[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that really fast green speeds often lead to unhealthy greens--more diseases and maintenance issues.

Jim,

I had completely forgotten about several courses that increased their green speeds for member-guests and other tournaments, only to lose most of the greens for a good portion of the season.

[Craig Sweet]

And fast greens increase maintenance costs...

[SL_Solow]

Cost and disease resistance really depends on the type of grass , the skill of the superintendent and the good sense of the committee.  I am as a much a traditionalist as anyone here and I fought the good fight for our greens which were a poa bent mix dating back to the 20's.  We finally decided after a few very hot years to bite the bullet, gas our greens and seed an A1-A4 blend.  We had already installed XGD and done several years of drill and fill to help the old greens.  The new greens are a revelation.  As advertised, they withstand extreme heat due to deeper rooting and greater density.  They  survive the cold better, also consistent with testing.  Seem to do better with disease .  Greater density requires attention to reducing thatch but not excessive.  As to speed, we could get them to ridiculous speeds but we choose not to go above about 10.5.  Our old greens have some extreme slopes but it hasn't gotten out of hand.  So we are quite happy.

Regarding  the greater question, does  a putt with 8 feet of break move more or less at fast or slow speeds?  The difference is more visual, slower speeds require more visual movement.  Is this a different form of eye candy?  I concur in the concern about flattening classic greens simply for the sake of speed and I agree with Pat that once the speed gets above perhaps 11, the game gets silly for all but the best players.  Within those parameters, I think we may be overstating the problem.

Incidentally, we never reveal the stimp readings.  My old greenkeeper, when asked about the greenspeed, would invariably reply "Too fast for you" and then walk away.  We retired him to an honorary membership after 48 years.

[BCowan]

 ''poa bent mix dating back to the 20's''

SL

   Was it a German Bent mix?

[SL_Solow]

It appears that the predominant bent was Washington Bent although there were a lot of different grasses.  There is still some Washington on some of our fairways (a bit surprising given the way it is propagated) but in the fall it gets a beautiful purplish color.  I hated to see that grass go but there were only a few greens that had a lot of it left.  The new stuff has performed admirably and it should get a little better now that it has had more than a full year in the ground.

[Doug Siebert]

Super fast greens=dumbed down greens.

Worse, that is what the vast majority of golfers want  

Disagree on the first.  Some of the most interesting greens I've putted on have been pretty fast (10'-12') with difficult to read subtle breaks and very few straight putts.  These rely more with the slope of the site and what is created for surface drainage.  In Texas, I am thinking of the greens on courses like Colonial, Shady Oaks, and the pre-Brauer Great Southwest GC.  These type of greens typically differentiated the best putters from the rest and could be set up for a large variety of play.

What's the difference in putting challenge between difficult to read subtle breaks for a 1* slope on a green stimping 12 and difficult to read (in terms of how much break there is) obvious breaks for a 3* slope on a green stimping 9.5?

The key difference is not in putting but in the short game and approach shots, where greens with bigger slopes allow for more variety and shotmaking options.  And while I hate to drop the F-bomb on GCA, it is also more fair.  When the greens are on the hairy edge of unplayable a slope that is invisible from 50 feet from the pin (let alone from 150 yards) can easily roll your ball off the green.  Don't we want to encourage golfers to play more with their eyes, rather than laser their distance and then check their pin sheet and green contour maps before playing their approach?  The more we separate the golfer from their senses, the less reason there is to play golf on a real golf course rather than an indoor simulator.

[Steven Blake]

I love German and Washington bents because of the texture and different colors you get throughout the year.  Also it can be grainy and adds a special dimension to the game.

Steve Blake

[Lou_Duran]

What's the difference in putting challenge between difficult to read subtle breaks for a 1* slope on a green stimping 12 and difficult to read (in terms of how much break there is) obvious breaks for a 3* slope on a green stimping 9.5?

The key difference is not in putting but in the short game and approach shots, where greens with bigger slopes allow for more variety and shotmaking options.  And while I hate to drop the F-bomb on GCA, it is also more fair.  When the greens are on the hairy edge of unplayable a slope that is invisible from 50 feet from the pin (let alone from 150 yards) can easily roll your ball off the green.  Don't we want to encourage golfers to play more with their eyes, rather than laser their distance and then check their pin sheet and green contour maps before playing their approach?  The more we separate the golfer from their senses, the less reason there is to play golf on a real golf course rather than an indoor simulator.

I can't answer your first question from experience because I think I've played 12' or more greens but a couple of times.  My relevant range is in 7'-10', +/- .5'.   Within this range, it is my experience that the best putters thrive on faster, less contoured greens.  Swing mechanics, confidence, and the ability to putt the ball on the line with a proper roll account for this.  Slow greens are more forgiving for a jerky, irregular stroke, and contour makes it more difficult to find the line.  All things being equal, ultra fast speed and large contours still favor the better putters, but outside of Beverly CC, I haven't found these conditions.  Simply put, slow, heavily contoured greens narrow the differences between good and poor putters, at least that's been my experience playing for over 40 years.

As to the second part, I am not sure that this is the case, except perhaps with some chips and pitches.  I've never been good enough to hit the ball to a particular spot on the green, and the older I get the less I rely on my eyes to play the game.  Golf does rely on the senses- how the wind affects the shot, the firmness of the ground, how well the ball is carrying, the general slope/drainage of the approach.  I have never focused on relatively tiny spots, focusing instead on the myriad of other factors that I might have a bit more control in overcoming.  The shot that skips by the hole because I couldn't control the distance or the spin concerns me much less than the one I hit well and ends up 10' from the hole with a little mound in between, or the one which hits three feet from my opponent's, his ball missing the slope and is close for a birdie, while mine catches the slope and kicks into an unplayable lie in a bunker (happened at Pacific Dunes years ago).  Maybe I am just not the sporting type.    BTW, I have zero interest in simulators. 

[Doug Siebert]

I don't think Patrick was too concerned about greens going from 7 to 10, but rather when greens are designed or altered to allow stimping at 12 or higher - if you want to stimp that high, even if only once a season, the allowable contouring of the greens is much limited than if 10 is the highest you ever plan to take them.

I don't think many of us have a lot of experience on greens that fast, because it costs a fortune to keep greens really fast a lot of the time, and you'd have to be smart enough to know when the weather simply doesn't allow it and back off (presumably over the objections of the members)  My home course never could, half the greens would have no pinnable location if they stimped at 12, the slopes are simply too big.  Even at 10.5 or so, where they put them for the occasional big tournament, if you get above the hole in some places, there is no way you can keep the ball on the green.  But the slopes are large enough that they're pretty obvious so you have no one to blame but yourself if you go there.

There's a course I play once or twice a year that gets them "really fast" when conditions allow (the owner has claimed the highest stimp reading they ever got was a shade under 13, but like most I don't own a stimpmeter and have no reference to tell if that's true or not)  All I know is that those rather flat greens really come alive, but there's a huge inbuilt advantage for those who play it regularly and know the slopes intimately.  When I'm playing an approach from way off the beaten path (you've played with me, you've seen how far afield I sometimes go!) so I can't ask questions from my member friend (who is down the middle with boring regularity) it can be confusing and frustrating to hit what I think is a terrific recovery shot only to see it roll all the way to the other side of the green because there's a slope that's totally invisible from approach range - or sometimes even from short pitch range.

I usually don't "spot chip" either.  I was thinking more in terms of the sort of stuff greens like Dismal's White (Nicklaus) course allows, where you can play away from the hole and use the slope to get where you need to go.  Not just rolling but by deflecting off them - which can only be done on a real slope, not a tiny slope that's super fast.  I like greens/green complexes to have enough contour that occasionally you have that sort of option.  I'm not saying every green should be a partial bowl like Dismal, you don't need the option on every hole and the slope(s) can be within the green and still be useful for certain pin positions.

I think the reason good players like faster greens is because in general, faster greens are better maintained and thus roll truer.  I've played really slow really true greens only overseas.  If you get a stimp 8 in Ireland they can be fantastic well maintained greens, and only kept that speed due to the wind.  If you get a stimp 8 in the US, usually it is because they don't devote much money to maintenance - if they do they always seem to go faster.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()