Will green speeds ever stabilize ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

We keep hearing that more and more golf courses are altering their greens, reducing or eliminating contours and pitch.

At a course in New Jersey, three unique, trademark greens are in jeopardy of succumbing to the leveling process due to the increased pace in the greens.

If the speed trend continues virtually all of the distinctive character of greens will be slowly eliminated, resulting in flatter, boring greens, and the diminishing of the value of incoming shots and approaches.

Is there a barrier point, a maximum speed that prudent people will observe, that will permit greens to be left untouched, with their contour, slope and character left intact ?

Or, is the answer just the reverse ?

Build greens with substantive pitch, slope, contour and character and have them maintained at prudent, not breakneck speeds ?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

In my view, the trouble with the vicious circle of "fast green - flat green" is not that the greens become boring.  Indeed, wouldn't a subtler faster green be just as challenging as a more contoured slower green?

The only real trouble is that pursuing fast greens for its own sake, maintenance requirements and costs increase.

So yes, Patrick, I agree with you.  Mainting green contours as much as possible is perhaps one of the only way to maintain reasonable green speeds.  

The other alternative would be to "educate the public".  Lord knows that won't work!  

[WB_Salinetti]

Just the thought of altering some of the putting surfaces at great American golf courses really disturbs me.  I spent seven seasons at WFGC and to hear that they are considering recontouring greens to accept higher green speeds is just plain foolish.  They are trying to accomodate the best of players with the fast green speeds and then softening the contours to make it more accomodating to the everyday player?  Does that make any sense?  As a CGCS 10-10 1/2 for everyday play is fine and then showing the place off a little for big events, especially at WFGC, it is easy to get speeds in excess of 13 for a few days.  The average golfer is a 17.3 handicap according to Golf Magazine, and no, they cannot handle the slope of great American greens that are rolling 12+ so why bother trying.  University testing has proven greens that roll consistently the same appear much faster than those with inconsistent speeds.  Hence the invention of the stimpmeter, it is not a contest, just a tool to help us improve consistency.

[Michael Goody]

I am all for greens with contouing and character that put more pressure on approach play and appropriate pressure on putting.
I think that the way to do that is to build "greens within greens" by using both strong and subtle contours and keeping green speeds to reasonable levels.
The average player can't handle lightning fast greens and massive contours. If a club wants to increase speeds for top players in tournament play, that's fine.
Nothing that I like better than to actually have to think about which iron to hit into a green and where to leave yourself a makeable putt.
I think that keeping speeds reasonable would also improve pace of play dramatically.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Logically greenspeeds not only should but must stabalize. It seems to me there are so many inherent problems down the road if they don't!

1. Clubs that are prone to softening great old slope and contoured green surfaces.
2. The inherent problem of "stress" with ever increasing speed, ie anthracnose on poa greens that are stressed!
3. The problem of relative unplayability. Does the average golfer really enjoy the prospect of 3-4 putting with regularity?
4. Unfortunately greens that unthinking greenspeed boasters think are 12 are really only about 10 and God help us all and those greens if they ever realize this.

Unfortunately there's just no magic formula for continuing to increase greenspeeds and at the same time keep the greens playable. Increasing greenspeeds are simply not something that can be considered in a vacuum as much as golfers seem to look at the issue that way.

Greenspeeds must stabalize and on highly contoured and sloped greens my feeling is that speed should be capped for the rest of time at right around 10 on the stimpmeter!

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,
      Any clue as to what stimpmeter reading would be acceptable for old classic greens with bold pitches? I've played a few Donald Ross & Stanley Thompson greens in tournament conditions and was terrified on a number of occasions, and that certainly doesn't make for enjoyable golf. Conversely, my home course tends to keep green speeds quite slow in the 7 to 7.5 range, and it becomes unbearable. Slow greens generally have more grain, are bumpier and the concept of finesse tends to get lost.
      Obviously, the weather can have a great deal of impact on what is considered fair and enjoyable, and all greens are unique, but given "good" golfing conditions, would a reading of 9 be reasonable for most courses? This seems to strike a decent balance between testing the putting ability of the golfer and fairly punishing wayward shots by making some recoveries extremely challenging.
      Just a stab in the dark.

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

TKearns:

In my travels over the years playing mostly tournaments (when greens are faster) I would say even the most complex contours and slopes can handle 9 no problem and most can go to 10 but that should be about it generally--no higher, except for really special circumstances for a higher level of player.

Greens that are complex like PVGC in some Crump Cups have reputedly been maybe to 12 but for the average golfer that is way over the limit--they could never handle greens like that! It's not really even a physical thing--they just wouldn't remotely have the imagination or probably even concentration to handle greens like that that are that fast! And it's certainly not just the putting--that might even be easier at those speeds compared to controlling the finesse shots and such around the greens! And for approach shots and such greens that are that fast and are also firm too are another animal altogether than what most recreational golfers ever play!

Conditions like that would be where handicap and recreational golfers would loose shots right and left into and around the greens--it just wouldn't be fun--it would be much too frustrating in my opinion!

[Tyler Kearns]

TEPaul,
      Thanks for your comments, Pine Valley at 12 on the Stimp!!! I've always found it amusing listening to good players brag about the speed of the greens, while at the same time hearing the vast majority of members complain endlessly about those very same greens. I guess golf wasn't a sport founded in democracy, so why should we here on GCA complain about the powers that be make all their decisions based on testing the PGA Tour players.

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

Tyler:

I'm not too sure I understand what you're saying in your last post. If you're saying you're amused by good players bragging about greens being really fast and the vast majority of members complaining endlessly about those same green being too fast, that's certainly not my experience.

I find the vast majority of members bragging not so much about really fast greens but about really high stimp numbers! But the irony is when the vast majority of members inevitably start to get frustrated by the unplayability of those speeds their first thought is to alter contours and such by softening them and calling for even faster stimp numbers.

I would certainly rather see the vast majority of members complain about really fast speeds and then suggest that good players or whomever make the decisions slow them down!

Again, in my opinion a stimp reading of 9 generally and maybe 10 max for special occasions should be the speed limit. I think that's plenty fast for anyone to have a good test and a good time. And there's no reason at all to assume the speed can somehow go up the following year for some magical reason or ever for that matter.

[TEPaul]

And there certainly are other logical reasons to slow greens down from excessive speeds and stimp numbers. At least in my area, this year, another good reason raised it's ugly head! That would be stress! Keep pushing these speeds higher and the likelihood of losing the greens altogether keeps increasing too!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TKearns & TEPaul,

Some classic courses are guilty of speeding up their greens to borderline speeds to make it more difficult for top amateurs to score well in invitational events.  

That process has spread to courses all over the country that host these events.

In some instances, the novelty is perpetuated for the membership, and the cycle, which leads to the alteration/softening of greens with character begins.

These same clubs set the pace for other clubs which hold them up as lofty examples, to be emulated.  Thus, the trend spreads, and the cycle is expanded.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

You wouldn't be in effect saying that there is really such a thing as the "Augusta Syndrome", would you?  

[Ed_Baker]

Wish we could access the old site content, this is about the third or fourth time this year that the original "Steve Curry" green speed method thread is applicable.

One of my original posts on GCA a few years ago was "Help! What's the Speed Limit?" on this very subject. Why clubs can't just use common sense and the "Steve Curry" method which I'll paraphrase and condense to being, " maintain your most severe green at a speed that is right on the ragged edge of becoming unplayable but still not over the top, and cut the rest of the greens at the same height employing the same cultivar and rolling (or not) practices that you used on the most severe green. Makes sense doesn't it?

Flattening greens because the grass is cut too short(overly simplified analogous statement) is really "throwing the baby out with the bath water." I just can't imagine how much this is being done, it's lunacy.

[John_McMillan]

No --- there is no physical limit to how fast a golf ball can travel.  Putts will soon be hit with a velocity which exceeds the earth's escape velocity, with each putt producing a new orbiting dimpled sphere.

[TEPaul]

John MacMillan:

I love it--LOL--really funny--excellent humor! But cut out the humor will you? Most contributors on Golfclubaltas don't seem to want humor anymore--it gets in the way of serious golf architectural discussion!

[Michael Stachowicz]

The greensmower cannot physically go much lower than a tenth of a inch.  After that height you are altering and going trough alot of bedknives that would be very labor intensive and cost prohibitive.  That's the good news, the bad news is that laser mowing cannot be far away.

Unfortunately members not only see prestige in wall to wall green, they also see it in greenspeeds.  Neither one of these factors have much to do with playability, but it they are important to the status of a club.

You would think that greens should become more undulating, allowing us to mow at higher heights of cut, thus reducing chemical inputs to keep the grass alive.  

Bring back grain.

[Tyler Kearns]

TEPaul,
        I guess I have had an different experience than you at my country club. It really is only the best players nagging the greens superintendent to speed up the greens (higher stimp reading). The vast majority of the membership are more than content with slow greens, or they just don't seem to care.
        The scenario you described with members considering softening green contours to yield even higher stimp readings is a scary thought. It such an obviously backwards thought, spend a lot of good money to create boring, flat surfaces!! How bizarre!

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

News Flash--2020;

Man has to have foot amputated after being injured by a 3 ft putt exiting a green (stimpmeter reading of 97) at warp speed!

Lawyer for injured man files lawsuit against grandchildren of Henry Stimpson (inventor of stimpmeter) for $1.3 trillion.

[TEPaul]

Tyler Kearns;

Just tell me where your club is and I'll get a few guys together (particularly TommyN) and we'll come on over and help you beat up those doltish low handicappers at your club!

[redanman]

Grass guys, correct me if I am wrong, but A-4 is stabilized at about 15-16 maximum (Comfortably I have heard) just now, or is there a potentially faster grass?

Or, is this an "urban legend"?  (Seriously)

[Tyler Kearns]

TEPaul,
           I'll certainly consider your band of hooligans the next time some discipline needs to be ENFORCED around the club.

Tyler Kearns

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Speeds may have stabilized for now in the Pacific NW.  

The cause is a turf problem that is exacerbated by low mowing heights.  This disease is as yet unidentified and seems to feed on thatch layers in Poa.  Several courses are now affected and Superintendents are meeting this week to discus methods to combat the problem. Most of them have already raised mowing heights in an effort to slow disease.  

Mother nature may well call a halt to hyperspeeds and microscopic mowing heights.  New grass and recontouring greens may be fine for clubs with endless budgets but I would guess that most courses will be forced to live with the contours and poa at reasonable mowing heights!

[TEPaul]

Cos:

One of the reasons I guess many of us like to think of the return of "nature" in golf in so many ways is probably part of what you said there about Mother Nature finally coming to the rescue to cap the excessive greenspeeds and cap these stimp numbers! Of course the reason is "stress" and consequent problems and disease!

So these speed merchants can just keep pushing the envelop if they want to and if they really want to putt on dirt!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Cos,
I don't know if Mother Nature will have the final say when I read articles like this:

..."breeders have placed considerable emphasis on the development and release of new cultivars that tolerate a lower range of mowing heights. Turfgrass breeders have been able to accomplish these advances with a variety of methods. Skillful selection of plants that have evolved over decades of exposure to close mowing has resulted in varieties with enhanced close-mowing tolerance. These ecotypes tend to have: *The capacity to maintain a deeper root system than less-adapted types *The capacity to produce basal tillers at reduced heights, allowing for sustained competitiveness *More horizontal leaf-blade growth (exceptions exist) *Less leaf area removed during each mowing (due to horizontal leaf-blade habit), which lessens the usual negative impact on photosynthesis.
Additionally, new technology (the identification and manipulation of genes for close-mowing tolerance) has provided the genetic-engineering tool for the development of more turfgrasses that tolerate close mowing".

Much of the ability to propogate and defend itself comes from having enough leaf to receive the maximum effective of photosynthesis. Probably why they are raising heights on those older grasses.
Modern science is looking to change that, or so it seems from reading the above.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Jim and TE, your points are well taken.  Science will always seek to solve a problem.  Whether that is the best thing for the game remains to be seen.

We also, for the first time, have an undercurrent of displeasure concerning greens speeds.  The higher and older players have reached a point where a steady diet of around 11 on the stimp has ceased to be fun.  As much as I enjoy these conditions, I understand that we are a business and must meet the needs of the members. It could well be time to raise the mowers.

I must ask the question: just because we are able to maintain a putting surface at these speeds and heights is it the best thing for the game?  We are discussing flattening greens and removing their character.  In twenty years will we be putting on totally flat greens that run at 20?  Would that be fun?  I think not!