[John Kavanaugh]

Fast greens take much more of a combination of engineering and imagination than your run of the mill random "natural" humps.  Could this be the reason so many architects whine at speed?

[Tom_Doak]

Just take the best contractor in the village and make them all flat.  Anybody can do that, too.

It's harder to design really fast greens that are INTERESTING than really slow greens that are interesting ... but is that an argument for fast or for slow?

[Steve Lang]

  Are they in a wet or dry climate?

[JESII]

Just take the best contractor in the village and make them all flat.  Anybody can do that, too.

It's harder to design really fast greens that are INTERESTING than really slow greens that are interesting ... but is that an argument for fast or for slow?

I'd call it half an answer...how about this...Of all the greens in the world, would the majority be more interesting at 11 feet or at 8 feet?

I think there is no question that some greens become extreme at 11 feet, but it's a small minority...and those are the only ones that would be better at 8 feet.

This is not a commentary on what golfers NEED, just an opinion on green end interest...and imagination is a huge factor in green end interest...and speed dictates imagination.

[Joe Hancock]

To do either speed well requires intelligence, good construction and integral surrounds to suit the purpose.

Half of the so called green end interest is adjacent to the putting surface, although you wouldn't know it under many of today's irrigation and maintenance regimes.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

Joe, I agree, if I understand you correctly.  As Sully mentions, it would be interesting to evaluate all the greens at 8 and 11.  But, the half at 11 may have to consider that many have lost green edge sq ft and surrounds maintenance to high rough rather than low mowed fringe.

I think that fast greens need more design effort and maintenance specification as to the quality of their surrounds.  Slower greens may be more conducive to rough height cuts in the immediate surrounds.   Whereas if the rough is cut too close, and the greens too small, fast greens are not well conceived as part of original intent of the archie.  that also goes to specification of the surrounds turf species.

[JESII]

Fast greens take much more of a combination of engineering and imagination than your run of the mill random "natural" humps.  Could this be the reason so many architects whine at speed?

I think any "whining at speed" occurs when a green built for 9 feet plays to 11 feet and the complaints are directed at the architect...

[RJ_Daley]

Or, the club/course maintains 2-3" rough next to fast and contoured greens, contrary to the archies visions.

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

Yes, you're onto my thought process.

 

Joe

[JESII]

RJ,

Yes, you're onto my thought process.

 

Joe

Would like him to stay there?

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

Yes, you're onto my thought process.

 

Joe

Would like him to stay there?

That would be his mistake.....

[Tom_Doak]

The benefits of slower greens are as follows:

1.  They fit into a hilly landscape easier, since most sites for golf courses (except Florida) are full of slopes that exceed 3%.  Trying to get a green into a steeper site requires terracing and leaves more of the green space unusable.  (Interesting that the places where flat greens would be more natural are also the places where you have to rely on bermuda greens.)

2.  They are easier to see on uphill approach shots, because their slope can exceed 3%.

3.  Being able to use steeper slopes for hole locations means less "unpinnable" green space on greens in hilly sites, so you can have smaller greens.
 
4.  They cost much less to maintain.

5.  They are much more ecologically viable, since with good surface draiange and higher cutting heights, you won't use as much "product".

It's all that, versus the preference of many people for speed at any cost.

[JESII]

Tom,

Wouldn't all of those arguments work in my favor if I were promoting 4 foot stimp greens against your 8 feet?

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't understand the problem with unpinnable green space.  They always seem to lead to interesting recoveries or fun lag putts.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim S:  Yes they would work, and that's one reason golf has such trouble answering environmentalists' questions.

But it's the same in reverse for fast greens.  If faster is better, then why not 20??

[John Moore II]

While not a designer by any stretch, I would think that greens designed to run 8 ft or 11ft would be roughly the same difficulty to design and maintain something fun looking. If the intent is to have greens slower (which I would say never happens now) then I would say the design would get harder due to needing more large slopes so that the greens are not boring. Same goes for the opposite end, when designing a green that the client wants to run 13 or 14, the design is harder because at those speeds, I would say it is easy for the contours to get out of hand and make the greens nearly unfair.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Just imagine, putting on modern day fairways at high end maintenance budget golf courses, especially approaches that are mowed with walk behind mowers, would be at about the same stimp as the greens were when Hogan and Co. were playing. Fairways today are faster than greens were back in the 50's.
It is much easier to design greens with large undulations and even large plateaus in them if the mow height is going to be higher and therefore lower stimp. To do the opposite and mow down or increase the stimp on a green that was designed for a higher rate of cut or a lower stimp, makes the green unfair.
Greens that are hard to two putt are the biggest cause of slow play.
It is a shame to see that the USGA is requesting (or demanding) that clubs that are hosting a championship to change the slopes (the putting surface) on their greens so that the stimp can be increased and make it "fair" so that the professional players will not be embarassed and 3 or 4 putt, like the members do on the same greens in the C.C.
Golf would be a better game if the stimp was maxed at 9.
I think a good maintenance (mowing) program would be mow, roll, roll, mow, roll, roll, mow, etc, etc. which would lower maintainance cost considerably.

[John Moore II]

Dick-I assume you mean to mow every third day and roll in between? That is a good idea if you have a very slow growing grass. If the grass is fast growing, than growth regulators would be required to keep the grass from getting 'bushy.' But overall I think you have a sound idea.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Fast greens take much more of a combination of engineering and imagination than your run of the mill random "natural" humps.

John,

I think this supposition is completely unsupportable. 

e.g., any idiot could build a "fast" green on the side of a hill that slopes toward a body of water.  A more imaginative engineer might build a more interesting green that slopes against the natural grain.  I'm sure there are many examples of thoughtless designs combined with modern maintenance practices that produce "fast" greens.  If that's all you want, then I say you lack imagination.

How does successfully utilizing "natural" or building something that emulates "random" require less imagination than building something that simply satisfies one criterion?

[jeffwarne]

The benefits of slower greens are as follows:

1.  They fit into a hilly landscape easier, since most sites for golf courses (except Florida) are full of slopes that exceed 3%.  Trying to get a green into a steeper site requires terracing and leaves more of the green space unusable.  (Interesting that the places where flat greens would be more natural are also the places where you have to rely on bermuda greens.)

2.  They are easier to see on uphill approach shots, because their slope can exceed 3%.

3.  Being able to use steeper slopes for hole locations means less "unpinnable" green space on greens in hilly sites, so you can have smaller greens.
 
4.  They cost much less to maintain.

5.  They are much more ecologically viable, since with good surface draiange and higher cutting heights, you won't use as much "product".

It's all that, versus the preference of many people for speed at any cost.

Tom,
You left out greens that are designed to be maintained slower allow for more slope which affects preferred angles of approach and recovery.
And of course such greens can be maintained firmer without fear of losing grass, increasing the importance of preferred angles.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Slower greens definitely equal of more ecologically friendly situation and I suppose we should be thinking of less usuage of water, chemicals, cutting in our future plans.
The orginal question... I am not sure you can design an interesting green that for normal play is going to stimp at double figures. So in many respects designing internal green contours are kind off taken away.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

I don't agree with your last paragraph -- I've built a lot of cool greens in the past twenty years that work well with a green speed of 10 or 10 1/2, and I've seen many more [Pine Valley, Merion, St. Andrews, etc.].  It CAN be done, but you've got to be willing to risk criticism to design them, because there's going to be the occasional situation where someone can't figure out the smart line and can't stop within six feet going straight at the hole and cries "unfair".

However, just because it can be done doesn't justify the higher speed.  And I know that a lot of those greens we've built would have been even cooler in their original shaped version, before we got on them with a transit and had to soften certain spots to make them work okay at 10.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

How about both fast and slow.

An undulating green will exhibit fast downhill putts and due to the inclinations will generally have a higher cut and slower Average Stimpmeter reading.

Undulating greens are definitly less easy to design, construct and supervise as the undulations have to be repeated through the construction layers and matched into the surrounds - however a whole lot more fun than “easy” greens.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian:

I don't agree with your last paragraph -- I've built a lot of cool greens in the past twenty years that work well with a green speed of 10 or 10 1/2, and I've seen many more [Pine Valley, Merion, St. Andrews, etc.].  It CAN be done, but you've got to be willing to risk criticism to design them, because there's going to be the occasional situation where someone can't figure out the smart line and can't stop within six feet going straight at the hole and cries "unfair".

However, just because it can be done doesn't justify the higher speed.  And I know that a lot of those greens we've built would have been even cooler in their original shaped version, before we got on them with a transit and had to soften certain spots to make them work okay at 10.

Tom- In some ways we are nearly agreeing, you are saying you can just about make them work at 10 or 10.5... but can you make them work at 11 or 11.5?... I am agreeing with you that things work much better sub 10.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

I am sure that some of my greens lose SOME of their hole locations when you get up to 11 or above on the stimpmeter, while others are still viable.  That's the biggest problem I have with the demand for fast greens -- the demand that they need to be fast EVERY DAY, instead of just for special events.  If you have to have enough hole locations for even the fastest days, that pretty much narrows the choices to flat greens or to really big greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()