[Trey Stiles]

I'm currently drawn to GCA featuring green complexes with lots of movement , multiple levels , false sections , run outs , ect ..... The problem is that modern greens speeds have gotten so fast that contour and speed have become incompatible.

It appears that there is a trend to soften greens complexes to allow for todays ultra fast speeds.

Do you think this is good for the game ?  ( there is little argument that speed cost $$$$ )

Do you think less contour / more speed is more fun than more contour / less speed ?

Do you think more contour / less speed is better GCA ?

I don't want a return to dog slow that requires wrist putting just to get the ball to the hole , but how much is too much ?

[Jim Sweeney]

Trey:

1) No

2) No

3) Hard to say. It could depend on many factors, such as overall slope of the site, i.e. mountain side v. river bottom. 

Another question is, when a course includes both types of greens, ones with lots of movement and others with very little, should the club seek to make all the greens similar in speed (and how would they do that) or maintian the slopiest green at a reasonalble speed and maintain the others in the same way, which will result in the flatter greens being rather slow?

Generally, I am in favor of maintaining all the greens the same way and letting the speeds fall where they may.

[CJ Carder]

Gotta be careful not to fall into the trap of equating speed with smooth.  Obviously there needs to be a balance (I don't want a putt putt course with the windmill), but I'd probably err on the side of more contour / less speed.  Just be sure the greens are smooth and roll nicely. 

[Trey Stiles]

CJ ,

Yeah , you've got to assume smooth .... but you can get smooth without going to 12+ stimp

Jim ,

I'm a fan of the same maintenance practices , cultural practices , ect on all greens .... For yrs , I've heard golfers talk about how the putting green or some other green is not maintained the same as all the others when the fact is that the same exact maintenance practices are employed on 19 greens.

I'm also a fan of a consistent theme of green complexes .... I guess this comes as a result of years of doing turnarounds on old courses with 3 greens redone by x , another 2 by y , another 5 by z , and 8 originals .... I had one course that I'm guessing had greens from 6 different periods . It was schizophrenic golf.

[Dan Herrmann]

give me more contour/less speed anytime.  To me, it's a helluva lot more fun

[Donnie Beck]

I love greens within greens. I would like to see more people design large greens that have multiple flat levels within a wildly contoured green. These greens are easy to hit but require a precise shot to end up on the proper tier. Unfortunately building to USGA specs make this type to green very costly to build.

[Ben Sims]

It was fun to watch the tour guys putt at Dove Mountain earlier his year.  I think those guys like faster greens with less contour.

It's a function of tour events to watch courses burn down their grass in order to facilitate the speeds that the uneducated public expects.  Many San Antonio courses are watering their greens during daylight to keep from losing them.  All the while the conversation in the pro shop is "man those things are rolling fast".  And 2% of the golfing public understand what it takes to keep bermuda grass rolling at 10 in 100 degree summers. 

Make my vote for big contour and less speed.

[Rob Rigg]

If the greens are relatively flat then fast is fine, but I would much rather play undulating greens that roll nicely but not too fast.

They were talking about the slower green speeds at Turnberry and it was fun watching the guys take runs at longer putts because they knew they would not accelerate past the hole and roll off the green.

One of the great things about links golf is the greens - which are obviously slower but have much more character.

If greens are flat, then speed is the only thing that can add interest - boring!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()