Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Thomas Dai on September 05, 2023, 04:51:48 AM
-
Fast greens = slow play.
Thoughts?
Atb
-
How fast are you talking about? I think if there is a bad pin placement it will for sure.
-
When greens are running too fast to allow for slope and contour they can definitely slow down play.
-
Too fast greens are the result of the same sickness as not playing the correct tees.
When I hear people bragging about the speed of their greens, I think they don't know much about golf.
I love Oakmont, but when I hear the boasting about "slowing the greens down for the Open," I just think "C'mon, Man."
-
Too fast greens are the result of the same sickness as not playing the correct tees.
When I hear people bragging about the speed of their greens, I think they don't know much about golf.
I love Oakmont, but when I hear the boasting about "slowing the greens down for the Open," I just think "C'mon, Man."
Completely agree. It has become a badge of honor for members and, many times, superintendents as well to have greens ridiculously fast.
Warching the WC this weekend was such a pleasure to watch with greens stimpimg somewhere around 10-10 1/2. Of course, I'm old enough to remember when 10 was considered extremely fast.
Brad Faxon was saying a few weeks ago that slower greens tend to bring out the best putters simply because a player needs to hit a putt a bit more solidly on slower greens as opposed to greens that are crazy fast. I think that is especially true for putts in the 4-6 foot range. Makes sense, if you think about it.
-
Brad Faxon was saying a few weeks ago that slower greens tend to bring out the best putters simply because a player needs to hit a putt a bit more solidly on slower greens as opposed to greens that are crazy fast.
It's true. But it can also de-emphasize the long game, because it's easier to recover from a bad position on slow greens. I played two tournaments this past week—one running about 8 and one about 12. I hated putting on the 8's because I haven't had to really hit a putt like that in forever, and it felt terrible trying to do it. But I wasn't going to three-putt on the 8's unless I did something pretty dumb, and it didn't really matter if I was above the hole, below the hole, short-sided, whatever. The 12's required a lot more thought, care, and placement.
-
Having done a sizeable amount of research (https://golfcoursewiki.substack.com/p/the-four-hour-round-is-bullshit) on the subject, I would say that this would probably matter during tournaments, but likely doesn't make a difference in day-to-day golf.
The vast majority of slow pace is caused by profit-oven-pace tee time intervals paired with sub-optimal routing. The carry capacity of holes is the obvious culprit, creating pinch-points that back up even when "fast" players are playing. On a non-beginner course, focus on pace should almost exclusively be on management understanding the courses real carry capacity (not what it "should" be), while in development, trying to keep sub-optimal carry capacity holes (par 3's, reachable par 4's & 5's) very early in the round.
Most people care more about perceived pace, rather than actual pace. I propose the best way to deal with this is providing elegant distractions (halfway houses, photo opportunities, bathrooms, etc.) exactly at the places where a course is known to back up.
The archetype of what I'm talking about is Lincoln Park GC in SF, with it's back-to-back challenging par 3's as 16 (https://golfcourse.wiki/course/lincoln_park_golf_course-san_francisco/holes/16) & 17 (https://golfcourse.wiki/course/lincoln_park_golf_course-san_francisco/holes/17). Combine these inappropriately positioned holes with their quick intervals, it is not uncommon to have the course back up 3+ groups exactly here, leading to 5-6 hour rounds. Simply installing a food/beverage cart or bathrooms would placate most of the players who wait here every day.
-
If I were to rank the impact of course features on slow play, not being able to find balls has to be number one.
-
Agree that not being able to readily see balls in the rough is the greatest contributor to losing larger chunks of time to slow play. However, fast greens, assuming that players are trying to putt everything out, will kill pace of play due to the slow drip of grinding all day over 3-6 foot putts.
I know that I am shouting at the wind but it is sad that soft/receptive and fast greens are considered the epitome of good maintenance. The game less interesting and dumbed down due to not having to account for the ball bouncing. I also find continuous grinding on fast greens to be one of the less pleasant and least interesting aspects of modern golf (and yes, I consider myself a better putter on fast greens assuming they are smooth and not beat up doe to having to keep them moist at that height of cut).
-
Common sense would suggest the faster the greens the slower the play. However, this past weekend we held our member member tournament with 156 golfers on the course playing three nine hole matches (27 holes) the first day and two more (18 holes) the second. The course was set up with extremely firm conditions and the greens rolling as fast and as smooth as I have ever seen them since I joined in 1997. We have a strict speed of play rule where if you finish a minute over the allotted time both teams are penalized. We had zero slow play violations despite the extremely fast greens.
-
Agree that not being able to readily see balls in the rough is the greatest contributor to losing larger chunks of time to slow play. However, fast greens, assuming that players are trying to putt everything out, will kill pace of play due to the slow drip of grinding all day over 3-6 foot putts.
I know that I am shouting at the wind but it is sad that soft/receptive and fast greens are considered the epitome of good maintenance. The game less interesting and dumbed down due to not having to account for the ball bouncing. I also find continuous grinding on fast greens to be one of the less pleasant and least interesting aspects of modern golf (and yes, I consider myself a better putter on fast greens assuming they are smooth and not beat up doe to having to keep them moist at that height of cut).
As so may are loath to point out, not one thing is the main cause of slow play, but that doesn't mean that each factor, isn't a contributor to the issue.
The processes so many are taught (or mimic) can take forever, and they will point out they do it faster than others, but the processes still take longer than walking up and hitting it, or walking in from behind and hitting a putt.
Whataboutism is always in play.
A shot clock would merely insure they took 45 seconds for EVERY shot, still way slower than any fast player.
Deep rough and thick native areas are definitely can be pace of play killers, especially for those who are trying to play real golf.
Super fast greens? -yep.
But the main thing is simply slow players, who the "grow the game" crowd pandered to (or at least tolerated) in desperation for years during the golf recession, and the newer post pandemic players who have the bug and just aren't being coached to speed the #$@% up.
Scale is absolutely another reason as there are just some larger scale courses an average group aren't going to buzz around in a max of 3:45, as is common at many smaller scale old school courses.Then throw in the whole "experience" thing and it tends to all slow down.
-
Agree that not being able to readily see balls in the rough is the greatest contributor to losing larger chunks of time to slow play. However, fast greens, assuming that players are trying to putt everything out, will kill pace of play due to the slow drip of grinding all day over 3-6 foot putts.
I know that I am shouting at the wind but it is sad that soft/receptive and fast greens are considered the epitome of good maintenance. The game less interesting and dumbed down due to not having to account for the ball bouncing. I also find continuous grinding on fast greens to be one of the less pleasant and least interesting aspects of modern golf (and yes, I consider myself a better putter on fast greens assuming they are smooth and not beat up doe to having to keep them moist at that height of cut).
As so may are loath to point out, not one thing is the main cause of slow play, but that doesn't mean that each factor, isn't a contributor to the issue.
The processes so many are taught (or mimic) can take forever, and they will point out they do it faster than others, but the processes still take longer than walking up and hitting it, or walking in from behind and hitting a putt.
Whataboutism is always in play.
A shot clock would merely insure they took 45 seconds for EVERY shot, still way slower than any fast player.
Deep rough and thick native areas are definitely can be pace of play killers, especially for those who are trying to play real golf.
Super fast greens? -yep.
But the main thing is simply slow players, who the "grow the game" crowd pandered to (or at least tolerated) in desperation for years during the golf recession, and the newer post pandemic players who have the bug and just aren't being coached to speed the #$@% up.
Scale is absolutely another reason as there are just some larger scale courses an average group aren't going to buzz around in a max of 3:45, as is common at many smaller scale old school courses.Then throw in the whole "experience" thing and it tends to all slow down.
I'm a fairly fast player. My group regularly plays in 3:15-3:30. I don't think I spend enough time reading greens and I've starting to think its why my putting isn't as good as it should be. I hit my start line pretty consistently. When someone comes up with a fast way to get a good read on greens please let me know................
-
Brad Faxon was saying a few weeks ago that slower greens tend to bring out the best putters simply because a player needs to hit a putt a bit more solidly on slower greens as opposed to greens that are crazy fast.
It's true. But it can also de-emphasize the long game, because it's easier to recover from a bad position on slow greens. I played two tournaments this past week—one running about 8 and one about 12. I hated putting on the 8's because I haven't had to really hit a putt like that in forever, and it felt terrible trying to do it. But I wasn't going to three-putt on the 8's unless I did something pretty dumb, and it didn't really matter if I was above the hole, below the hole, short-sided, whatever. The 12's required a lot more thought, care, and placement.
I'm not sure if fast greens necessarily slow down play. But I do agree with Matt that a lot of time, fast greens make things more interesting. At least for good players. When greens are slow, there is little risk and slopes acting as hazards/defense doesn't really mean anything. Would Augusta's greens be as interesting if they rolled at 8? I don't know, but I doubt it.
It's probably worthy of a different thread, but the question of 'do fast greens make them more interesting?' is intriguing. If you've played the extremely sloped classic greens on 100 years ago rolling at 12 and then go back to playing them an 8-9, the teeth never seem as sharp.
-
Joe, you obviously don't believe that those slopey greens from 100 years ago, built to roll at 8-9 and now rolling at 12, were ever meant to roll that fast? Does that bother you? What do you think the original designer would say?
-
Joe, you obviously don't believe that those slopey greens from 100 years ago, built to roll at 8-9 and now rolling at 12, were ever meant to roll that fast? Does that bother you? What do you think the original designer would say?
I have to wonder how often those original greens are being played. How many have been flattened in order to accommodate faster speeds?
-
I've never understood the obsession with "fast greens." Greens should be fair. Not too slow and not too fast. Naturally there are going to be differences of opinion about what's just right, but some folks seem to want super fast greens to punish players. That's not my way of thinking how the "game" should be. Super fast greens are likely to slow play because (1) there will likely be more putts and (2) players will take more time getting ready to an executing putts. I'm talking about amateur recreational play. The pro tours and the USGA can do whatever they want to for their tournaments. It's their business and they can model it however they think best suits their objectives and let the market decide.
-
100 years ago putting was not nearly as an important aspect of the game as compared to what it is today.
-
100 years ago putting was not nearly as an important aspect of the game as compared to what it is today.
Wait, what?! Is there evidence for this?
-
100 years ago putting was not nearly as an important aspect of the game as compared to what it is today.
Wait, what?! Is there evidence for this?
Unlikely.
But we do know that putting is the least important part of the game today (of Driving, Approach Shots, Short Game, and Putting).
-
Joe, you obviously don't believe that those slopey greens from 100 years ago, built to roll at 8-9 and now rolling at 12, were ever meant to roll that fast? Does that bother you? What do you think the original designer would say?
I have to wonder how often those original greens are being played. How many have been flattened in order to accommodate faster speeds?
Play a tournament at Irondequoit CC in Rochester. In October we play them faster than they did when the web.com played there. Brutal.
-
100 years ago putting was not nearly as an important aspect of the game as compared to what it is today.
Wait, what?! Is there evidence for this?
Unlikely.
But we do know that putting is the least important part of the game today (of Driving, Approach Shots, Short Game, and Putting).
It’s funny, I know the stats bear this out, then you watch Hovland roll putts in from everywhere, same for Glover.
-
There was quite a bit written about the value of putting vs all the other shots played in a round. Some architects like George Thomas felt the putting stroke had too high a value compared to the other shots played (we have all heard the line "a 300 yard drive down the middle of the fairway is worth the same as a 6 inch putt"). Essentially what Thomas was saying was that to him, putting should not have the same importance (or value) as the other shots. Others agreed with this theory and there was much talk about how difficult greens should be as well as where holes should be located as this could further enhance the problem.
Very early on greens, were not well maintained (Old Tom Morris changed that) and putting grew in importance despite architects such as Thomas not being happy about it. So maybe I should say - 100 years ago, some architects felt putting should not be as important aspect of the game compared to other strokes.
Today if you can’t putt you can’t play this game at the highest level and for some they give it up completely.
-
There was quite a bit written about the value of putting vs all the other shots played in a round.
That doesn't mean they were right. "Drive for show, putt for dough" still survives in the minds of some despite how much it's been shown to be inaccurate.
Essentially what Thomas was saying was that to him, putting should not have the same importance (or value) as the other shots.
It counts as one stroke, but it doesn't have the same "value." There's much less separation in putting than in the other areas of golf.
Today if you can’t putt you can’t play this game at the highest level and for some they give it up completely.
Boo Weekley even managed to play on a Ryder Cup and wasn't a very good putter at all. Scottie Scheffler had a good year and has been a comparatively poor putter - he would have won the Memorial by more than 10 or 12 (or 15?) shots or something ridiculous if he putted Tour average.
Putting is the least important of the four skills with the lowest Separation Value®.
-
Erik,
All I am saying is architects like Thomas advocated for putting to count as a half shot. He and others also wanted larger holes and pins located in less demanding locations on greens so putting would be less important.
We can agree to disagree about how important putting is today. It makes or breaks the pros and many average golfers as well.
Quote from Ben Hogan:
“I have always contended golf is one game and putting is another. One game is played in the air. The other is played on the ground. If I had my way every golf green would be made into a huge funnel so that when you hit the funnel the ball would roll down the pipe into the hole.”
-
A lot of fuzzy math in this thread.
Putting doesn't matter... Pay no attention to Scottie Scheffler continuing to not win. He's just gotta work a little harder on those approaches from 175-225 yards I guess.
Also, any fool who seeks tee times on the courses with the slowest greens in my town, thinking fast greens=slow play, is gonna be real disappointed when he gets home in 8 hours.
-
100 years ago putting was not nearly as an important aspect of the game as compared to what it is today.
Mark
I'm not sure that Willie Park would agree if he were still alive. Or indeed Ben Hogan who wanted larger holes to reduce the importance of putting. I'd be interested to hear your take why putting is much more important now.
Niall
edit: just read bottom of first page which makes me wonder even more why you think putting is much more important now.
-
Niall,
As I said in a later post, I misspoke and should have said, 100 years ago, some architects felt putting should not be as important an aspect of the game compared to other strokes.
My personal feeling is that putting has become even more important than it once was because there is sooooo much emphasis today on the quality (condition/perfection,speed,…) of the greens. Golfers like Tiger for example didn’t want to play at courses like Pebble Beach because of the “bumpy” greens. If putting wasn’t so important today, why would he care? The best players like him should be able to overcome it, right?
-
YES. Anything that makes it easier to take multiple putts will add time, so slopes would be another.
It becomes a balance of playing in a flat field versus interest versus time.
-
He and others also wanted larger holes and pins located in less demanding locations on greens so putting would be less important.
It's already the least important.
We can agree to disagree about how important putting is today.
No, we can't, because you're close to arguing that 2+2=5. You're "disagreeing" not with an opinion here…
Quoting Ben Hogan doesn't do anything when we have much more of an understanding of how and why golfers score than he did.
A lot of fuzzy math in this thread.
Not really, no. There's the quotes from old golfers and architects, and then there's the modern understanding and knowledge of the actual math behind scoring.
Putting doesn't matter... Pay no attention to Scottie Scheffler continuing to not win. He's just gotta work a little harder on those approaches from 175-225 yards I guess.
Nobody's said that. You will note, however, that Scottie remains the #2 player in the DataGolf rankings and the #1 player in the OWGR despite being 150th in SG:P this year.
This doesn't really appear to be on topic, though, so the above replies are short, and there are probably other better topics where some of y'all can "disagree" with factual matters. ;D
-
Least important doesn't mean not important.
Also, thank goodness Hogan wasn't the Tzar of golf, that game (where greens were funnels) would be a much worse game.
On-topic, I'd rather a happy medium for speed but more interesting greens. I'm quasi-ashamed to admit that pace of play doesn't bother me much. I'm way more affected by perceived pace as was mentioned by Matt.
-
Least important doesn't mean not important.
Nobody's saying it's not important. But it's tough for it to be "too important" when it's the least important of the four categories. And not by only a little.
On-topic, I'd rather a happy medium for speed but more interesting greens. I'm quasi-ashamed to admit that pace of play doesn't bother me much. I'm way more affected by perceived pace as was mentioned by Matt.
I play in the northeast, and we have a lot of greens that were built in the 20s to the 60s, when greens stamped at what I imagine is like 7, so they had to build contours. These days a lot of greens get softened a bit, if they haven't already through topdressing… Kahkwa here in Erie just had to soften the contours on 17 and 18 because they had only one or two hole locations (I haven't been out to look at those yet, but I hear they've got four to six now).
-
Least important doesn't mean not important.
Nobody's saying it's not important. But it's tough for it to be "too important" when it's the least important of the four categories. And not by only a little. Yeah, that comment was more meant to simply say that something can be both the least important and still be important.
On-topic, I'd rather a happy medium for speed but more interesting greens. I'm quasi-ashamed to admit that pace of play doesn't bother me much. I'm way more affected by perceived pace as was mentioned by Matt.
I play in the northeast, and we have a lot of greens that were built in the 20s to the 60s, when greens stamped at what I imagine is like 7, so they had to build contours. These days a lot of greens get softened a bit, if they haven't already through topdressing… Kahkwa here in Erie just had to soften the contours on 17 and 18 because they had only one or two hole locations (I haven't been out to look at those yet, but I hear they've got four to six now).
In those situations I tend to think it would be better to slow the greens down rather than flatten them out. I could be wrong about that, but it's my gut instinct.
-
Least important doesn't mean not important.
Nobody's saying it's not important. But it's tough for it to be "too important" when it's the least important of the four categories. And not by only a little.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I agree that you have to strike at a level of proficiency to arrive on the green to make putting matter. However, once accomplished, it is ridiculous to say putting is the least important aspect of the game. I understand Mark Broadie, I understand shot link, I understand. The first question I ask someone who is putting poorly is where are you putting from? Real life experience tells us putting is where the game begins. Like of all of golf, it comes down to an individual basis. The statement that putting is the least important area of golf tells me you are speaking to a very small portion of players- and specifically those that are severely limited in their ability to strike a ball.
To diminish putting is to diminish scoring. To the individual, that might be the case; go ahead- go out: swing away, walk, be with friends, be alone, smell the roses; whatever you please.
If you wish to score, to play a complete game, you must putt well. You mentioned Scottie, who didn't hoist a major this year, and lost the Match Play in Texas because of his troubles on the green (despite hitting it like a God). He fiddled around with new putters, and practiced is tail off to be better on the greens. I doubt he would agree, for him personally, that putting is less important than driving the ball. If you are top 100 in the world, you are a very good putter- to use professionals as examples to defend an argument at large is not fair, for a variety of reasons.
What's more is putting is something most golfers can actually improve- and I assume that is what you teach with AimPoint, and why you likely believe in AimPoint. It is very, very hard to make adjustments in full swing technique after playing golf for an amount of time, especially in adult age. It is not very, very hard to make adjustments in speed control, and putting mechanics.
What Every Shot Counts shows us or the apps that help understand better shot selection, is how you make putting matter. Sometimes it means being aggressive, sometimes it means being more conservative. For the challenged ball striker, for example, it may mean you find a way to keep the ball in play as you move down the fairway using more loft and less speed, and choose a shot closer to the green with a more predictable pattern, giving you your best chance to two putt. It may mean you push the ball as close to the green as possible to give yourself the chance to approach the green with a land angle and spin rate that gives you the greatest chance of achieving a proximity to the hole allowing for a one putt.
Jackie Burke reminds us they give the trophy on the green, not the tee box. But in the end putting is not more important than any other play, it's just not least important- it is equal, like all parts of golf.
To the original question-
When we play tournaments in the MET Section- when the greens are lightening and tons of slope with hard hole locations, almost always there is trouble with pace of play. If you are playing stroke play, I bet an expensive dinner that there is a direct relationship in green speeds and pace of play.
-
I'm also struggling with "putting is the least important thing", when the putter is the most used club in the bag for any given round whether it be pro or amateur.
P.S. If we're cherry picking players, I will counter Scottie S with Jordan Spieth who is mediocre tee to green, but already has a HOF career based on his top notch putting ability.
-
I'm also struggling with "putting is the least important thing", when the putter is the most used club in the bag for any given round whether it be pro or amateur.
I don't completely understand it either, but I kind of figured that if one divided golf, like Hogan did, into putting and everything else, technically usually less than half of your shots will probably be putts. I don't know. Or maybe it's the fact that a terrible putt will generally never result in penalty shots, but full swings can?
I don't practice anything anymore, so it doesn't really affect me at this point.
-
When greens get real fast I wonder how many rounds get played where every putt is holed out. I know that a lot of groups don't putt out anyway and I've seen gimme lengths get longer and longer after a few early round three putts on real fast greens. I don't think anyone thinks a bunch of 40 putt rounds in a group is fun.
-
Joe, you obviously don't believe that those slopey greens from 100 years ago, built to roll at 8-9 and now rolling at 12, were ever meant to roll that fast? Does that bother you? What do you think the original designer would say?
Jim, I agree many classic greens were never intended to roll so fast. I wouldn't say it bothers me and at times I think the faster greens make the course more interesting. Obviously, there are times where faster speeds make greens unplayable as well. It's hard to imagine a green rolling at 8 ever scaring a good player in the modern age. I'm not sure original designers could imagine how good modern short games are. I have no idea if this is "better" as the discussion has now turned to the importance of putting, but it certainly is a different game now to a degree.
-
In those situations I tend to think it would be better to slow the greens down rather than flatten them out. I could be wrong about that, but it's my gut instinct.
Members don't want to have greens that stimp at 8 or 9.
I understand Mark Broadie, I understand shot link, I understand.
I don't think you do. ;D The rest of your post illustrates that.
I'm also struggling with "putting is the least important thing", when the putter is the most used club in the bag for any given round whether it be pro or amateur.
Pros average about nine tap-ins per round. Does that make those the most important shots they take? No. There's no "separation." They all make all of them (except Hale Irwin that one time).P.S. If we're cherry picking players, I will counter Scottie S with Jordan Spieth who is mediocre tee to green, but already has a HOF career based on his top notch putting ability.
Jordan Spieth:
- 33rd overall in SG:Total (0.710)
- 58th SG:OTT (0.197) - 28%
- 66th in SG:App (0.169) - 24%
- 24th in SG:ATG (0.258) - 36%
- 80th in SG:P (0.086) - 12%
It remains off-topic, so that's all I've got on this.
-
One of the reasons putting is so important is that there is NO way to recover from a bad putt. A missed putt is a stroke lost.
-
One of the reasons putting is so important is that there is NO way to recover from a bad putt. A missed putt is a stroke lost.
How do you recover from hitting a tee shot OB, exactly?
Gee whiz.
-
And how often do you hit it OB vs miss a putt??
Gee whiz ;)
You can hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway while I hit mine in the rough. You hit a perfect second shot on to the green 10 feet from the hole and I hit my approach into a bunker. I hit my bunker shot 20 feet from the hole and make the putt for a four. You three putt and make five.
-
And how often do you hit it OB vs miss a putt??
You said "you can't recover from a bad putt" but now you seem to think every putt that misses is a "bad putt"? You are aware that PGA Tour average from 8' is ~50%, right? Are they all hitting "bad putts" and then putting themselves into "no recovery" positions? Or are they putting to the average when they make one 8' putt and miss the next one before tapping in?
You can hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway while I hit mine in the rough. You hit a perfect second shot on to the green 10 feet from the hole and I hit my approach into a bunker. I hit my bunker shot 20 feet from the hole and make the putt for a four. You three putt and make five.
And how often is that going to happen? If you repeat the shots until each player gets on the green, the first player (fairway, green to 10 feet) is going to wipe the floor with the other guy, on average. A match between those two players would be over, on average, by the 11th or 12th hole.
Putting has the least "Separation Value®" of the four categories. One-off made-up examples don't matter - the first guy mops the floor with the second guy over any reasonable number of holes and rounds. Like… he never loses over an 18-hole round.
If you have to play a round of 18 holes against a PGA Tour player, Mark, are you going to hit approach shots from 175 yards or are you going to putt against them? Those are your options. Average PGA Tour player… and you. You stand a chance putting. You stand no chance hitting 175-yard approach shots.
Here's an oldie but a goodie:
The PGA Tour announces that starting in 2025, due to space concerns in the world, it is becoming an all-putting tour. This means that every 72-hole event will take place on only putting greens and the only skill necessary to succeed is putting. Nothing else. There will be Q School, etc. to start it off (no status for anyone initially) and then the top 125 players will retain cards each year, etc. Just like they could for the current PGA Tour, the entire population of the world can practice and prepare and has the opportunity to make this new All Putting Tour.
The question is... how many current PGA Tour players will be on that new tour in 2025?
-
Years of my life was spent watching threesomes of college golfers take forever to putt out. Slow play is a scourge in college golf, but they typically play at normal pace, if not fast, when they got to the tee or when they played approach shots or short game bunker shots, chips, pitches, etc. Occasionally they have some complicated shot that made them take time to scrutinize the options. But none of that compared with them lagging their first putts to NOT tap in range.
When greens get very fast, putts from a certain length (about 15 feet or more) rarely finish stone dead in medal play which requires the ball being marked and then closely reviewed for any perceptible break---extra tricky when greens are that fast. You can't just "bang it in" when, if you miss, it goes five feet past. Regular club golfers playing match play on the weekends don't worry about everything being holed out.
Not sure if I saw this earlier in the thread but when greens get really fast, they get flatter and at a certain point it's nearly impossible to the naked eye to see the break. You are looking at such subtle breaks it requires the extra time to get right.
-
Most better putters favor faster greens because it gives them an advantage. Also ask any golfer who can’t putt what is the most important aspect of golf and see what they tell you. If you can’t get the ball in the hole and three putt or more constantly the game is no fun. Which club is used the most (probably at least twice as much if not much more) during a round of golf? Which club is the one that is used almost 100% of the time to get the ball in the hole?
Also what is deemed almost universally as the most important aspect of a good golf course - the greens! Golfers don’t say, “Let’s go play XYZ Golf Club because they like the routing or because the rough is uniform or because the bunkers drain well or the rye grass fairways are nice,… Golfers talk about the greens because that is where scoring takes place and if the greens are poor and they can’t putt well on them, they aren’t happy. As such, like it or not, greens and putting are without question the most important aspects of golf these days.
-
Most better putters favor faster greens because it gives them an advantage. Also ask any golfer who can’t putt what is the most important aspect of golf and see what they tell you. If you can’t get the ball in the hole and three putt or more constantly the game is no fun. Which club is used the most (probably at least twice as much if not much more) during a round of golf? Which club is the one that is used almost 100% of the time to get the ball in the hole?
Also what is deemed almost universally as the most important aspect of a good golf course - the greens! Golfers don’t say, “Let’s go play XYZ Golf Club because they like the routing or because the rough is uniform or because the bunkers drain well or the rye grass fairways are nice,… Golfers talk about the greens because that is where scoring takes place and if the greens are poor and they can’t putt well on them, they aren’t happy. As such, like it or not, greens and putting are without question the most important aspects of golf these days.
The greens are probably the most important component of a course. Who wants to play a course with poor greens? If a course has great greens you can put up with a lot of other aspects of the course.
Funny how when you watch a tournament on Sat and Sunday the leaders all look to be pouring it in from everywhere.
-
A lot of fuzzy math in this thread.
Putting doesn't matter... Pay no attention to Scottie Scheffler continuing to not win. He's just gotta work a little harder on those approaches from 175-225 yards I guess.
Also, any fool who seeks tee times on the courses with the slowest greens in my town, thinking fast greens=slow play, is gonna be real disappointed when he gets home in 8 hours.
Pure gold-I just spit out my coffee
-
In those situations I tend to think it would be better to slow the greens down rather than flatten them out. I could be wrong about that, but it's my gut instinct.
Members don't want to have greens that stimp at 8 or 9.
Anecdotally often true(amongst those who voice their opinion), given the average golf intelligence of club golfers in general.
They see the better players comment, whine etc, about fast greens and feel they'll be labeled a hack unless they sign off on ever faster greens and ALL that that entails
Higher dues, slower play, more benign pins, flatter greens/renovations, higher costs, more playdisruptive maintenance.
But few are smart enough to tie the above together.
Expose them to interesting greens AND interesting pins running at 8-9 and they may surprise you if you ask those who HAVEN'T previously shared their opinion.
Beware "the tyrany of the minority".
The real scourge of golf.
-
Rob, you probably know this, but the pros are not making putts with the frequency you may think from the TV coverage. A very large percent of the shots you see in a telecast are coming from a taped shot--often only a few seconds behind the actual shot, but still selected for the viewer. They do not select missed 20-footers very often, but a made one makes the cut. So you can be misled by the percent of made long putts you see.
-
Rob, you probably know this, but the pros are not making putts with the frequency you may think from the TV coverage. A very large percent of the shots you see in a telecast are coming from a taped shot--often only a few seconds behind the actual shot, but still selected for the viewer. They do not select missed 20-footers very often, but a made one makes the cut. So you can be misled by the percent of made long putts you see.
Exactly, you will never see someone 5 shots or more off the lead not named Tiger or Rory putt from 20 feet......and miss.
They used to use the words..."moments ago" now they just pass it off as live as you watch someone 8 shots back get cut to and pour in a 30 footer.
What sux is 2 things
1.You know the outcome
2. I hate watching ONLY putting, whuch you're stuck with because networks think we need a binary outcome on every shot(eitehr made or missed)
-
Rob, you probably know this, but the pros are not making putts with the frequency you may think from the TV coverage. A very large percent of the shots you see in a telecast are coming from a taped shot--often only a few seconds behind the actual shot, but still selected for the viewer. They do not select missed 20-footers very often, but a made one makes the cut. So you can be misled by the percent of made long putts you see.
Correct, I was referring to recent wins by Glover and Hovland. They won and seemingly made everything down the stretch. Look at the bogie putt Glover made. I’d like to know how many feet of putts Hovland made in the last round of the tour championship. He made two or three longer putts on the back nine. My point was putting is pretty important to winning. How many guys win and were 75th in putting for the week.
-
For my $0.02, I believe it may be best to separate this discussion into a few parts:
1. Professional golfers (PGA card carrying members), collegiate golfers & amateurs who qualify to play in elite amateur events.
2. Club members of all handicap
3. The average Joe (all handicap) who plays at a public venue.
Professionals, collegiate golfers and elite amateurs are highly skilled players and are competing for something so time spent reading putts is longer than it should be. Yes - the pace should be picked up but they do have to hole everything out.
Club members can dictate pace of play at their venue as they're "the owners" of the facility. The employees (golf professional, super, GM, etc.) report to the Owners. Fast greens - yep; 3:45 pace of play - yep - slower players tee off later in the day. Many of these facilities have caddies or forecaddies, which can assist in quickly locating errant shots; which assists with pace of play.
The average Joe plays anywhere he can that will take his money. Playing conditions vary from facility to facility based on revenue, topography, existing site conditions (soggy ground, change in elevation, tree canopy, site weather micro-conditions, etc.) and maintenance staffing.
We used to spend a great amount of time looking at pace of play, where bottlenecks on site would be and how to minimize back-ups since a tee time not booked (even late in the day) is revenue lost which can never be made up and that tee time on that day is gone forever. At public venues, the thing which used to hold up play most for us was looking for/lost golf balls. The customer didn't mind paying top dollar for a well conditioned (tees and greens in good shape with grass, fairways with no bare spots, no water in bunkers), fun golf course, but he/she was going to try very hard not to lose his/her $5 Pro V - just human nature. Reasonable tee time intervals at public courses are critical, since the skill set of the customer varies more than at a country club or with players at the highest levels who will hit less wayward shots.
Having staff out on site at a public venue to help move thing along does work; the staff just needs to do this sensibly and gently. We worked hard to minimize areas of higher grass at daily fee so the customer didn't have to waste time looking for balls in the rough or taller grass.
This public customer was/is looking for a course that looks difficult to the eye, but plays fairly or easier than what it appears to be. The customer wants to be able to brag to hi/her mates " I had a great day yesterday, shot XX (3 shots below my handicap) at XYZ Golf club."
Finally on green speed for this public player - its important but maybe not quite as much as time lost looking for lost balls. This customer is ok with hitting a tee ball, finding & hitting an approach shot to the green and either chipping & 2 putting, 2 putting, or 3 putting for bogey. 3 putts don't bother them as much - mashing the ball and hitting it as far and straight as possible are a bit more satisfying.
Just my take. Your mileage and opinion may vary.
-
Also ask any golfer who can’t putt what is the most important aspect of golf and see what they tell you.
Since you like antiquated ways of thinking: two things don't last very long: dogs who chase cars and pros who putt for pars.
Which club is used the most (probably at least twice as much if not much more) during a round of golf?
Again, 12-15% of a pro's shots are tap-ins. Does that mean that tap-ins are super important? No. There's zero Separation Value® in tap-ins. And there's very little in 30-footers, etc.
Be sure to reach out to Mark Broadie and tell him that he's entirely wrong about how important putting is. And… feel free to answer my question about the All-Putting Tour.
If the site had a spoiler tag, I'd have hidden all of this in that, but alas…