GEORGE C. THOMAS Jr. IDEA. I'M ALL FOR IT

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

"The essence of golf strategy is diversity. Greens must be of great variety. One old authority favored different greens having different greens in order to change the speed as the golfer went from hole to hole, and thereby to acquire and understanding of the different speeds and the ability to regulate the putting touch... . Yes, the greens should, undoubtedly, have great variety."

Golf Architecture in America, Page 51

[Neil Regan]

Tony,

 A typo, corrected:

-------

"The essence of golf strategy is diversity. Greens must be of great variety. One old authority favored different greens having different grasses in order to change the speed as the golfer went from hole to hole, and thereby to acquire and understanding of the different speeds and the ability to regulate the putting touch... . Yes, the greens should, undoubtedly, have great variety."


Golf Architecture in America, Page 51

------

Do you favor different grasses, or different grass speeds ?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Neil,

Thanks for the help. I shouldn't try to type after downing a large quantity of tequila in respect for HST>

Different green speeds: can you imagine? One  hole rolling at 10.5 and the next at 9. Wow. Especially on the PGA Tour. It would bring back the days of sand greens when one side of the putting surface was oiled and the other wasn't, knowledge only the local players knew.

[TEPaul]

I've been away for a few days but this is one of the more interesting ideas from perhaps one of the greatest "out of the box" creative thinkers in all of golf architecture's annals---and it gets barely a correction of a typo and a thanks for that from the thread's originator!

Is GOLFCLUBATAS.com finally going stale?

I gotta go to bed but I can't wait to jump on this one subject tomorrow. Geo Thomas is always a great subject for discussion or would this website really rather discuss what the second best course in NJ is for the tenth time?  

[Doug Siebert]

I've got nothing personally against having different speed greens on different holes.  That happens anyway due to varying conditions, and really good putters are able to recognize this and account for it.  They could surely account for some greens being mowed higher than others, whether it is done to allow for some greens being wild and slopey and others tame, or simply to confuse players and reward strategic play.

I have a feeling that you wouldn't find many superintendants interested in maintaining multiple types of greens on the same course.  Those who have screwy setups where the practice greens are different from the course, or one nine is different from the other due to being built in different times using different strains probably think that is already way too much trouble.

[Neil Regan]

Tom,

  I knew you would be interested in this idea, and when you didn't respond here or anywhere else, I thought you must be dead. Then, when I saw that Hunter Thompson was dead, and I realized that the two of you were never photographed together, well, that got me thinking.


.....

[Neil Regan]

 Is it possible to have different speeds on the same green ?

 Everybody has seen greens with patches of taller grass, presumably unintended. Would it make sense to intentionally mow some steep slopes a little higher than the flatter spots ?
 Maybe this would help reduce the silly factor on old greens now mowed very low.

[Mike_Cirba]

A number of courses I played growing up had differing green speeds just due to environmental conditions (i.e. shade, drainage, exposure).

As I think about it, the need to homogenize everything in golf, as evidenced by the stimpmeter, is really pretty sad and places a great burden on our superintendents to do expensive magic to achieve it.  

So yes, I'm all for it too.

Different grasses is another matter.  To me, unless a green already is a hybrid of various grasses, it seems contrived and would place a greater burden on superintendents.

[Bill Gayne]

I favor different grass speeds but not different grasses. If you had different grasses the seasonal effects of variety would be magnified. With different grasses wouldn't all the greens eventually evolve into a mix of grasses and the dominant grass eventually take over all the greens?

[TEPaul]

I'm not all for it at all---not in the slightest, and I doubt, although it may seem so in that quote from Thomas, that he really was either.

One needs to read, in my opinion, the few pages before that quote and a page or two after it to get the entire breadth of what Thomas was talking about on this subject of greens, putting surfaces, architecture in general, the cost of both constructing it and maintaining it, as well as the realities of various environmental, agronomic and weather conditions on putting.

In a sense, I think, with that quote, Thomas was simply saying that golfers should not expect the impossible in some conditions and situations but that's a long, long way from Thomas advocating such a thing as a "standard" in putting or green maintenance.

Actuallly, to really understand Thomas's mind for thinking "outside the box" one needs to go on and read his entire book---even as it relates to the subject of putting, putting greens and various applications with golf architecture in general. His chapter called "Arbitrary Values" is a carefully constructed (two part) proposal to alter golf to "half strokes" for both putts and PAR!

Those who never read that chapter carefully enough probably always thought Thomas didn't like putting or something like that----nothing of the kind---he simply used the "half stroke" for putts and par to accomplish a far greater goal---even if theoretically!

And this is precisely why I think Thomas just may've been one of the real conceptual geniuses in the annals of golf and architecture---basically in the same vein as Behr with some of his "outside the box" ideas or a MacKenzie for his ideas and application of the philosophy of applying the effects of military trench camouflage to golf architecture---an application that had simply amazing results--most of which still today are not very well understood as to what they mean or what he meant to do---and did with it!

In my opinion, men like those three are perhaps the best examples of true conceptual geniuses of golf architecture!

[Pat_Mucci]

Neil Regan,

I'm familiar with a golf course that mowed at least one of it's greens at a substantially different speed from the others, due to the severe double tier nature of the green.

It was a terrible green to play on because it reacted so differently to approaches, recoveries and putts.

However, I've alway wondered about greens that appear to have 3-5 different grasses in them.

How do they react to the sun, water, fertilizers, etc, etc. ?

Are their growth rates different, do they putt differently in the morning versus the afternoon ?

Consistency isn't the bad word that many make it out to be.

[Neil Regan]

Pat,

  Don't most greens have different grasses in them ? I thought that the typical Met Area green was a combination bent and poa. I know that late in the day (which is my usual time) I'm always seeing various patches higher than the rest of the grass. I think this has become even more apparent in recent years as cuts reach new lows, sometimes under .1 inch. Maybe it's the same grass that just grew faster that day, but it usually looks like a different grass to me.

  And yes of course they putt differently AM and PM, but I know you know that.

  What about the notion of cutting different areas of a green at different heights, in an intelligent way ? I think you see this happen by chance on some courses with big slopes and small budgets. Sort of the inverse of scalping.

  I'm not suggesting major differences in cut height. Just, for example, maybe .12 on the flats and .15 on the steeps. Couldn't that be enough to eliminate some silly boomerangs, at least on some courses ?

[James Bennett]

Interesting combination of threads going on here.  One thread discussing whether we should retain/use  greens collars and first/second cuts of rough, or just have fairways and cut rough.  A second is considering moving from a single height of greens cut to multiple heights of cut.  

Interesting discussion, but would you really want to do it deliberately?  There are already minor variations in speed resulting from sun aspect, time of day, drainage, slope etc etc.  I try to work on keeping each green within +/- 5% of the average green speed - not quite a prisoner of the stimpmeter.  I'm sure the variation within each green is just as great again.

[Neil Regan]

   I'm sure it wouldn't be a good idea if you could see the different cuts. But if the transitions were smooth enough, I'd like to see it tried. A lot of the old greens here in the northeast USA are being mowed too low, as everybody on GCA has probably said once or a zillion times.
 
   Is there a machine that could do it well ? Maybe one could be designed that varied it's cut-height (very slightly) based on surface slope. A rolling ball wouldn't change speeds abruptly, it just wouldn't accelerate as much when it reached a steep slope with slightly longer grass. And maybe some slopes which can no longer hold a ball at rest would be able to do so again.

[TEPaul]

It seems to me if one reads that entire section of Thomas's book from which TonyP took Thomas's quote one will see that Thomas is basically advocating that greens should remain interesting in slope and contour and not be designed in the direction of flat and flatter.

I like fast greens as I think they evoke and demand more imagination and creativity than slower greens but I'm never an advocate of softening putting greens in the name of increased speed. I'm an advocate that each course should determine and maintain what I've called their own "reasonable maximum" greenspeed (and logically that will vary from course to course).

But as far as actually attempting to maintain a putting green at various cut heights---never---absolutely never. That, in my opinion, would serve no benefical purpose at all---it would be even more confusing to any golfer and extremely impractical (time consuming) for maintainence to do. If a course has a slope or contour somewhere on their course they want to preserve and maintain as playable, the greenspeed on the entire course should be dictated by the "reasonable maximum" in that single area. Ocassionally on here that's been referred to by me as the "Steve Curry greenspeed barometer".

I'm no advocate of out of control greenspeed on any course but I am an advocate of the goal of consistency of greenspeed on any course.

[Pat_Mucci]

Neil Regan,

Think of the impact to your green budget.

In addition, the training, or qualifications required of the mower would make the job next to impossible, to fill

[Neil Regan]

Pat,

  It's just a notion I had. If a mower could be invented that automatically sensed slope and adjusted cut height accordingly, the impact on green budget would be insignificant.

  I'm not sure it's a good idea even if it could be done smoothly and cheaply, but it would be interesting to experiment.

  There is tremendous pressure, as we all know, to recontour classic greens to accommodate lower grass. I find commonly that people's opinions on recontouring turn when green slopes that used to hold a ball at rest no longer do. Tom Paul's idea, "If a course has a slope or contour somewhere on their course they want to preserve and maintain as playable, the greenspeed on the entire course should be dictated by the "reasonable maximum" in that single area" is a good idea, but has a major flaw: The classic greens of which we speak have such a wide range from steep to flat that if the steep slopes are mowed at a puttable height, the flat areas are way too slow. I think we all agree that the advances in green-keeping are wonderful and nobody would prefer a flat speed of 1925 to that of today. So that brings us to a dilemma.

Old contours are good.  
New grass heights are good.
Old contours cannot be maintained at new grass heights.

What is to be done ?

[Pat_Mucci]

Neil Regan,

Picture if you will, the 1st green at NGLA.

You want to cut the flat tiers at one pace, and the slopes at another ?

Let's go to the second green, a relatively flat green.

Now, jump to # 3 green, a green that slopes everywhere except at the far right plateau.

Next, let's take # 6.

Then, # 10, # 11, # 12 and # 14.

Now, go to # 15 and # 16.

If you cut the slopes at one pace and the flat portions at another, you would need physchiatrists stationed at every green.

How would the mind make the calibrations necessary to execute good putts.  It's difficult enough to factor in distance and direction, but now, you want to factor in alternating speeds depending on slopes.

It would be so overwhelming a task, that the game would cease to be fun.

I think that the answer lies in a suggestion someone once made that each club should determine that speed that best suits their particular greens, and stick with it, based on variations that the superintendent deems appropriate.

What works at GCGC may not work at Winged Foot.
Each course must determine their speed limit.

Mike Rewinski was a proponent of this years ago.

[Neil Regan]

Pat,

  I agree with you. But keep in mind that my fantasy mowing machine would not cut grass at 2 heights, but at continuously different heights based on slope. Thus, the variation in speed due to grass height would be tied to the contour, and the golfers' calibrations would involve only one more observation.

  A green's speed is a function of the grass height and the contour. My notion is really nothing more than a micro-contouring of the grass height.


I strongly support the idea that each club should determine the speeds that best suit their particular greens, and stick with them. In making that case, I think it helps to stress the following, which should be obvious but apparently is not:
          Grass speed  <>  Green Speed

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul's idea, "If a course has a slope or contour somewhere on their course they want to preserve and maintain as playable, the greenspeed on the entire course should be dictated by the "reasonable maximum" in that single area" is a good idea, but has a major flaw: The classic greens of which we speak have such a wide range from steep to flat that if the steep slopes are mowed at a puttable height, the flat areas are way too slow."

Neil:

That is not the case at all, unless someone thinks that a green speed in the range of 9-11 on the stimpmeter is 'way to slow'. Some may actually think that because they think speeds of 12 or 13 are better. But I submit that golfers who think that have no real idea what greens at 12 or 13 actually putt like whether flat or contoured. Once any green anywhere gets around 10 on the stimpmeter it'll be fine and challenging for anyone and at 11 really intense on sloped and contoured greens. There is simply a total misconception out there over what a green speed of 11, for instance, really plays like. I submit that on any greens anywhere a stimpmeter reading of 11 is all that's needed for anyone. This is a fact that the world of golf really does need to wake up and realize. Anything over that is unnecessary and gets into the area of unplayable on sloped and contoured greens. As soon as golf maintenance generally realizes this quite simple fact that push to constantly increase green speed should stop and the old slopes and contours of many of the old putting greens should be safe! All this is underlaid by a very simple principle---it's called Physics!! For those that may've forgotten Physics is all about matter, energy, force and motion---and last being the key on putting greens. That's what the world of golf needs to understand. Again, 11 on the stimpmeter is a speed that really does not need to be exceeded anywhere---ever again! If golf just understands that the old slopes and contours of putting greens should be safe.

[Neil Regan]

Tom,

   I agree with you that 11 is plenty. I'd add this observation: at above that speed, slow-rolling balls tend to wobble off line and thus the putts are not true.

  But, on many old greens, 11 is way too much on the steeps. Uphill putts can reverse all the way back to the fairway. You've probably seen that, too. On such greens, 9 or even 8 or so is a much better number for the contours. But nobody prefers 8 on the flats. So you still have the dilemma.

[TEPaul]

"But, on many old greens, 11 is way too much on the steeps. Uphill putts can reverse all the way back to the fairway. You've probably seen that, too. On such greens, 9 or even 8 or so is a much better number for the contours. But nobody prefers 8 on the flats. So you still have the dilemma."

Neil:

It really isn't a dilemma if golfers and golf maintenance would get in the real world on this. When it comes to what I refer to as a "reasonable maximum" greenspeed I do mean it in a course by course sense but I've been studying this situation for two years now in both tournament conditions (I officiate a lot) and at my own golf course which ran a year long experiment on it.

My point is that a real 11 on the stimpmeter (most golfers refer to a real 11 as 12 or 13 btw ) is all the speed any greens anywhere need to be interesting and sporty. Is 11 too high for some highly sloped and contoured greens? Probably but in my observations are that around 10 just isn't---and I've seen what are probably some of the most sloped and contoured greens anywhere in the world running speeds from 10-11 and they work. You can transition the ball from most anywhere effectively.

So do you see what I mean by this? Most any green can handle up to 10 and no green anywhere needs to run speed higher than 11.

This is not rocket science, just commonsense but there's so much misinformation out there about reality that many clubs and golfers simply keep chasing a number when they don't even know what it plays like.

Again, most any greens can run up to around 10 without getting crazy and anything over 11 just isn't necessary. Another way to put this is a real 11 on the stimp is a lot faster in play than probably 98% of golfers out there think it is!

There's no question in my mind that just over 11 on any green anywhere an exponential factor takes over and things get really crazy right away. Why is that? In my opinion, it's because right around 11 and over that friction is reduced to that point where a ball won't slow done fast enough on a fairly gradual grade when a golfer thinks the ball is at the end of its run. I've come to refer to that phenomenon as "ball creep". When any green starts getting into some serious "ball creep" (near what should be the end of its run) the greenspeed is too high for that particular green--and I'll guarantee that green will be sitmping somewhere over 11.

[Neil Regan]

Tom,

   I think we agree except on one matter. I think there are courses with some slopes that can't handle 11, and some not even 10. But I do agree that most great courses with which I am familiar do very well at those speeds.

  And I agree strongly with you "that just over 11 on any green anywhere an exponential factor takes over and things get really crazy right away". What you call "ball creep" is what I meant when I said that at those high speeds a very slow-rolling ball will wobble and the putt will not be true.

  For years I've done a fun test on our greens. If the hole is cut near the bottom of a good slope, I'll search for a magic spot on the slope maybe 15 or even 30 feet above. I'll release a few balls, one at a time. If the green is not too fast, the balls will not wobble and it's possible to sink 3 or 4 in a row. But if the green is too fast, the balls wobble as they slow, and they finish in a dispersal pattern as large as a Mexican hat.

  Perhaps the greatest advance in golf course maintenance over the past 100 years has been the true roll we are all now used to on the putting surfaces. But if we cut the grass too low, the ball will not roll true. I could be wrong, but I think this is a demonstrable fact. If so, then maybe this is the argument we should make to those who want to re-contour classic greens.
 

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

 I think we agree except on one matter. I think there are courses with some slopes that can't handle 11, and some not even 10. But I do agree that most great courses with which I am familiar do very well at those speeds."

Neil, Neil, Neil;

Don't take these numbers so literally. Of course there are some courses with some greens that can't handle 11 or even 10. That's precisely WHY I advocate those clubs and courses very simply apply this method I refer to called the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" to DETERMINE what the "maximum reasonable" greenspeed is for their particular golf course. If that turns out to be 9.5 then so be---that too is plenty fast enough on a flat surface. Some may not think so but I can guarantee it is.

Again, most golfers who have no idea about any of this stuff if they could putt greens that are a real 9.5 on the stimpmeter would probably think they were 11 or faster!!

[TEPaul]

Neil:

I don't know what this wobble stuff is all about. Maybe your course should get into a regular rolling program. The best, truest and fastest greens I've ever seen are Oakmont's. Out there a ten foot putt is sort of like a three foot putt---if you get the ball on line I guarantee you it will stay on line! There ain't no wobble on the really fast greens of Oakmont and there never has been in all my experience there which includes a good number of rounds and three State Amateur Championships.

[Tags:]

Tags: