Tarde piece in Golf Digest on turf heights

[BCrosby]

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2013-10/jerry-tarde-long-grass?printable=true

The green speeds of some of the best courses in the US in 1977 are eye-popping.

I especially liked the following exchange with Bonallack:

"This recalls a long-ago conversation with Sir Michael Bonallack, who was then secretary of the R&A. I asked him if he was going to use the Stimpmeter at the British Open. And he said, "Why would I want to do that?" I said, to measure the greens' speed. And he said, "Why would I want to do that?" I said, well, I guess to ensure consistency from one green to the next. And he said, "Why would I want to do that? Isn't part of the challenge to golf to know how one hole plays differently from another?"

Right on Sir Michael.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

"Isn't part of the challenge to golf to know how one hole plays differently from another?"

Something that is sadly lost on many today.

Jon

[Brent Hutto]

There's no right or wrong answer. Several generations of golfers seem to have "voted" that they prefer each green on a course to roll at about the same speed. Ask 100 elite players and at least 99 of them would say they prefer "all greens the same speed" to "greens being random different speeds". Ask 100 hackers and at least 99 of them would say the same.

It's not a moral failing or a lack of understanding. It's a simple preference. If Michael Bonallack and a few dozen GolfClubAtlas posters have a different preference then that's OK too.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,

if you pander to what people want in these matters you end up with mediocrity. Having said that it all depends on what you ask the people and how you explain the situation.

Jon

[Mark Bourgeois]

Neat article. I've written it before and I'll write it now: simply rolling greens rather than getting them at warp speed will satisfy 90 percent of golfers out there.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't happen to agree that a set of greens all rolling plus or minus 10% of the same speed is "mediocrity". I can't recall ever stepping off a golf course saying "Boy, that would have been a lot more fun if a couple of the greens had been really, really slow and a couple more really, really fast".

It's no different than saying if you pander to restaurant customers by serving Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi you'll get mediocrity.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,

if we all had the same point of view that would be boring/mediocre. Serving Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi is kind of my point. There is more than one option but you seem to think only Coca-Cola should exist. Diversity is more interesting than a monoculture.

Jon

[BCrosby]

I applaud Bonallack's views because it is one of the few times when anyone in a position of authority has pushed back against the notion that tournament venues (or even golf courses set up for regular play) have a duty to maintain all of their greens at the same stimp reading.

Such notions are rooted in the idea that any other way of preparing greens is 'unfair' or 'inequitable', in the sense that greens speeds that vary from green to green will make them less predictable and thus harder to know how to play.

I have the same concerns about the 'thumper', a devise used to measure the firmness (rather than speed) of greens.

I'm with Sir Michael on this. Nature will treat different greens differently; that's the way it ought to be and perfectly fine.

Bob

[Sean_A]

I didn't realize the Stimp came in in 1977.  It makes sense though because I can vividly recall the speed of our greens increasing dramatically not long afterwards.  I remember hitting a putt into water and thinking wtf?  That never happened before on that green.  I was sure they were much quicker, but I don't recall anybody bragging about it - it just seemed to happen.  I was a kid though so I probably didn't pay attention to some stuff.  I can also recall two guys putting off another green end ending up 40 yards off the fairway!  I never dreamed such a thing could happen to guys who knew the course like the back of their hands.  Anyway, I was always told to keep the ball between myself and the hole on this course, but there were often ways to use shelves to slow the ball down if one was happy lagging a putt.  Then, by 1981ish, things went haywire, balls just kept going so it really was a case of keeping the ball between the player and the hole or else suffer.  I never quite liked this as an imperative because I always felt only good players could really control the ball that much and that everybody else would have a bevy of "impossible" downslope putts.  I still feel that today with 10+ green speeds on contoured greens.  Its painful to watch 25+ three putts in a round.

Ciao      

[Jon Wiggett]

One other problem is that a healthy green sward should be made up of a variety of grass types and not just a monoculture. This means that depending n the micro environment one grass type will thrive more than another. Greens close to or in wooded, sheltered areas will be slower than one on an exposed site. See this and making the necessary adjustments to how hard I hit the putt is all part of the challenge of the game.

The problem with pampering to the 'uniformity is king' brigade is once you alter one thing to point that it is no longer an issue they move on to the next. What would that be? All greens should have the same uniformity of slope (i.e. flat)

Jon