[Tom_Doak]

Twenty years ago, I'm sure that faster equated to smoother.  Today, I'm not so sure.  If it does, I believe that it's more a function of the fact that a club with faster greens must have more money to spend on greens maintenance, so they can achieve smoother greens as well.

The problem with building flat greens and making them fast on new courses is that everybody demands fast speeds on old, undulating greens which can't handle them, and then follows the pressure to flatten out those old greens.  If we'd just build more undulating greens on modern courses, then nobody would need them to be so fast.

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
Bingo-and you're one of the few(of the big names) that do.
Although with the high end clients you've attracted lately, no doubt it's a battle to tell them (and their super supers) that 8-10 is the speed you're designing for.

The only criticism (unfounded in my opinion) I've heard about Sebonack is the difficulty of the greens.
(I think anybody with a decent short game should/would enjoy them)
-the criticism no doubt stems in part because they're probably faster than designed at times- driven I'm sure because of the expectations of well heeled members used to "the fastest greens around" at their other clubs......
but also driven by the lack of undulation at most modern golf courses-which of course requires and allows them to be fast.

A vicious cycle.

[JC Jones]

If we'd just build more undulating greens on modern courses, then nobody would need them to be so fast.

Hear Hear!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()