Fast or slow greens...which are easier to design?

« **Reply #25 on:** April 27, 2008, 11:06:05 AM »

It is far easier to make something flat with a square blade then something rounded, so I guess we know which ones are easier to build. I think many would be shocked to know how many of those neat little features in subtle greens are really fortunate ooopses or a result of erosion during grow-in etc... Using significant features requires quite a bit of thought to avoid bird baths and the like.

2 cents

« **Reply #26 on:** April 28, 2008, 08:38:32 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on April 26, 2008, 06:40:31 PM

Jim S: Yes they would work, and that's one reason golf has such trouble answering environmentalists' questions.

But it's the same in reverse for fast greens. If faster is better, then why not 20??

I like the test you and Tom Paul (and probably others) have discussed...determine the max speed on the most sever green and try to prepare all 18 at that speed.

My disagreement with your original premise (on the other thread) is that 8 feet should be good enough. I would prefer to play many of the old course in this area at 10 or 11 feet as opposed to 8 feet...

News:

Jim Thompson

Re: Fast or slow greens...which are easier to design?

JESII

Re: Fast or slow greens...which are easier to design?

An Error Has Occurred!