Oakmont

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom

No offense but I don't think you answered the question.  Why are you telling Anyclub USA to slow down their green speeds unless they know what they are doing while its OK for Oakmont?  Is their something in the inherent design of the greens at Oakmont that makes really fast speeds OK and workable where it doesn't work at Anyclub USA?  Is there a lesson in green design here or is this all just hype or as Tom MacWood says "mistique" about Oakmont that makes it OK for them and not other clubs?

[Bill_McBride]

Oakmont is so natural in its way, with the on-the-ground greens at #1,#3,#8,#9,#10,#12,#17 pre modification, that the idea of the "super-elevated" tees at #4 and #7 is really disturbing.  But then you remember the history of Oakmont and it's okay -- apparently if Mr. Fownes saw a tee shot where he didn't think one should go, he had a bunker built overnight!  Super tees to add needed length probably wouldn't bother him at all.  Tom, was the extra length really necessary at #4?  Seems they could pinch in the fairway bunkering and eliminate the driver.  #7 at 12-13 stimp doesn't matter how long it is

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

I'm not sure I can put this much differently and answer your question to your satisfaction but I'll try!

No, I don't suppose there is anything in particular about Oakmont's greens, at least not in an architectural sense, that would allow them to run higher green speeds than any other course!

But having said that I'm aware that one CANNOT generalize about ANY OTHER golf course (Any Club USA) compared to Oakmont!

And the point of that is a high stimp number is simply NOT transportable from one course to another course (without something generally going awry)!

But why would I say that? Because of the architecture of the greens of any course (including Oakmont)? Possibly, but there's so much more to it than that!

And by that I mean the mentality of ANY club and how they look at their greens, the speeds of them and how they "play"!

Far too often clubs (and members) push to have higher green speeds but they never really seem to completely understand what that will mean for them IN PLAY!

Too often high speeds become almost insane to play for some greens, some clubs and memberships and the first thing that club thinks to do is to "soften", "recontour" or "redesign" their green surfaces to maintain those higher speeds and make those greens more "playable"!

This to me is completely WRONG! If those clubs (Any Club USA) CANNOT accept the way their greens "play" at those higher speeds they should simply slow their greens down to the point that they become satisfactorily "playable" for that membership! They should NEVER think to "soften", "recontour" and "redesign" their greens in the interest of SPEED!

I say Oakmont understands their greens because they (the membership) CAN ACCEPT the way those greens play at those higher speeds! They've always been able to accept that!

So maybe I should say simply Oakmont understands their greens in the context of their playability!

Obviously other clubs speeding up their greens do not accept the playbablity of their greens (at higher speeds) if their first thought is to change their greens instead of acceptng them at those higher speeds as Oakmont does!

If you don't think I've answered your question I can probably elaborate even more.

[GeoffreyChilds]

Thank you Tom.  I think I understand your argument.  It's the membership at Oakmont that has learned to deal with the difficulties of the greens when they are smooth and fast.

I agree with you completely about NOT rebuilding greens at classic courses.  Alpine CC (Tillinghast) just redid their 14th green and took much of the bite out of an otherwise world class short par 4.  On the other hand, what do you do about some greens like the 4th (?) at Apawamis or 8th (?) at French Lick where every ball is directed to the same place on the front of the green due to the contour and speed.  In those cases, the architecture doesn't work in combination with the speed.  Apawamis did soften a few of them last year and I need to go and see how they work.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Are you aware that even Tom Doak proposed "softening" green contours on some holes at San Francisco GC to cope with today's green speeds!

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just stating a fact!
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

By the way, I just played out at Brookside in Canton OH, an old Ross with some of the most severe greens I've ever seen from him.  They were probably never meant to roll about 6 or 7 on the stimp (if the was such a thing back then).  At 9 they are brutal with very limited pin positions.  At 10, some are unplayable.  At 11, forget it, best to put the pins on the collars!!  

Not an easy solution here!

[TEPaul]

Actually there are some very reasonable solutions here, just that it appears very few are concentrating on the right thing!

Some of the old green contours are really wonderful and they should be played at whatever speed suits them! Any golf course that values and understands their greens should understand this; Take those greens to any speed you want to--to the limit even of where the membership can take the "playability" of them--almost to that point that maybe near "over the top" but never exceed that speed--never!

At that point with highly contoured or sloped greens any kind of player can have all the fun in the world and it can also be plenty intense if you want it to be and can stand it! But on some greens that might be 9 on the stimp and there's nothing at all wrong with 9 on the stimp on any greens (throughout the course) if those greens are good and true!

Those kinds of clubs should just realize that's as far as they should EVER go period, unless they want to live happily with greens that are clearly a bit insane, like Oakmont's. Oakmont has definitely lived happily with their speeds, they're actually very proud of them although there's no question any number of members have to be 3-4-5 putting all the time and have done for a very long time! But that's just fine if you can live with that! I've seen a lot of greens in my time and Oakmont takes the cake! But I like them--they are another world but they are doable--they just one helluva mental workout!

End of story to me! Don't soften greens in the name of speed because where is it going to end?

The thing that I've rarely ever heard a golfer admit in any club is that greenspeeds have just got to stop going up somewhere and at some point and here and now is the place to stop! These speeds should NEVER be exceeded and there's no magic formula to make it happen without getting insane or into softening, recontouring and redesigning!

This isn't that complicated just a plain fact!

Mark Fine:

I don't know anything about San Francisco but I did hear what you said. So I don't know about it but clearly I really don't embrace the concept of softening. Why is it necessary accept in the name of increased speed. Is increased speed the only way to make greens better and more fun? Not to me it isn't although I do like fast greens!

Geoffrey:

I looked very closely at #4 Apawamis before they redid it and I couldn't really see any wear and tear along the entire front section that was all that was pinnable! I liked that green the way it was and I don't really agree with redoing it but I haven't seen it since it got redone!

[JohnV]

Is it time to reverse the stimp meter?  For those who don't know exactly what it looks like, it is a 3-foot long piece of aluminium with a groove up the center.  2.5 feet from the bottom, a slot is cut across the groove.  A ball is placed in that slot and the top of the meter is slowly raised  until gravity works its magic and the ball rolls out.  When measuring with a stimp, you try to find a place that is flat enough that the balls roll reasonable straight and somewhat near the same distance in opposite directions.   Average the two directions and you get the "stimp" reading.  

I think there should now be a "PMItS" reading.  To measure the "PMItS" reading, go to the highest/steepest part of the green (not a false front) and put the stimp down with the slot at the bottom rather than the top (ie 6 inches from the end).  If you release a ball at this point and it rolls off the green, the green is too damn fast!  Fix IT!  PMItS stands for Please Make It Slower.

[GPazin]

John -

I like your recommendation. My alternative would be to surreptiously replace all green keeper rulers with modified shortened rulers so that nosy golfers would think they were playing courses faster than they actually were.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

I think your PMIts method is just describing the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" with some kind of instrument! Apparently Steve's method is done on his own. Maybe he uses a stimpmeter and maybe not but I think if he does he  keeps the stimp number to himself--as all supers should!

Any members seen even touching a stimpmeter should have their wrists severely slapped as was done in parochial school I'm told!

If a central member tells a super he thinks the course's stimp speed should be 13, the super should cut it no more than 10 and just say it's 13 (or any other number the member wants to hear)!

The best policy for supers these days should be the policy of artful lying!

[JohnV]

As a course rater for the USGA I own a stimpmeter.  Another guy at Pumpkin Ridge had some other weird device he had bought that purported to give the same numbers.  His was a triangular piece with the ramp permanently set at the "proper" angle.  You just put a ball at the top and it rolled down.  He kept saying our greens were too slow.  One day we brought out my stimp and his toy and we found that his measured 1/2 to 3/4s  of a foot shorter than mine.  If anyone sees someone using something like that device, beware of any numbers they give you.