Is it anti-strategic to have the greens too fast?

[Joe Hancock]

If the greens are so fast that you intentionally under club (trying to hit the front of every green) on every approach shot, does that take away from the strategy of the rest of the course?

Is this mostly a syndrome on older courses with pronounced back to front slopes(for surface drainage purposes, a necessity in the old days)?

Is it something that needs to be addressed on even the highest regarded courses in the country? I'm thinking the likes of Merion and Crystal Downs type courses.

Is it more fun to have these very fast speeds to putt on vs. being able to think (Thanks, Peter!) your way into pin positions from the approach shot? Or, is it(or should it be?) more fun to go after the pin without undue difficulty of going beyond the pin?

Joe

[Tim Bert]

Most confounding and anti-strategic to me is to have the greens racing fast where a run up shot is dictated, but to have the aproach area not playing firm and fast, so the dictated approach is nearly impossible to pull off.

Once on the greens, I don't think it is less strategic to have them racing, but I do think it can be less fun.  Count me in the Hendren camp of those that don't mind "hitting" a putt every now and then.

There's a fine line between being too slow to take advantage of approach shots rolling off the internal contouring and being too fast to enjoy putting.  The courses with fantastic putting surfaces that pull off this balance impress me the most.  Most recently, Kingsley Club blew me away with a perfect balance.  I've always found this to be true at Pacific Dunes as well.

[Adam Clayman]

Gramps, my feelings are a definative No. On firmer surfaces the aware golfer is hitting front of the green yardages or even shorter. The added speeds place a premium on strategic placement on ones approach. Which is the anti of anti strategy. Its likeky your description is too general to make an edumacated answer.

[BCrosby]

You can get green speeds to the point that speed functions as a de facto stroke penalty. Not unlike high rough, parallel water or a difficult bunker.

There are spots on greens at many great US courses where you simply can't stop a putt.

I'm not sure that is where we want to be.

Bob

 

[jeffwarne]

Yes,

but I've yet to hear a member mention to a guest how "strategic" the greens at his club are.
 

[Ken Moum]

On our 90-year-old course being above the hole on the 18th can essentially be a one-stroke penalty--it slopes back to front.

Twelve slopes right to left, and is virtually impossible to get up and down from the right side if the speed is up.

If too fast, and the hole is in on the front of 18, it is impossible to get a ball to stop by the hole, even if you start below it.

I actually like the strategic effect of forcing people to be on the correct side of the hole. But a little bit of that goes a LONG way.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

That's a great question.

I believe the answer is "yes"

If the excessive green speed thwarts the architect's intent, then it becomes anti-strategic.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe -

I asked something similar (I think) in another thread, i.e. at what point on the old great courses does using faster-than-intended green speeds to 'compensate' for modern club and ball technology get out of balance?

I don't know if there is some such magic balancing point and, if so, whether it can be quantified e.g at a stimp of, say, 10. What do you think?

Peter 

[BCrosby]

BTW, there is nothing anti-strategic per se about having green speeds so fast that they function as a de facto penalty if your ball lands above the hole.

It's a type of penalty and a strategic architect might use it without contradicting his basic design philosophy.

My problem is not that such green speeds aren't strategic. They clearly can be.

It's that imposing that sort of penalty WITHIN a green strikes me as simply over the top.

Bob

 

[Tom_Doak]

Joe H:  Did you play Crystal Downs with the greens super-fast this fall?

I can tell you that under normal circumstances there are four greens at the Downs where I try to play to the front edge of the green no matter what ... those are #1, #9, and #11.  Maybe that's one too many, but obviously it doesn't take away much from my opinion of the course given my rating of 10 on the Doak scale.

However, if your point is that the greens don't have to be super-fast, I agree with you 100%.

[Chip Gaskins]

Did the golden age architects really use green speed as a type of penalty?  Would Wilson have really said (example only) "if the golfer hits it to the back of #12 he should have a hard time keeping it on the green putting to a front pin" or "if the golfer leaves it on the fringe on the right side of #5 he will have trouble not putting in the ditch"?  Just wondering how much actual green speed factored into their green complex decisions

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:

I've never seen any of the Golden Age architects quoted about green speed or how it should affect play ... other than one architect [I think it was G. Thomas] who wrote that he didn't think green speeds should be consistent from one hole to the next, to reward judgment.

However, I think the greens were sometimes very fast in the old days, in drought conditions without artificial watering.  I remember the old secretary of Lahinch telling me that the reason so many of MacKenzie's greens had been changed was that it was nearly impossible to keep a putt on the green from above the hole in the summer.  I doubt MacKenzie really intended it to be that way, but it DID happen from time to time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Is it possible to design a green that can be all things to all golfers at all speeds ?

That would seem like an extremely difficult task for you.

[Anthony Fowler]

Joe, I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean.  First, I think the firmness (not speed) of the greens and the area around the greens in determining the necessary shot to play on the approach.  Second, it is very hard to imagine a situation where making the greens slower would increase strategy.  If a green is receptive and slow, you don't really have to think much on the approach.  You just have to fly the ball on top of the hole.  Can you offer up an example of a situation where fast (or firm) green speeds take away from strategy?  Are you suggesting that sometimes the greens are so firm and fast that it is impossible to stop the ball close and therefore pointless to even think about the approach?  This is a pretty extreme case.  It is much more frequent that fast greens introduce new strategy that would be otherwise not present with slow greens. 

[Bill Brightly]

I think the biggest problem is the loss of pinnable hole locations due to super fast green speeds. I can think of a handful of really interesting greens that are reduced to two or three pin locations, while entire sections of those greens are "lost," reduced to false fronts, kick mounds or backstops...when that was never the architect's intent. And so if this happens on a course you play on a regular basis, you lose the variety of different hole locations.

[Sean_A]

Bill

I too was thinking the same thing.  It isn't the speed itself which is a problem.  Its that speed eliminates pin positions so as to avoid silly situations.  I can't see how the elimination of pin positions increases strategy. 

I too want to stress the difference between speed and firmness.  Firm greens, the sort that only bruise when approached, don't have to be fast, but I rarely see firm greens which are slow.  Keepem' at 9ish and the world is right.

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Designing greens is like politics ... if you promise all things to all people all the time, you are probably lying.

[TEPaul]

Joe:

I think fast greens up to maybe 11 or a tad above are actually very pro-strategic---eg they can highlight the need for thoughtful and imaginative strategies (although clearly the green firmness factor comes into play on approach shots).

However, on some green surfaces much over 11 can very quickly go from very strategic to sort of goofy.