[Patrick_Mucci]

If you go to the USGA website, you will see an article explaining how to eliminate contours in greens in order to accomodate increased speeds.

What do you think of the USGA policy of supporting increased green speeds, and eliminating of the character of putting surfaces ?

[Jeff Fortson]

blahhhhhhhhhh ugggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

sorry, Patrick, I was throwing up.

In all honesty, if the USGA is recommending that people flatten their greens then I will lose a TON of respect for them.  However, if they just have suggested guidelines for those that choose to lower their greens then at least they are trying to help.  On the other hand, by even having suggestions they are kind of endorsing it.  

Interesting info Patrick.


Jeff F

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Tell me where that article is exactly on their website. If they're even remotely recommending something like that that really truly is a super lowpoint in whatever their stance has been on golf course architecture. That might require an all-out concerted counter-attack!  

[A_Clay_Man]

agin!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Just open up their website, it's on the first page, click on, and you'll have the entire article in front of you.

I was more then surprised, and had to ask myself, is anyone at the USGA reviewing these articles with a MORE global vision ??

I believe that the article sends a terrible message to all golf courses in the United States, and gives fuel and support to disfiguring classic golf courses, or at least their putting surfaces.

It is very disappointing to see the USGA endorse this concept.

[JBStansell]

This is the text of the fourth paragraph of the article:

"The inspiration for this concept of putting green recontouring                comes from Rick Christian, golf course superintendent at Pine Valley Golf Club in New Jersey. Working with architect Tom Fazio, the staff carefully lifted the sod and added a compatible soil to raise and soften the green contours without noticeably changing the character or feel of these greens."

Does this not suggest that Pine Valley endorses changes that allow higher green speeds as well?

[Tim_Weiman]

Joe Stansell:

I am aware that some very fine people associated with Pine Valley supported the recontouring of greens such as #5.

But, that doesn't mean the USGA should be encouraging this trend. It is an awful idea that makes you wonder what actual purpose the USGA now serves. First, they have completely dropped the ball on technology issues and now they are blatantly encouraging disfiguring classic greens/golf courses.

As a rule, green contours should not be softened. Doing so not only makes putting far less interesting. More to the point it, undermines the the challenge/interest associated with both approach and recovery shots.

It appears the USGA has reached a low point and the entire leadership needs to be replaced.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

And Mark Fine says the USGA's Tim Morghan is a guy that "gets it."

I didn't know this about PV #5, and it's very disappointing. Just the thought of lifting sod and "softening" contours.............I don't need to go into this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Stansell,

I'm not so sure that the article is accurate in giving credit for the "inspiration of the concept" to Rick Christian, but he and Pine Valley are high profile references that will lend credence and strong third party influence to the process.

But, you are right.

You can't condemn all other courses for this action, and then give Pine Valley a pass.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat et al.,
The title to this thread is a bit misleading. I'm not arguing in favor of the process described but it focuses on softening the slope of the greens, not removing contours.


Edited to add: I read the article again and I am rethinking the above paragraph. What initially sounded like softening of slopes while maintaining contours appears to be interchangeable with contour softening.   .ps !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

The article says, specifically, "flatten out the contours

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat, I just edited my initial post.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I got stuck on this paragraph:
"With this information, Mr. Foster presented a plan in which additional hole location areas could be gained through slight softening or reduction of the slopes. The objective was to complete the work without compromising the original character of the design to attempt to complete the job so that the average golfer would find it difficult to tell that work had been done."

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim, Wasn't this the same attitude a much-storied and high-profile club took regarding their attempts to recreate 1931?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The USGA should just stick to real estate deals, their real expertise!

The changing-greens-to-accomodate-modern-speeds syndrome always reminds me of the old Riviera superintendent who added bunkers next to the 8th green to stop balls from going out of bounds. The O.B. stakes could have been moved 30, 40, 50 yards right to the base of the hill if he wanted, but no, lets undertake something that makes no sense!

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I think it sends a terrible message to the golf world, especially that portion of the golf world that looks to the USGA for guidance.

Remove the character from your putting surfaces in order to accomodate higher green speeds.

Where does it stop ?
As increased speeds are encouraged, what then, flatten the greens more ?

I forget who said it, whether it was Ross and/or others, but the greens were the focal point of the golf course, the face of the golf course, the character of the golf course,
why disfigure them in the name of speed ?

What message does this send to clubs seeking to embark upon restorations ?

[TEPaul]

Pat said:

"Where does it stop ?
As increased speeds are encouraged, what then, flatten the greens more?"

That to me is the essential and primary question. Where does the increase in greenpeed and stimpmeter numbers stop?

To be honest, I read that USGA article and I really don't see that they are either encouraging greenspeeds to be increased and I don't even see that they are encouraging the recontouring or softening of greens. What they are doing is talking about if a club is going to soften or recontour green surfaces how to do it right instead of how to do it wrong!

But even for the USGA to explain just that it does appear to most and will appear to most that the USGA is encouraging both increased greenspeeds and the recontouring of greens and that's a terrible message to send.

The USGA should follow this article up with another one that suggests and encourages that clubs should try first to find that greenspeed and stimp reading that works for their present slopes and counter at a maximum of reasonableness and not only live with that but cap it and the max speed and stimpmeter number on that course for the rest of time.

The thing that most clubs forget about is no one is going to reinvent physics and physics does apply to what happens to a golf ball on a surface that's too fast for it's slopes and contours--basically a speed that's higher than that course's maximum reasonable greenspeed or stimp number.

The thing many of us are not facing though is some of those old greens may not have been designed for stimpmeter reading over about 5 and speeds in that neighborhood. That probably isn't acceptable today and the problem becomes not just what to do about it but at what max speed to cap for the rest of time greenspeed on those types of greens.

To be honest, I think almost any green I've ever seen could probably somehow manage speeds at least in the neighborhood of 9 on the stimpmeter and at that max speed you could have all the fun, interest and challenge you'd ever need. Other courses may have max speeds that need to be capped at say 10. NGLA told me they were running stimp speeds up to almost 12 and if they can do that on those greens most any course anywhere would have to be save at at least 9 or 10. PVGC could probably run at over 11 tops and have gone maybe to 12 for something like the Crump which had gotten a little crazy in the past. So I'd say somewhere just over 11 and probably short of 12 would be the max reasonable greenspeed for PVGC and they too should cap their greenspeeds right there for the rest of time!

The trick is for all clubs to determine the max speed they can run with their present greens and cap it there for the rest of time. If they happen to have a green that gets out of control at about 7 or 8 on the stimp then they probably have a problem and an article like the one in the USGA's web page might help them.

PVGC did soften the front right of #5 some years ago but I'd challenge anyone to see how they did it or even notice that they did do it without being told that they did it. There was a bit of recontouring on at least one or two other greens for other reasons and other problems but again I doubt anyone could tell unless they were told.

Again, I don't see that the USGA article is exactly encouraging increasing greenspeeds or softening or recontouring greens, only trying to explain how to do it correctly if you do it at all.

But they should follow up with another article to this one explaining and encouraging that the first and best thing to do is to consider capping the greenspeed at any course for the rest of time at that stimp number that is at the limit of reasonableness for the slopes and contours of their greens as they are now! They should punctuate that message by mentioning that none of us are going to reinvent physics by continually pushing greenspeeds higher!

Again, the best answer to Pat's question of where do greenspeeds and softening of greens stop is for every club to first find out what their maximum reasonable greenspeed and stimpmeter reading is for the green contour and slope they have right now and to consider capping it there! Some of us now call that process to find out what that max speed and max number is on any golf course the "Steve Curry greenspeed barometer."

[RT]

Perhaps writing some of the agronomists you can find on the USGA Greens Section site is a good way of expressing your concerns.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You know as well as I do that speeds of 12 are excessive at PV and NGLA.

Even the best amateurs in the country can't consistently cope with them, and this is the danger.

Clubs that others look to, have their greens running at
11-12 and all the other clubs hear about this and want to emulate them.  And when they do, and members and guests complain, they're told, "PV and NGLA do it, so it must be okay"

Greens that are quick require skill to navigate, but when the greens used as the last line of defense against the ball, equipment and distance, by making them ridiculously fast, which in turn results in the restructuring the greens to accomodate the increased speeds, the golf world has lost its way.

[A_Clay_Man]

Even if a courses greens are capable of going 11 and 12, how often do they get'em there? 9's and 10's make their point very well and if the green isn't contoured enough, doesn't it remove more of the creativity and touch, needed to challenge mentally and physically.

[ed_getka]

I would say ten years ago the average golfer was most concerned with the smoothness of greens (I know I was, and still am). Nowadays I hear avg. golfers talking about how great the course was because the greens are so FAST. They look at it as a survival contest and some demonstration of their machismo I suppose. Good greens=fast greens is the mindset now it seems.
  In my mind at higher greenspeeds, putting loses some of its fun. I golfed at a course that is generally acknowledged on this site as a top course. In June the greens were quick, but not scary. Later in the year they were a little over the top and your only thought was not to 3 putt. Once you cross the line in greenspeeds where your thought process changes from making putts, to not three-putting, the speed is TOO FAST!

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
  Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Any chance a letter writing campaign would get the USGA's attention at all? I'm willing to try.

[JBStansell]

Pat said:

But they should follow up with another article to this one explaining and encouraging that the first and best thing to do is to consider capping the greenspeed at any course for the rest of time at that stimp number that is at the limit of reasonableness for the slopes and contours of their greens as they are now! They should punctuate that message by mentioning that none of us are going to reinvent physics by continually pushing greenspeeds higher!

Does this article, posted by the USGA in 1995, qualify for what you have in mind?  

http://www.usga.org/green/download/golf_course_managment/greens/speed.html

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Greenspeeds at NGLA and PVGC between 11-12 are doable for select tournament play because I've seen them there and played them there unless of course the supers on those courses are lying to me which couldn't possibly be at NGLA because I was out there with them when they stimped them.

But that's not the point here. I never said any golf course should emulate NGLA or PVGC or any other course for that matter--just the opposite in fact. I said that ANY GOLF CLUB should figure out what THEIR OWN reasonable maximum greenspeed is for their own golf course's greens and not only forget about what NGLA or PVGC are doing but any other golf course for that matter other than their own!

The so-called "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" is intended to be course specific! Don't continue to tell me that some golf courses will continue to emulate other course's greenspeeds anyway because that's precisely the thing I'm recommended that they NOT DO by analyzing only the maximum reasonable speeds for their own greens and not some other courses!

[Michael Moore]

What do you think of the USGA policy of supporting increased green speeds, and eliminating of the character of putting surfaces ?

Like Mr. Paul and Mr. Stansell before me, I think this policy is nonexistent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()