[Tom_Doak]

I played my first round of the year at Crystal Downs yesterday.  The club doesn't officially open until May 1st, and the grass has just started growing here, so the maintenance guys are starting slow and the greens were maybe 8 on the Stimpmeter.

The golf course was a blast to play.  My opponent and I didn't have to worry about putting off half the greens, although there were several little chips and pitches that presented a tough challenge just to get them on the green and keep them there.  We didn't three-putt as often, but the putting was anything but easy, since those greens are steep.  And I'm guessing the club would spend about 60% as much on the maintenance of greens if they were this speed throughout the season -- as they were when I first saw the course 25 years ago.

So, somebody tell me why everyone thinks greens need to be fast.

[David_Tepper]

Ego and tour-envy!

[Jerry Kluger]

Maybe the greens at CD are normally too fast.  I played my home course yesterday and at this time of the year the poa greens are too slow - most of the time you were better off above the hole.  There needs to be a penalty for being on the wrong side of a green for putting as well as chipping - that doesn't mean that the recovery has to be impossible, but it certainly should be a more difficult challenge.  I thought the greens at Ballyneal were too slow the first year but last year they were great and they weren't ridiculously fast.

[Ken Moum]

I believe it's partly a product of the silly notion that hard = good in golf courses.

The other thing is that most of the slow greens I see aren't particularly smooth, so people get the idea that fast and smooth are related.

A final one, that I never heard from anyone else, is that on fast greens technique becomes less important.

I played for more than 20 years on a course with huge, slow greens. I moved there from the opposite--small and fast. It took me several years to realize that it took a great putting stroke to get the ball to roll smoothly on those surfaces.

The same thing applies to Poa greens. If your stroke is good enough, they roll fine, and you get advantage over guys who play on a course where even crappy strokes produce a nice roll.

Ken

[CJ Carder]

The other thing is that most of the slow greens I see aren't particularly smooth, so people get the idea that fast and smooth are related.

You can have slow greens that are bumpy and you can have slow greens that are smooth.  But if you're going to have fast greens, they have to be smooth.  For that reason, give me fast any day of the week.

And I agree with Jerry, there needs to be some kind of penalty for not adequately controlling your iron shots.  It melds into that whole discussion of changing up the challenge and combatting technology by placing a premium on distance control (recall the whole discussion on small greens v. large greens and the inherent benefits of large greens).

[Matt_Cohn]

The Unified Theory.

[Padraig Dooley]

You can have slow greens that are bumpy and you can have slow greens that are smooth.  But if you're going to have fast greens, they have to be smooth.  For that reason, give me fast any day of the week.

Fast greens don't have to be smooth, fast and bumpy is the worst combination. Slow and bumpy are a bit more playable.

[Adam Clayman]

I thought it was so the families of restoration architects could eat.
 Who else is going to soften the test and character of all those great greens out there?
 

Money better spent should go to an in-house psychiatrist, probing for the Id, and, that other thing.

[Bill Shamleffer]

I always thought greens would be more fun with lots of undulation and slope and then at moderate speeds.

I also thought that moderate green speeds but with greater undulation and slope, would make it easier to protect the greens during hot weather.

I thought that I have read that Pete Dye designed his greens with the intention that the green speeds be moderate.

[John Moore II]

Padraig--I agree that fast greens can be bumpy, terrible combination. But overall, I like semi-fast greens better than slower greens. When I am putting on slower greens, I sometimes feel like I will have to hit the ball so hard it will get airborne in order to get it to the hole. That is not enjoyable to me. However, on the other side, greens rolling 13 are not fun either, because I do not play them every day, though I don't think greens that fast would be more fun if I did play them every day.

[Joe Hancock]

My belief is that the discussion of green speed has to include water management, even of for no other reason than strategy. (not that plant health isn't a priority)

A slow green isn't necessarily going to give an easy recovery opportunity, as long as the soil is quite firm....and  that doesn't happen as long as everyone (including superintendents displaying their talents) demands perfectly green, uniform surface color.

Joe

[Patrick Kiser]

Does the ball have anything to do with why greens went from slower to faster?

In other words, was it becoming too easy of a challenge for the better players on slower greens with the new balls?

Just curious to know the history behind what might have triggered going from slower to faster.

[Joe Hancock]

Patrick,

I think it has more to do with advancement of scientific understanding, technology (mowing equipment, etc.) and advances in chemicals and fertility. The field of greenkeeping is highly sophisticated compared to 30-40 years ago. Of course, along with all this newfound knowledge comes issues of ego vs. practicality.

I doubt the ball had anything to do with it.

Joe

[PThomas]

Doesn't Jack have to get some of the blame?  modeling MV after Augusta, trying to make it the 5th major, taking the maintenance their to the nth degree, etc......in his book Pete Dye related how Jack told him that they got the greens at MV up to 16 on the Stimpmeter

[JESII]

Tom,

Is there a green speed that you would consider too slow?

[Joe Hancock]

Doesn't Jack have to get some of the blame?  modeling MV after Augusta, trying to make it the 5th major, taking the maintenance their to the nth degree, etc......in his book Pete Dye related how Jack told him that they got the greens at MV up to 16 on the Stimpmeter

Some of the blame? Perhaps. To give Jack too much credit for the speeds they claim would be over doing it, IMO. Why would we blame MV when Augusta seems to be directly in the crosshairs?

Joe

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Probably because they play greens that are too big.

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,
Probably because they play greens that are too big.

If that's true, then the par 3 on Old Mac that we keep seeing pictures of will have to roll at 23 on the Stimpy....

Joe

[PThomas]

Doesn't Jack have to get some of the blame?  modeling MV after Augusta, trying to make it the 5th major, taking the maintenance their to the nth degree, etc......in his book Pete Dye related how Jack told him that they got the greens at MV up to 16 on the Stimpmeter

Some of the blame? Perhaps. To give Jack too much credit for the speeds they claim would be over doing it, IMO. Why would we blame MV when Augusta seems to be directly in the crosshairs?

Joe

i did say "some " Joe!

this kind of discussion always makes me think of something  - i think it was by Ron Whitten- i read a long time ago, to the effect of"How would golf courses be different if Jack had modeled MV after TOC instead of Augusta??...

...although, come to think of it, the trend does seem to be reversing at least somewhat with the Sand Hills, Ballyneals, etc....

[Joe Hancock]

Doesn't Jack have to get some of the blame?  modeling MV after Augusta, trying to make it the 5th major, taking the maintenance their to the nth degree, etc......in his book Pete Dye related how Jack told him that they got the greens at MV up to 16 on the Stimpmeter

Some of the blame? Perhaps. To give Jack too much credit for the speeds they claim would be over doing it, IMO. Why would we blame MV when Augusta seems to be directly in the crosshairs?

Joe

i did say "some " Joe!

this kind of discussion always makes me think of something  - i think it was by Ron Whitten- i read a long time ago, to the effect of"How would golf courses be different if Jack had modeled MV after TOC instead of Augusta??...

...although, come to think of it, the trend does seem to be reversing at least somewhat with the Sand Hills, Ballyneals, etc....

I know, and then I said "Perhaps."

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Joe,
Every green has its speed and if you never have more than a 10 or 20 yard putt, what's slow?

As we all know from hanging around this site, there is no one 'right' answer to any question.

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,
Every green has its speed and if you never have more than a 10 or 20 yard putt, what's slow?

As we all know from hanging around this site, there is no one 'right' answer to any question.

I absolutely agree.

Joe

[Peter Wagner]

Tom,

Yep, somewhere along the way fast has come to mean good.  I think it may stem from course maintenance technology: higher end clubs are able to afford better equipment and better procedures which in turn allows faster greens.  Greens speeds are a product of enhanced abilities of the course super.

Generally speaking, I like fast greens and I find that I putt better.  Small breaks suddenly take on new meaning at say a stimp of 12.  That's fun I think.  Just a different test of a player's skill.

I think greens speeds should match a course.  Most players would expect and want a stimp of 8-9 at Bandon Resort and they would expect and want a stimp of 11-12 at Augusta.  Reverse the numbers for those two examples and you'd have unhappy campers at both fine clubs.

Best,
Peter

[RJ_Daley]

Part of the fun for me is experiencing vary different green speeds at very different courses.  Lawsonia seems most often to be significantly slower than my home course.  Yet, if the greens roll true, it is the variety that is fun.  Sure, the greater green contours also mitigate towards a more sensible maintenance meld at Lawsonia if they are a bit slower.   I think Lawsonia could play fine up to about 10, but more and it might be into over-the-top for the design (rolling off high platform greens) 

When I get out to Wild Horse and when they are at their fastest, it is also fun to experience the difference.   Putting is a whole other dimension on such lightening fast greens and razor sharp edged cups. 

So, I agree with above, there is no right answer and is varied course to course; and true as an answer pertains to the quality of the roll, not speed per se.

One ideal speed would be boring...

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom -

I wonder how much of this is a chicken-and-the-egg thing? That is, for how many years now have good designers working on quality golf courses designed their greens under the assumption that they'd run fast?

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()