[ChipOat]

Sean,

First, I do think that the preceding day's rainfall did make your Merion experience "better" regarding the subject of this thread.

Even with that, this thread does not address "approach shots that drift below the hole" - that is not my gripe.

My gripe is, and has been for about 5 years, about either realistically PUTTING off the green like the Payne Stewart putt at Olympic almost did or, if not that, having a situation where it is impossible to stop your ball within 10 feet of the hole with a putter from the short grass unless, of course, it goes in.

That situation was not the case when the greens were built (slower speeds) and it should not exist today.

As to approach shots that drift below the hole, I assume you're talking about something from 10+ yards - 300 yards.  Since shaping shots is an important part of golf (or it used to be), I have no problem with green speeds that cause that to happen.

The "clown's noses and windmills" that I think are inappropriate and undesirable only involves putting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip oat,

At what increased speed would other greens emulate putting with windmills and clown's mouths ?

Do you see the inherent danger that increased green speeds present to wonderfully contoured and/or sloped greens ?

[Chris Roselle]

Patrick, just curious about something???  Do you think the great designers from the Golden Age put thought into how fast and firm greens could get in their lifetime and designed accordingly or just did what they thought best at the time?

[Ed Brzezowski]

 Have I had difficulty putting off 12 and 15??  hell yes.  I have putted off some of the finest greens in Pa. Played Merion alot and thanks to a buddy caddying in the 89 U.S.Am got to play the monday after the event with quick greens. I just believe these are small wonderful greens that are over the speed limit and , if speeds keeps up,  these two would benefit from a LITTLE work. A good friend says the ' softening ' is under one foot in vertical height. If, IF, this is true i think it will make them better greens for this event.

I think for an event like to Open the green needs to have four definitive hole  locations. Not four locations ten feet apart as argued in this thread. I think it is a diservice to the course.

Now 17   I found the book and in a prior life the valley was not mown to green heights like it is now. so there has be some nipping and tucking over the years to this beauty..

Ok now 5, i think it is a great green and would not change a blade of grass. There area numerous hole locations and the green is a gem.  This is soley based upon my poor putting and my ability to stop a downhill putt somewhere near the hole.

Chris,lord of the Gap, i don't think back when these beauties were born anyone imagined  grass being able to be kept alive at these speeds.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, just curious about something???  Do you think the great designers from the Golden Age put thought into how fast and firm greens could get in their lifetime and designed accordingly or just did what they thought best at the time?

Chris,

I think they were intelligent men who understood slope/contour who also considered advances in distance vis a vis elasticity.

When an exceptional amateur and member of Seminole six putted the 18th green, I commented to the President of the USGA that Donald Ross never intended for those greens to be so fast.  He agreed.

The problem is distance, but it manifests itself on the putting surfaces because that's the only way to defend par.
How do you defend par, on land locked courses, when 60 year old amateurs are driving/carrying the ball 300+ yards, and 17 year old kids are driving it 350+.  You can't, unless you speed up the greens.

Somewhere, somehow, the notion that the putting surface was the field of battle upon which to combat distance came to the fore.

The ruling bodies let distance get away from them and the result, while seen off the tee, is defended at the green end.

This defense, affects those who do NOT hit the ball far, hence, it's unbalanced or misguided.

The real answer is to determine the speed at which your most severe green continues to function well, then conform the remaining 18 greens to that speed.

Arthur Weber's treatise on slope and stimp qualified/quantified the issue of slope/stimp.
When you add wind and perhaps grain, the problem gets exaccerbated.

I doubt the ODG's envisioned stimps of 10, 12 and 14.

[Chris Roselle]

Pat, very good analysis.   

[jeffwarne]

Patrick, just curious about something???  Do you think the great designers from the Golden Age put thought into how fast and firm greens could get in their lifetime and designed accordingly or just did what they thought best at the time?

Chris,

I think they were intelligent men who understood slope/contour who also considered advances in distance vis a vis elasticity.

When an exceptional amateur and member of Seminole six putted the 18th green, I commented to the President of the USGA that Donald Ross never intended for those greens to be so fast.  He agreed.

The problem is distance, but it manifests itself on the putting surfaces because that's the only way to defend par.
How do you defend par, on land locked courses, when 60 year old amateurs are driving/carrying the ball 300+ yards, and 17 year old kids are driving it 350+.  You can't, unless you speed up the greens.

Somewhere, somehow, the notion that the putting surface was the field of battle upon which to combat distance came to the fore.

The ruling bodies let distance get away from them and the result, while seen off the tee, is defended at the green end.

This defense, affects those who do NOT hit the ball far, hence, it's unbalanced or misguided.

The real answer is to determine the speed at which your most severe green continues to function well, then conform the remaining 18 greens to that speed.

Arthur Weber's treatise on slope and stimp qualified/quantified the issue of slope/stimp.
When you add wind and perhaps grain, the problem gets exaccerbated.

I doubt the ODG's envisioned stimps of 10, 12 and 14.

Agreed, and excellent analysis.
Isn't it ironic that those who are priviledged to play at such shrines of the game, suffer the most due to inanbility to restrain their use of the technologies available for agronomy.
Such problems don't exist at the The Goat where the greens play wonderfully at 6 .

[Jud_T]

Once again proving that when you look up "Tilting at Windmills" in the dictionary it says "See Defending Par"....

[Bill Brightly]

Patrick, just curious about something???  Do you think the great designers from the Golden Age put thought into how fast and firm greens could get in their lifetime and designed accordingly or just did what they thought best at the time?

Very good question but I would re-phrase it like this: "If the ODG's were designing at a time when greens stimped at 10-12, would they have been as bold with their green designs?"

I thought about this when I played NGLA. When Macdonald was experimenting in his yard with different grass types, what if he came up with A1A bent or something that putted just like it? Would he have built the first green the same way?

[ChipOat]

Ed Brzezowski:

Merion's greens, for the most part, are not really "small".  Exceptions would include #'s 8 & possibly 11, but Bill Kittleman (retired Head Pro) and I had this discussion over 30 years ago.  I can't quote the average square footage that Bill provided that day, but while very few of the East Course's greens qualify as "really large" compared to, say, Oakmont, 16 of them are not, at all, "small'.  In fact, many of them are 2 clubs deep from reasonable hole locations at front/back (e.g. 3,7,9,14).  Also several that are on the bias (10,12,15), have a swale in front (16,17), are very wide (5) or slope to the back (18) are quite large but not usually a factor in club selection so people often don't appreciate their size.  Others are a full 1 1/2 clubs deep as measured above (1,2,4,6).  IMO, only 8,11 and 13 aren't large enough and deep enough for the hole location to really matter re: club selection.  Now, LA country Club North - those greens ARE small.

Chris Roselle:

I'm not speaking for Pat, but my answer is "no possible way".  Actually, given that the technology of mower blades, seed and fertilizer only BEGAN to come together about 10 years ago, I doubt that even Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus saw it coming at the start of their careers.

Pat:

I don't know the Stimp number where windmills and clown's noses kick in on any particular green, but to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I have a strong opinion about it when I try to putt on it."

Yes, I do see the inherent danger.  However, unlike you, I've thrown in the towel, accepted the inevitable and endorse Plan B as I see no other lasting solution.

Let us applaud C & C for their mandate to East Hampton and REALLY salute the club for staying the course (pun intended).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

There's an old saying to the effect that, "All that's needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"

I hear you about throwing in the towel, but it would seem, if noone offers resistance to the flattening of greens to accomodate increased green speeds, that more and more unique greens will be disfigured, depriving golfers of a great experience.

In pursuit of a noble cause, failure is tolerable, so, I continue the fight, hoping at the least, to slow down or derail acts of disfigurement.

I feel better knowing that I tried, even if I was outvoted.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Chipoat,

I do see your point, maybe cozy or quaint would be a better word. I used small due to how greens are rated. Sometimes large greens lose a great deal of effective size when you minus out false fronts and areas that will not hold a reasonable approach shot. Plus where i play the average green size is about the same as 14 at Merion East.

Nine is a great green but the further back the hole is located the smaller the green target is, which i love.  The shape of the greens there are a work of art. just the differing angles, as you pointed out, are worthy of praise.

I guess the issue is, as discussed, technology and all types of equipment have changed the nature of the game. Both greenskeeping and playing. I do enjoy the passion of the folks on these threads and love the differing opinions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

The 2nd green at PV is still a terrific green, but, it ain't it's predecessor, and golf is all the worse for its loss.

It was so brilliantly unique.

Ask yourself, if it was a building, an historical site, would it have been protected from revision ?

Where does the process of softening/flattening stop ?

How many unique greens have to be lost, or continue to be lost before it's realized how unique and valueable those architectural marvels were ?

[Terry Lavin]

It's as easy as saying no.  Just say no to the USGA. Say no to the PGA. Say no to the Nationwide Tour. Say no to the macho dickheads at the club who control the Greens Committee.

We all know how easy it is to say no. The one great club in the States that has always said no is LACC. Maybe there are others.

[ChipOat]

Terry:

Maybe, MAYBE, some day, LACC will stop saying "no" to major championships, Walker Cups, etc.  It's the only "great" course that has that in their DNA.  Until that happens, your point is operative.  However, please note their totally unique culture in that regard.

But, forever is a long time.  You and I may not be alive if/when LACC has a change of heart.  If/when that happens......well, you know.

[Terry Lavin]

@ chipoat:

LACC is hosting the Walker Cup in 2017. I don't take that as any sort of prognostic sign regarding other championships but we will probably see the Amateur there. The US Open?  Uh, I don't think so.

[ChipOat]

Terry:

I would be most interested to see if there is an uptick in the Stimp at LACC between the Walker Cup and any U.S. Am that they might decide to host.  Maybe yes - maybe no.

Ed:

Actually, the back of the 9th green at Merion is LARGER than the front in terms of landing area as that front section of the green, while two clubs shorter, is quite small and the middle of the "hourglass" is quite narrow.  Also, the back area is more forgiving because, as the back edge slopes toward the front even more than does #8, it is very rare for a ball to go over that green.

[fred ruttenberg]

In 1981 I was standing at the 12th green watching Tom Watson putt.  He was about 15 feet above the hole.  His next shot was a 25 yard pitch.  I don't think the green has changed that much.

[Willie_Dow]

Fred - Yes I was there too.

As Marshal Chair I didn't see much of the goings on.  But the speed of greens was not a problem.  Richie put sand on the greens because of rain on Thursday.

Wait till tomorrow !

[Dan Herrmann]

My fear is that golf will end up like lawn tennis.  Flat, rectangular, omni-consistent greens.  With these green speeds, is there any choice but to build flat, boring greens?

My bigger fear is that Fazio will ruin Merion like he did Augusta.   

[JESII]

Isn't the real question...What could green speeds potentially get to if the scientists really worked at it? Assuming we'll always play on grass.

Does anybody in the golf business have an answer to this?

[D_Malley]

doesn't sand build up over many years cause the pitch/slope of greens to gradually change over time? especially when you have green-side bunkers where players are continually splashing sand onto a green.  Does anyone know how severe the pitch on 12 & 15 where when they were originally built?

I have witnessed the front of #8 at merion change due to this.

[ChipOat]

Yes, sand splash has also effected Merion's #13 in the same way.

However, there are no bunkers in the back of either #'s 12 or 15.  They were just built for Golden Era green speeds which, as we all know, only seem to exist anymore at East Hampton GC - and, only then, at the specific behest of Messrs. Coore and Crenshaw.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()