conditions, the sun and wind returned to Olympia Fields in time for weekend play at the 2003 US Open. As grounds chair, I watched the USGA oversee double cutting and triple rolling of the greens and saw the Stimpmeter reading of 15 which necessitated some alterations of hole locations owing to excessive slope. In that event, they simply tucked the hole as near a greenside bunker as possible. The low scores went bye bye and only three players broke par for the championship. It's all about the setup decisions. Had they not cut the rough to three inches the green speeds may not have gotten that fast.
I don't dispute this, or the CG hitting speeds of 15 during the Ryder Cup. I believe the fastest greens I've ever played were just a touch under 13 in the State Am Qualifier in summer 2010 at Pekin CC. I played within 20 days of playing Olympia Fields, The Bev, and Westmoreland under normal conditions, and it was such a shock to my system that I had the same experience David had at Chicago golf. Dropped a ball on the putting green, realized they were going to be fast, and proceeded to hit a put from 15 feet about 3X that distance off the green.
-
Isn't 'trueness of roll' more what we should be trying to achieve?
Yes, but outside of Scotland I've seen very few greens that are "slow but true". In the US, slow greens always seem to be crappy. Is that because of the grass, because greens are slow due to lower quality/cheaper maintenance practices, or other reasons. I have no idea.
My argument is this. When a ball is rolling on the green, all it sees is gravity and friction. If you have less friction (higher stimp) then more gravity (high slope) will give you the same exact effect. If it was possible for greens to stimp at 20, they would need to have extremely gentle slopes or they would be unplayable. If you have true greens stimping at 5, you'd need extremely steep slopes to make it fun.
Now step back and imagine you missed that green, and are playing chip/pitch from 50 feet, with 20 feet of green to work with. Which green is going to be more interesting and provide more options? The pancake green that stimps at 20, or the wildly sloped green that stimps at 5?
-
I think the most interesting point about the green speeds at Oakmont is that the putting surfaces consist of a form of poa that is native to Oakmont and has been maintained at the highest speeds possible for as long as anyone can remember. Therefore, the poa has become a strain of grass that can allow for such incredible green speeds on a daily basis. I remember reading somewhere else that they once tried to transplant/harvest some of the poa to see if they could replicate it someplace else, but it has never worked.
Ron Whitten wrote this back in 2007:
Oakmont's greens are unique because they're "perennial Poa annua," says John Zimmers, Oakmont's grounds superintendent since 1999. The greens are a patchy, mottled collection of dozens of rare Poa annua strains that don't die off each summer.
The entire article is here:
http://espn.go.com/golf/usopen07/news/story?id=2899868 (http://espn.go.com/golf/usopen07/news/story?id=2899868)
-
Joe,
The same is true of hundreds if not thousands of US courses. Many have avoided the mistake of regrassing to avoid the supposed peril of poa annua. Oakmont is also able to handle these green speeds because the greens have horizontal slope too. It's not the usual back to front pitch that makes modern tournament speeds untenable.
-
The thing that i find very interesting about this discussion is the example of Aronimink during the recent PGA tour event held there.
The PGA tour actually slowed down the greens compared to what the members normally played.
This allowed the tour to use hole locations that the members have never seen before.
This made it very difficult for the players to get close to some of these hole locations and made lag and short putts very difficult.
could this also apply to Oakmont?
-
Isn't 'trueness of roll' more what we should be trying to achieve?
My argument is this. When a ball is rolling on the green, all it sees is gravity and friction.
Wind, and to a MUCH lesser degree aerodynamic drag.
The magnitude of friction certainly helps determine how much of an effect wind will have.
-
The thing that i find very interesting about this discussion is the example of Aronimink during the recent PGA tour event held there.
The PGA tour actually slowed down the greens compared to what the members normally played.
This allowed the tour to use hole locations that the members have never seen before.
This made it very difficult for the players to get close to some of these hole locations and made lag and short putts very difficult.
could this also apply to Oakmont?
Great post D in regards to Aronimick, What speed did they have them for the event? If Oakmont ran the greens at 10 for example it could be as bumpy as Chambers Bay
-
Just curious..what height are they cutting at?
-
Stimp is an average of balls rolled in opposite directions. For the math enabled, at 14' what would be the rollout on a one degree uphill slope, as well as the opposite slope, dismissing grain and other variables?
-
My personal experience with fast greens was in Portugal at Troia. I puttet up the slope, missed the hole on the right hand side, the ball went around the hole, stopped... and startet to trickle down the slope, off the green. So count me towards those who hate excessive green speeds. And everyone who doesn't think Oakmont is on the wrong side this week should just look at the Bnker shot Byeong-hun An postet on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/)
-
When was the last time a US Open set-up wasn't criticised? Just asking.
Atb
-
My personal experience with fast greens was in Portugal at Troia. I puttet up the slope, missed the hole on the right hand side, the ball went around the hole, stopped... and startet to trickle down the slope, off the green. So count me towards those who hate excessive green speeds. And everyone who doesn't think Oakmont is on the wrong side this week should just look at the Bnker shot Byeong-hun An postet on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/)
Agreed. Anyone on here espousing the merits of 14+ speeds needs to watch that video. Ultra fast greens don't promote skill, they promote luck.
-
I have to admit--I watched the video and I absolutely loved it.
With the hole located in its position there a few paces from the bunker's edge, that bunker should theoretically be the absolute worst place to be. It is the shortest of the short side misses there and should be punished accordingly. Give him the same shot but back the greens off to a 7/8/9 or so and now you've made what should be the grade F place to miss a relatively easy (for the pros, not me of course) up and down.
This may be a minority view, but I do think that there should be areas around the greens on a golf course where you just cannot get the ball close absent a complete and total hero shot. This provides additional strategic challenge that radiates its way backwards from the green to the fairway and the tee. I think faster green speeds help create more of this dynamic.
If you know that long is absolutely dead, what do you do in a situation where you've got 160 to that hole location but you're stuck between clubs that go 154 and 166?
Do you have the courage to try to take six or seven yards off a club you KNOW can reach that nightmare spot to miss?
Would be willing to bet that BH An won't miss the ball there to that hole location during the tournament.
I love videos like that and courses that have misses that leave a golfer in that severe of a spot. The United States Open is supposed to be a test--an examination of all physical and mental skills possessed by the best players in the world. Generally, the more severe the setup the happier I am and the more fun I have watching the action. This attitude unquestionably carries over to green speeds.
Just a personal opinion.
-
Let my try and understand something about grass types and greens speeds. If you have greens such as those at Oakmont with quite a few different strains of Poa they have to keep them fast, which includes rolling them in order to keep them smooth, because they grow at different rates, which would cause them to become very bumpy as the day goes on. The infestation of Poa at Chambers Bay combined with the fescue and the different types of grass caused them to be bumpy as they day went on. But if you have one type of grass that is presumably healthy, the grass will grow uniformly and will remain smooth at whatever the green speed is.
For some reason members at some clubs feel that very high green speeds add to the quality of the course. But it seems that some courses are doing so at the cost of limiting hole locations and the challenges that the architect saw in designing the green contours.
-
Where exactly is there a place for greens stimping at 15? Maybe for a superintendent's revenge outing, but for everyday or tournament play, that's utterly ridiculous.
Oakmont, for one. It seems to be working pretty well there. I don't hear their members complaining.
14 would be a slow down, for OCC. You will hear players talk about they being the fastest and purist greens they've ever putting on.
Some many on this site adore Seminole, whose greens run 14+ in the winter...what's the difference? Theyre not hosting the USOpen.
-
The thing that i find very interesting about this discussion is the example of Aronimink during the recent PGA tour event held there.
The PGA tour actually slowed down the greens compared to what the members normally played.
This allowed the tour to use hole locations that the members have never seen before.
This made it very difficult for the players to get close to some of these hole locations and made lag and short putts very difficult.
could this also apply to Oakmont?
Great post D in regards to Aronimick, What speed did they have them for the event? If Oakmont ran the greens at 10 for example it could be as bumpy as Chambers Bay
Ben,
i would only be guessing at the green speed numbers from Aronimink.
maybe someone else on this board could provide this info.
The greens clearly made the course play more difficult, and i believe that it was b/c they were able to use very difficult hole locations due to slower speeds.
-
I don't remember any hole locations at Aronimink other than the 17th on Saturday I think...way over on a little knob in the left corner that I'd never thought about. Wish they did this more.
It seems like they're always looking to avoid a complaint by a player which is a fruitless effort. That said, they played this hole from about 130 when it normally plays 185 or 190 I believe...so it may not have been the speed so much as the club in hand.
-
My personal experience with fast greens was in Portugal at Troia. I puttet up the slope, missed the hole on the right hand side, the ball went around the hole, stopped... and startet to trickle down the slope, off the green. So count me towards those who hate excessive green speeds. And everyone who doesn't think Oakmont is on the wrong side this week should just look at the Bnker shot Byeong-hun An postet on Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/)
Agreed. Anyone on here espousing the merits of 14+ speeds needs to watch that video. Ultra fast greens don't promote skill, they promote luck.
Mark - How many tournaments have you played with a field of 144 and the majority were scratch or better?
-
Mike,
That's a really silly question, to which you know the (entirely) irrelevant answer. The player in the video is in the field this week. He hits a "hero shot" (Sam) which virtually stops a few inches from the hole and ends yards from it. Of course I don't have the skill to deal with that. That isn't the point. The point is that it is near to impossible, even for the world's best.
Now, aside from that stupid question, do you have a view?
-
Mike,
That's a really silly question, to which you know the (entirely) irrelevant answer. The player in the video is in the field this week. He hits a "hero shot" (Sam) which virtually stops a few inches from the hole and ends yards from it. Of course I don't have the skill to deal with that. That isn't the point. The point is that it is near to impossible, even for the world's best.
Now, aside from that stupid question, do you have a view?
My view is it is fine to have difficult golf courses if that is what a membership wants. It is certainly reasonable for a major championship to be contested on a course where a miss in the wrong place does not allow a player a chance to get within 10 - 15 feet of the hole.
-
Mike,
That's a really silly question, to which you know the (entirely) irrelevant answer. The player in the video is in the field this week. He hits a "hero shot" (Sam) which virtually stops a few inches from the hole and ends yards from it. Of course I don't have the skill to deal with that. That isn't the point. The point is that it is near to impossible, even for the world's best.
Now, aside from that stupid question, do you have a view?
Mark -
Of course I have a view, and it wasn't a silly question or stupid question. I find it very important to understand the frame of reference of a person's response. EXPERIENCE is what matters to me the most. It validates words more. For example, I get a kick out of a 20 handicap who thinks he knows what's best for a pro .. you get the drift. It's sort of like me saying I know what's best for Warren Buffet when it comes to investing. I can invest, but ...
You assumption of me knowing the answer to my question is way off base. I had /still have no idea.
Where am I going with this? Well, unless you've been in a field with numerous scratch or better players on really fast / difficult greens, then I don't find it credible. I don't say that to be offensive, I say it because as you watch a tournament, you're only seeing a fraction of the whole and what's going on with everyone. Greens are only a part of the overall difficulty.
You'd really have to watch shots over and over up close to see that it's not luck that wins. You may not be able to win WITHOUT some luck, but it's not luck on the greens (or anywhere else for that matter) that wins tournaments at this level.
-
Mike,
By that same logic you are basically saying that a Golf course Architect needs to be a major champion or play the tour or be a scratch golfer in order to design a major championship level golf course. Some of the best golf instructors aren't great players or former touring pros. Tim rosaforte is a 15-20 handicaper and I think he has seen enough golf to determine green speeds. Meaning he is intelligent observer without practical experience.
-
Mike,
By that same logic you are basically saying that a Golf course Architect needs to be a major champion or play the tour or be a scratch golfer in order to design a major championship level golf course. Some of the best golf instructors aren't great players or former touring pros. Tim rosaforte is a 15-20 handicaper and I think he has seen enough golf to determine green speeds. Meaning he is intelligent observer without practical experience.
Ben -
No .. I'm not ... AT ALL. Maybe you forgot the original premise. It was about LUCK being the determining factor on fast greens. That's all. I don't believe it is ... AT ALL. I was asking for someone's experience in playing fast greens with seriously accomplished players. I've been there, and I can tell you that is simply NOT my experience. There are certain skills people won't notice: example ... two players are side by side, fly it the same distance, and one spins more than the other down a hill ... it may look like it was green speed and luck. In actuality, it may have been a less spinning shot, applied with SKILL that determined the difference.
We're not talking about the same thing .. not even close.
-
Fred Couples whole-heartedly agrees....luck has nothing to do with winning big tournaments!! ;D
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/golf-the-masters-fred-couples-looking-at-ball-on-the-bank-of-no-12-picture-id167931201)
-
Fred Couples whole-heartedly agrees....luck has nothing to do with winning big tournaments!! ;D
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/golf-the-masters-fred-couples-looking-at-ball-on-the-bank-of-no-12-picture-id167931201)
I never said it had NOTHING to do with it. In fact, I absolutely agree luck is part of the equation .. it's just a very small part.
-
How do you feel as to whether the same player would win if the green speeds at Oakmont were 12 instead of 15 - what would you attribute the difference to? We cannot look at Cabrera and say that he is a great putter even if he won at Oakmont and Augusta. He is a streaky putter which is probably one way you can win at these venues.
-
How do you feel as to whether the same player would win if the green speeds at Oakmont were 12 instead of 15 - what would you attribute the difference to? We cannot look at Cabrera and say that he is a great putter even if he won at Oakmont and Augusta. He is a streaky putter which is probably one way you can win at these venues.
Cabrera won at Oakmont because he was knocking the pins down on his approaches, and nobody else was.
-
How do you feel as to whether the same player would win if the green speeds at Oakmont were 12 instead of 15 - what would you attribute the difference to? We cannot look at Cabrera and say that he is a great putter even if he won at Oakmont and Augusta. He is a streaky putter which is probably one way you can win at these venues.
Cabrera won at Oakmont because he was knocking the pins down on his approaches, and nobody else was.
Exactly!
-
Sometimes the winner just looks like he's good and playing well because he gets to the clubhouse with a lower score than anyone else. That's the objective, of course, but I'm not sure all golfers who emerge from 144-player fields in high-caliber tournaments with wins do so without a fair amount of luck.
For starters, I'd say any golfer on Tour who won a tournament between August of 1999 and, oh, the summer of 2002 had an enormous out of luck because Tiger had an off week.
-
Sometimes the winner just looks like he's good and playing well because he gets to the clubhouse with a lower score than anyone else. That's the objective, of course, but I'm not sure all golfers who emerge from 144-player fields in high-caliber tournaments with wins do so without a fair amount of luck.
For starters, I'd say any golfer on Tour who won a tournament between August of 1999 and, oh, the summer of 2002 had an enormous out of luck because Tiger had an off week.
Maybe the Tour should change their slogan to "These Guys are Lucky" ;)
-
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.
Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.
Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.
I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.
Sam,
the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.
Jon
Jon - Please explain that part about good players, fast greens, and NO CHALLENGE again ... I'm getting a good laugh.
Mike,
it is easy for someone to mock that which they do not comprehend. Laugh away ;D
Jon
-
I have to admit Jon, I never understood the fast greens is easier argument. Assuming the greens have some movement and contour, and they are truly quick (for me that means 11ish whereas 9-10 is the speed I would rather see on firm, true rolling greens) my take is....
1. If above the hole, putting is far more difficult.
2. If level with the hole, putting is far more difficult.
3. If below the hole and not too far away, putting is easier.
Same could be said when chipping from any of the above positions.
It is difficult to say about approaching because usually I associate quicker greens with wetter greens and therefore easier to approach. Though, I am told some clubs get greens flying and firm...only experienced this once at Brora and the greens were crusty/bumpy...so not ideal. I think the last time I played greens which I think were too quick was at Old Town...and that was marginal, nothing terrible, just unnecessary given their firmness and difficulty.
Granted, experience helps, but there is no getting around the idea that large areas of greens are no go zones when greens run fast. I grew up on undulating greens that were quick, and I always knew right away when I was in trouble after an approach. Often times, there was no way to stop the ball...that of course means that eventually you become gun shy about attacking flags...often leaving tough two putts.
Ciao
-
Sean,
firstly you need to stop thinking about speed as stimp readings have nothing to do with speed but rather resistance to forward momentum. A ball on a green stimping at 15 does not travel faster than on a green stimping at 8 but it does travel further. Many people say they understand this and maybe they do but most still think/imagine the ball speed when thinking about degree of difficulty.
look at it this way. A downhill putt can only increase in speed to the point where the ball will not stop rolling. Once it reaches this point then it does not matter how fast the ball is actually rolling as it will not stop. Therefore there is a finite speed to a downhill putt to a playable pin position.
A good putter will generally hit a putt so that it finishes about 12"-18" past the hole on a mid length putt (8'-20') and will do this regardless of the speed of the green. A ball that will finish this distance past the hole travelling on a green stimping at 8 will be travelling faster as it gets to the hole than if it were on a green stimping at 15. A ball that is travelling slower i.e. on a higher stimping green, will need to catch less of the hole edge in order to drop in rather than spin out. Ergo, the hole on a higher stipming green offers a larger target. A larger target is easier to hit. Higher stimping greens present a larger target and are therefore easier to putt on for a good putter who can judge the speed.
Learning to hit a 30' putt to within 2' is no harder on a green stimping at 15 than it is on a green stimping at 10' or 8'. The reson that most players cannot judge distance is because they spend too little time on it. Without wishing to upset anyone I have seen thousands of golfers who have handicaps above 10 and of those I can only recall a handfull that I would consider to be good putters.
Good putting is like good pitching about distance control not speed. I bet you never worry about how fast the ball is flying on a pitch yet I bet you do worry about the speed on a putt. If you worry about the wrong thing why do you think it will be easy?
Jon
-
Higher stimping greens present a larger target and are therefore easier to putt on for a good putter who can judge the speed.
Jon...with the above stipulation your entire argument is nonsense when most golfers aren't even close to good putters because it isn't their profession. You even say that a small percentage of handicap players are good putters...so why are you classifying difficulty by judging good putters?
I didn't say the putts were quicker...I said they were more difficult. IMO, there is absolutely no doubt that it is more difficult to two putt from above/level with holes on greens with slope and/or contour and running at 11 compared to 9...assuming similar quality of roll. It takes a much finer touch (or if you will...there is more margin of error..which translates to more skill) to keep an approach putt close enough for comfortble tap ins. If you played such greens you would know that it can be damn near impossible to get putts close to holes when they are running quick. Hence the reason why greens get flattened by either smooting down slopes or raising parts of greens.
Yes, experience helps (this increases skill), but it can be difficult for some Brits to grasp this concept because they simply don't face this sort of putting in GB&I...it doesn't exist because greens aren't cut as short and often times they aren't nearly as sloping. You can forget about your idea of good putting because we are handicap players and handicap players make mistakes with practically every stroke...think in terms of margin for error. When a player has to apply less force to move the ball the desired distance then the margin for error is increased...and when that error increases there is less chance to hit the hole. Bottom line, slow greens may be harder to one putt from distance, but they are comfortably easier to two putt from distance...if we are talking about handicap players...which is what I always reference unless I say otherwise.
Ciao
-
There are too many variables and situations to determine a definitive "most difficult green speed". But, for any of us, including the pro's the one thing that could confound would be variable green speeds...from week to week, course to course, and, yes, sometimes from green to green on any given day. Unfortunately, for many of us, and for sure the pro's, anything that is deemed inconsistent is also deemed bad, wrong or unfair. And it costs superintendents their jobs if they don't appease and conform. Maybe that's why the not-real Matt Shafer said what he said.
-
The idea of inconsistent green speeds gas been bandied about before...but I gotta say it sounds like a dopey idea to me. Okay...do to the pros whatever evil you wish, but why make the handicap player suffer? Jon has already pointed out we suck because the hole doesn't look like a sewer cap when putting down a mountain side, so why the need to humiliate us as well? We can barely think above a 75 golf IQ and you want to take some of that low IQ away? What gives....a crap bottle of red ale last night?
Ciao
-
The idea of inconsistent green speeds gas been bandied about before...but I gotta say it sounds like a dopey idea to me. Okay...do to the pros whatever evil you wish, but why make the handicap player suffer? Jon has already pointed out we suck, so why the need to humiliate us as well? We can barely think above a 75 golf IQ and you want to take some of that low IQ away? What gives....a crap bottle of red ale last night?
Ciao
Or we can propose a Stimp reading of 10 every day, every course, every green. No need to let a thinking golfer figure out the green up on the hill will be faster than the one down in the valley. Or the course on a windy, sandy site might be different than a tree lined parkland course. Take the think out of it, make it all about a repetitive, mechanical ability.
All very democratic. And within every greenkeepers capabilities. Win-win.
-
Higher stimping greens present a larger target and are therefore easier to putt on for a good putter who can judge the speed.
Jon...with the above stipulation your entire argument is nonsense when most golfers aren't even close to good putters because it isn't their profession. You even say that a small percentage of handicap players are good putters...so why are you classifying difficulty by judging good putters?
I didn't say the putts were quicker...I said they were more difficult. IMO, there is absolutely no doubt that it is more difficult to two putt from above/level with holes on greens with slope and/or contour and running at 11 compared to 9...assuming similar quality of roll. It takes a much finer touch (or if you will...there is more margin of error..which translates to more skill) to keep an approach putt close enough for comfortble tap ins. If you played such greens you would know that it can be damn near impossible to get putts close to holes when they are running quick. Hence the reason why greens get flattened by either smooting down slopes or raising parts of greens.
Yes, experience helps (this increases skill), but it can be difficult for some Brits to grasp this concept because they simply don't face this sort of putting in GB&I...it doesn't exist because greens aren't cut as short and often times they aren't nearly as sloping. You can forget about your idea of good putting because we are handicap players and handicap players make mistakes with practically every stroke...think in terms of margin for error. When a player has to apply less force to move the ball the desired distance then the margin for error is increased...and when that error increases there is less chance to hit the hole. Bottom line, slow greens may be harder to one putt from distance, but they are comfortably easier to two putt from distance...if we are talking about handicap players...which is what I always reference unless I say otherwise.
Ciao
It's like banging your head on the proverbial brick wall sometimes. Yes Sean, if you pick one line from what I said and then take it out of context you are of course correct.
I have always talked about the good putter have I not? What you are arguing from the point of view of an average player is correct and exactly what I was saying but just from the other side of the equation. However, you never clarified that in your post to which I responded leaving your post as coming from the same side of the equation as mine the good putter's point of view in which your arguments just do not stack up.
In short, I am against high stimping greens as it makes putting easier for good putters and harder for the rest. IMO, for the good of the game they should look at playing championship golf on greens with a lower stimp reading and more contours.
Jon
-
Jon
That doesn't sound revolutionary when we all know the context.
Why is it that so many people reference the best players when talking about course design/maintenance/set-up?
Joe
You can propose your 10 round the board...it will probably fly about as far as 18 greens of different speeds :D
BTW...10 across the board sounds pretty damn good to me....so would the all year round moderate temps to support it!
Ciao
-
Jon
That doesn't sound revolutionary when we all know the context.
Why is it that so many people reference the best players when talking about course design/maintenance/set-up?
Joe
You can propose your 10 round the board...it will probably fly about as far as 18 greens of different speeds :D
BTW...10 across the board sounds pretty damn good to me....so would the all year round moderate temps to support it!
Ciao
Because the tours are what have been used to sell the game in the last 30 years. It used to be in the UK that you joined a club for the social aspect or for business reasons with very few to do with the quality of the course now it is to do with image. Yes 10 across the board would be good.
Jon
-
I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.
Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.
Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.
I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.
Sam,
the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.
Jon
Jon - Please explain that part about good players, fast greens, and NO CHALLENGE again ... I'm getting a good laugh.
Mike,
it is easy for someone to mock that which they do not comprehend. Laugh away ;D
Jon
Jon -
What's your handicap?
How many tournaments have you played where the entire field is scratch or better?
-
Mike,
I was scratch at 15 years old and though I do not know exactly how many tournaments I have played with all scratch fields it is probably in the thousands. Why?
Jon
-
Mike,
I was scratch at 15 years old and though I do not know exactly how many tournaments I have played with all scratch fields it is probably in the thousands. Why?
Jon
Jon -
I appreciate that. Most people get bent out of shape when asked .. and it's crucial for me to understand the perspective you're coming from. Experience to me is what matters most.
I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of faster greens being easier the better the player ... in fact, I completely agree because that's my experience as well. I think there's a point of diminishing return, though, with greens that get THIS fast. For the most part, I think it's safe to say really good players and pros are most comfortable on speeds of 10-13 or so that are super smooth. It most likely comes from all the experience of getting to that level where that is usually the conditions presented.
Bottom line is I got wound up on the whole "luck" thing that was presented .. not even necessarily by you.
-
Mike,
I used to practice on the wooden dance floor at my first club which was really, really fast though obviously pan flat. I used to be able to get 9 out of 10 ball to stop inside 18" of a tee peg from a good 30 odd foot. Fast greens are nearly always flatter through necessity. I am firmly in the park of greens should stimp at around 9 to 10 ish but with a bit of contour.
Jon
-
I don't know how many incidents have occurred this week regarding balls moving on the green at address. But, has it been more than average? If so, how can it be anything but greenspeed? I mean, these guys aren't nicking the ball as they make practice swings, so....?
-
Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.
But best is subjective. Fastest is measurable.
That's one of the things wrong with the world in 2016. Now that so many things are measurable, people focus on what is specifically measurable -- not on what is worthwhile.
-
Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.
But best is subjective. Fastest is measurable.
That's one of the things wrong with the world in 2016. Now that so many things are measurable, people focus on what is specifically measurable -- not on what is worthwhile.
Same with courses rating and rankings, as well as golf instruction
-
Now that the course is being returned to ordinary member play, how much faster will the greens be?
For years we have heard that the only adjustment needed at Oakmont is to slow the greens down, so is 16 on the stimp normal there?
-
The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.
I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.
-
The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.
I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.
I'm guessing there's no way Oakmont's greens are boring at 10
Was Oakmont boring in the 60's,70's 80's and 90's?
Just agitating to current members measuring their johnsons
-
The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.
I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.
This is completely backwards, Doug.
Older greens have a big variety of slopes -- Oakmont's have spots that are only 2% or 3%, and other spots that are 4% and 5% and 6%. In the old days, you could use the areas up to 5% for tournament play, because the greens were only 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter. Now that they are more than that for everyday play, all of the latter hole locations are obsolete, and you can only use the ones in the flattest parts of the green.
But you could have hole locations that were JUST AS DEMANDING TO PLAY if the greens were a bit slower and you were using the steeper parts of the green.
The search for "championship conditions everyday" is the ruination of many courses, and frustrates more and more golfers into quitting the game.
-
Tom: Your last sentence was a perfect summary of my reason for starting this thread.
The search for "championship conditions everyday" is the ruination of many courses, and frustrates more and more golfers into quitting the game.
-
The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.
I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.
This is completely backwards, Doug.
Older greens have a big variety of slopes -- Oakmont's have spots that are only 2% or 3%, and other spots that are 4% and 5% and 6%. In the old days, you could use the areas up to 5% for tournament play, because the greens were only 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter. Now that they are more than that for everyday play, all of the latter hole locations are obsolete, and you can only use the ones in the flattest parts of the green.
But you could have hole locations that were JUST AS DEMANDING TO PLAY if the greens were a bit slower and you were using the steeper parts of the green.
The search for "championship conditions everyday" is the ruination of many courses, and frustrates more and more golfers into quitting the game.
Tom,
Some friends of mine played Crystal a week or 2 ago and said the greens were running 12.5 and even some of the members were complaining. When is CD going to stop the greens speeds arms race?
-
The difference with Oakmont and most courses that host pro events is that they keep their greens fast all the time. If you have a course that they want to be able to run greens at 13 for a tour event, but keep them at 10 for normal play they are going to be boring greens when you play them at 10. You can't have greens that are interesting at 10 that are still playable at 13. You end up with flatter greens that lack interest for day to day play.
I have nothing against the idea of fast greens, it is the idea of greens that are only fast for certain occasions but are kept significantly slower most of the time. I'd rather have them be at the 'slower' speed all the time but have contours designed for that speed, so they are actually fun to putt and require some imagination and ability to handle 6 foot putts that break 4 feet.
This is completely backwards, Doug.
Older greens have a big variety of slopes -- Oakmont's have spots that are only 2% or 3%, and other spots that are 4% and 5% and 6%. In the old days, you could use the areas up to 5% for tournament play, because the greens were only 9 or 10 on the Stimpmeter. Now that they are more than that for everyday play, all of the latter hole locations are obsolete, and you can only use the ones in the flattest parts of the green.
But you could have hole locations that were JUST AS DEMANDING TO PLAY if the greens were a bit slower and you were using the steeper parts of the green.
I'm going to disagree Tom.
The greens would be MORE DEMANDING TO PLAY(rather than JUST AS) in your above scenario because the difference in size of stroke between a downhill 20 footer on a 5 degree slope and an uphill 20 footer on the same slope would be much greater.
But we're both saying the same thing.
Competing with another course on quantification of green speeds nearly always results in MORE boring golf due to the loss of the best pins.
Perhaps we could start measuring johnsons by degrees of slope in pinnable areas