Have perfect greens hindered the game??

[Mike_Young]

In the past the margin for error was greater on the putting surface and therefore shotmaking was more critical.  IMHO the professional of 30 years ago accepted "rub of the green" more than today and also anticipated imperfections through out the course.  As we continue to improve putting surfaces, we place that much more emphasis on the putting aspect of the game.  

[Peter Galea]

I think more perfect greens have helped the game. Fast, smooth and true greens require a "stroke" rather than a "hit" to get the ball rolling.
This has added a facet of playing which is delicate and exquisite.
Physical and mental prowness runs the gamut from the raw, unbridaled power of a drive on a long hole, to the total restraint and pinpoint accuracy needed on a downhill 3 footer which breaks left to right.

[Joe Hancock]

Pete,

I tend to disagree that todays greens require a stroke rather than a hit. I have stated before, and perhaps wrongly, that todays greens speeds have diminished the requirements of the putting stroke. Back in the day, when greens rolled 5 or 6 on the stimpmeter, the best putters were the ones who had the solid stroke that hit the sweet spot consistently. The others would blast away, sometimes going way past, but often ending up way short.

Today, we line up and give the ball a tap. Of course, I also believe the best putters always get the best results, but I think the disparity between good putters and not so good putters is diminshed on todays fast and smooth surfaces.

Reserving the right to be completely wrong,

Joe

[Mike_Young]

Pete,
I agree with your statement but think that what you say allows more players to compete with less shotmaking ability because putting becomes a higher percentage of the scoring.  The more variables we eliminate via maintenace or equipment the more top players can compete on a given day.
Joe,
I think you are saying what I am saying, "the best putter should not always win" and that is where we are headed, if not already there.

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

I agree each week on the PGA Tour turns into more of a putting contest than anything else.

You had also mentioned that in today's game, anticipated imperfections around the course are less tolerated.  This seems to me to be the case more on the PGA Tour compared to the European Tour.  Do you believe this also the case and why the European players are better to adapt to challenging course situations?

Ken

[Peter Galea]

Hasn't it always been the case that everyone is going to knock the ball somewhere up around the green, but the one that gets it in the hole first wins?

[texsport]

My experience has always been that better players prefer conditions which eliminate "the rub of the green" as much as possible, because they are more interested in a fair contest of shotmaking to determine a winner.

Many poorer players have little appreciation for the frustrations of having a perfectly hit shot spoiled by a lack of optimum conditioning , maintenance, or for that matter, design.

A fair example of this is the cut height of fairways. Better players would prefer tighter lies so that the ball can be spun while poorer players would prefer the ball sitting up more, since contact is easier and if the ball flies too far, they think they really flushed one.

As for greens, the faster they are, the better the test of putting and shotmaking. Slow greens equalize everything and distance control is not nearly as important-you can stop any approach shot and the danger of 3 putting is greatly reduced.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,

I tend to disagree that todays greens require a stroke rather than a hit. I have stated before, and perhaps wrongly, that todays greens speeds have diminished the requirements of the putting stroke. Back in the day, when greens rolled 5 or 6 on the stimpmeter, the best putters were the ones who had the solid stroke that hit the sweet spot consistently. The others would blast away, sometimes going way past, but often ending up way short.

Today, we line up and give the ball a tap. Of course, I also believe the best putters always get the best results, but I think the disparity between good putters and not so good putters is diminshed on todays fast and smooth surfaces.

Reserving the right to be completely wrong,

Joe

I can't agree with that. On today's greens, a solid, 7 to 5 stroke that applies overspin is still as necessary to really make putts.  A non-solid stroke is always less likely to be holed than a solid one.  It used to run away with grain and slope, now it runs away from the cup with lesser slope and greater speed.  I think the skill required is equal, but different.

Now, I do suspect that the smoother greens create fewer misses because of bumpiness, and Tour stats bear that out. I think there is about one stroke improvement in average scores over the last decade or so, almost all of it related to putting.  Of course, those guys are the best and very best putters, and all have pretty solid strokes.

If greens really did "hinder" the game, would it show up in Tour stats and numbers of victories?  In theory, wouldn't the best putters win far more often than the top players/putters of yesteryear?  Or would they win less if greens allowed others to equalize their games?  In that case, the Brad Faxons and other good putters would be on top of the tour, no?   It seems to still take a complete game, and I see no stats correlation on Tour that would say modern greens either help or hurt anyone.  

Lastly, better greens have been the mantra of golf since at least the 1930's when the Green Section was formed.  I am not sure that it has sprung up overnight, or that we have made progress recently. Its been a slow evolutions, and golfers have adapted.  None of that ruins the game, and most would argue it is a constant refinement and improvement.