The greeens at Lawsonia are about a 7 at best most of the time. I am used to the same greens at West Bend at around 10.

Lawsonia is an hour away from my house. I play it every couple years or so.....  Just not as much fun as it should be.

Slow greens really make a mockery of my poor putting stroke. The need to be pure is heightened (pardon the pun) on slow greens. Easier to play to, but harder to putt, IMO.

Joe

I still enjoy playing those early morning rounds on greens covered with dew. It is fun to see the track left by the ball and trying to judge the correct speed to stop the ball in the quick zone around the hole where the dew has been removed by early groups.

I have hands like mallets, and if the green is fast I cannot get a 'feel' for the speed to control it. I putt much better when I am 'striking' the ball. Yes, I prefer 6 to 10.

Greens that run at 7, hopeful have severe-ish contours, allows for playing the ball closer to the ground, being more aggresive with approachs and promotes a  4-9 iron Chip shot, versus lob wedge lob wedge lob wedge. Bringing more clubs into the mix is a good thing, idn't it?. And, While I hate to sound like Johnny Miller, adding the element of grain, is challenging, both physically, and mentally.

As someone who is currently going back and forth between two courses, One, runs 10+ and the other is currently in that 7 range, I find the greater challenge is going to the slower. Adapting to faster greens, does not appear to be that much of a problem. (based on my lowest round of the year yesterday on those Corey Crandall greens with serious ball creeeep)

Both are fun,, imo.

Speed freaks has led us to flat lines, hasn't it?

I'm with Mr. Paul on this one. I can't really imagine anyone preferring to play on greens that are Stimping 6 or 7. On some of the public courses around here the Bermuda greens are that slow during transition season and it takes all the fun out of the short game.

I recognize that point that extreme putting speeds are not compatible with highly contoured greens but in my experience you can have all sorts of interesting contours and still find pinnable locations at Stimp readings of 11-ish. One of the first really good golf courses I ever played was Cuscowilla during the first Dixie Cup and those green complexes are great. I'd say the putting speeds were in the 10-10.5 range when we were there and I didn't see any infinite putting and nobody in my foursomes had a four-putt.

There's a big difference between fairly quick greens that register 10, 11 or maybe up to 12 feet on the Stimp meter and ridiculous overkill that would lead to removing all the contours from a course's greens. Maybe it's a quirk of my own game but if an extremely humpity-bumpity set of greens truly requires slowing down to 8 or less to be pinnable then I'd say that course is less fun than a course with large but reasonable contours that can be played at a 10 or so.

In other words, playing on over-the-top contours can't possibly be enough fun to make up for very slow greens, IMO.

I can't stand slow greens.  I think it lessens the skill required, lessens strategy and makes playing more boring.

I finally had the chance to play Riverwinds GC this past Friday. It's is located in West Deptford, NJ, along the Delaware River, and was designed by Peter Fazio.  While I liked many of the holes, the softness and slowness of the greens made the round less challenging, and ultimately spoiled what could have been a fun round.  Overall the course was in pretty good condition, but the very slow speed of the greens took a lot of the thought out of the game.

With slow greens, you don't have to worry or think as much about where your approach shot needs to be played.  If you hit it above the hole, no big deal.  Whereas, if the greens had some pace to them, you'd have to pay attention.

Brent,

Exactly.

More times than not, on a course with slow greens, it's actually easier to putt from above the hole, because you don't have to bang the ball quite as hard.  This is of course, exactly the opposite of how you'd play the hole if the greens had some speed.  

redanman,

Riverwinds greens were "glacial".  I like that phrase.

It is indeed relative. Tom gave his definition as a Stimpmeter reading of 10-and-up being fast and 8-and-lower being slow. The fastest greens I've ever played on were probably right in the 12-ish range and once you get much beyond that pace I have no doubt but that the greens will need to be fairly flat.

If NGLA requires about a 9, should we perhaps consider that our informal lower limit on what is a reasonable slowness to accomodate interesting contours? Tom's original post is correct IMO in saying that somewhere in the 10.something range is a good sweet spot that will accomodate most course designs while still being speedy enough to avoid obviating approach-shot strategy.

My own ideal would be greens with sufficient contouring to be fair and playable (if only barely) at 11-ish with the option of choosing suitable hole locations to run them at 11.5-12 to offer a borderline-unfair challenge in a tournament. My own home course is pretty close to that amount of contour with the added challenge of a bit of grain in our hybrid Bermuda. Most of the year they are maintained at a speed in the 10's and we certainly care whether we're above or below the hole with most approach shots.

[EDIT] Next weekend we'll have our club championship and, weather permitting, I suspect I'll get to try them out for my first time at 11+ while keeping a scorecard. As of right now I'd answer Mr. Sullivan's question by saying the closer the speed gets to over-the-top (without actually getting there) the better I like it. Slower than necessary is never better. If I four-putt a couple times this weekend I reserve the right to change my mind  

Adam,

Yes, I have played a lot of rounds of golf under conditions that were at least a decent approximation of what I prefer. So when I show up to play a good golf course I do indeed have expectations of an interesting challenge on the greens and conditions that bring that challenge to the fore. I don't care what course we're talking about, if the greens are squishy wet or so shaggy I have to use a pop stroke to get the ball rolling then I'm disappointed.

Now if by "expect" you mean do I think it's possible for things to be perfect every single time then of course not. Golf is a game played on grass outdoors and conditions vary. But just like I "expected" to face a tee shot over a ocean chasm on the sixteenth hole at CPC I also "expected" to see the ball rolling briskly around those wonderful MacKenzie greens. It's a big part of what makes a golf course fun. Certainly playing on sanded and punched greens the time I visited Pasatiempo leaves me in the dark about a good deal of the course's appeal.

I think this is an interesting and relevant topic.

I think that short putts tend to be a bit harder on really slow greens while longer putts become boring.

Someone posted recently that they absolutely hate it when balls stop on slopes.  I'll second that and add that I think its CRITICAL to keep interest in the short game for a green to have a significant "trickle factor" where the ball runs out with the capacity in some directions and angles of play to cause potential damage to your score on the hole. Slow greens simply don't have this capacity and thus have significantly less interest to me.