Softening green contours??

[Mark_Fine]

There is a famous top 25 golf course that could shortly (if not already) have some of the contours on a number of bbbtheir greens "softened" to accomodate today's higher green speeds!  Is this sacrilegious or is it the right thing to do to keep greens from becoming obsolete and key pin positions from being lost??  

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Let's examine the logic.

A golf course is so well respected that it's included among the top 25 in the nation out of about 18,000 courses.

One would imagine that the greens and their contours are part of the strategy and reputation of the course.  I know of very few "top 25" courses that don't have a great set of greens.

Now, the club has within their control the ability to cut the greens to whatever length they desire, and as often as they wish.  

So, with the choice of maintaining the greens at a speed that is challenging but reasonable, or tearing them apart and flattening them, they choose the latter?

Is someone pointing a friggin' gun at their heads to make them maintain the greens so fast that they are unputtable with their designed and well-regarded contours??!!!!

DUH!!!

[George Pazin]

Let me know if it's Oakmont - if so, I'll go stake myself to a green & call all the media outlets.

[Mark_Fine]

The course I'm talking about is near and dear to everyone's hearts (except for maybe Ran   ).  The proposal to "soften some of the green contours" comes from one of the most respected "restorers" in the country and a frequent poster on this site.  His logic is very sound but clearly very controversial!

[brad_miller]

#2, #7, and #11

[Matt_Ward]

Mark F:

How about a little identify of the course? I do agree with Mike C that willingly changing greens on a top 25 course does seem to be a confusing step.

Without more info Mark your post seeks to alert without really specifying. What prevents the naming of the facility in question?

Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Well, from your clues Mark, I have to ask;

Are you talking about SFGC and Mr. Doak?

[Ed_Baker]

What ever happened to the "Steve Curry" green speed method?

Remember that thread? Steve said he maintained his most severe green at a speed that allowed challenge and use of the cuppable areas, 'right on the edge" if you will, and then he cut the rest of the greens at the same height. Makes sense doesn't it?

I'm with Mike Cirba, why would you meddle with the greens?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

It is clearly a step in the wrong direction.

The key to protecting par, challenge and interest is more,
not less contouring.

Less contouring will become a vicious cycle resulting in higher green speeds, resulting in less contouring, and on and on, until you basically have flat greens.

I don't know the course in question, but if its in an area where poa is in the greens, why the need to lower the contours ?

One only has to look at the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th and 16th greens at NGLA to understand that you can have contours, severe contours, while maintaining very fast putting surfaces.

There is no excuse for removing the character, the distinctiveness from the greens in the name of speed.

But, that's just my opinion, they could be wrong.

[TEPaul]

My take on softening green contours is that it's a poor policy to get into! But like anything else in golf course architecture one should probably not generalize to that extent.

To even consider softening green contours the first order of business is to consider carefully why it's being done in the first place. Does it have to be done for some specific reason or is it being done only to keep up with the ever increasing speeds and stimpmeter readings that seem to be creeping higher and higher in America? They're creeping higher in America not because somehow it's miraculously become possible somehow on the old highly sloped and contoured greens but because much flatter greens are now being built! Very few people seem to be aware of that simple fact though!

If it's being done for the latter reason of only increasing speed the golf course in question is truly in the hands of people who do not understand what they're doing!

The so-called "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" that was mentioned and described in a post above is simply the best and most logical barometer and measurement for any golf course anywhere! Why? Because it's completely course specific!!!!

The real problem with the extremely well known stimpmeter and the resulting numbers is it's being used improperly and has for many years. It was supposed to be used as a test on any golf course and the resulting number on any golf course was for reasonability on that course alone and specifically and a particular number (whatever it may be) was never intended to be TRANSPORTABLE from course to course in any way! Frankly, in retrospect, the particular stimp number on any golf course should never have been known! Not by the general membership anyway!

But it is completely transportable these days because people know about particular stimp number and just do not understand the danger of transporting a particular number from course to course. They hear people mention a stimpmeter number and even brag about it and far more dangerous they even hear it occasionslly on the TV with the tour pros. And so they think it's some kind of representation of quality or conditioning or something!!

Nothing of the kind! In the hands of an intelligent club they will realize that although some course somewhere may be able to maintain a stimp reading of 12 for some reason (likely just flattish, low contour greens) that the maximum stimp number at their course may be something like 9.5!! Not many understand this and less seem to be aware that 9.5 on greens with interesting and complex contours may very well be far more interesting and challenging to play than some other golf course that's a 12 on the stimp!

But the club that realizes 9.5 may be their maximum reasonable speed is actually practicing the "Steve Curry Green Speed Barometer" without even knowing it! And it's the only intelligent way to go and if followed should prevent even the consideration of softening green contours!

But again, not to totally generalize about this there certainly can be places on a golf course that very specific and intelligently done "softening" can be done! Cases such as this are usually examples of where a particular part of a green or even a few are simply "anomalies" compared to the general green contours on the rest of the course, and if left that way can significantly cut down on pinnable space on that particular green or else slow down the remainder of the golf course's greens if the "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" is followed!

In those cases "softening" could be considered but if it is, exactly how to do it is of utmost importance. Such would be the case with the front right side of #5 green at Pine Valley which was "softened" a number of years ago. But I would challenge almost anyone to tell me how it was done or even if it was done. There may be a couple of other spots on PVGC's greens that were also "softened" and again I would challenge anyone to tell me if or how they were done. They were done really well, in other words, and having done them basically solved two problems. It solved the problem on that specific area and it also allowed PVGC because of that to maintain speeds on the rest of the course that are very sporty but still reasonable (for PVGC!). Furthermore, I hope I can even guarantee that the speeds PVGC maintains now they realize is probably the limit for them for the rest of time!!

But if softening is done only in the name of ever increasing speeds and it's done improperly (which it generally is) it can remove not only some of the interest and character on some great greens instantly but it can also start to filter out into some of the strategies of approach shots too and begin to corrupt and destroy them also!

It's ultimately pretty commonsensical really if those that run clubs would just understand basically the foregoing because if any course does soften they're either going to have to go up or down somewhere to end up with less fall and if it's a course that has greens that tied in well originally to all the green contours and the green surrounds, particularly the fronts, there's going to inevitably be residual problems in places no one would have imagined when they started out just thinking; "Let's just make our greens faster because the course across town has X stimp reading!

The super at my club I believe to now be bulletproof against this particular problem of considering softening! For one, he doesn't throw a stimp reading around and if someone presses him on it I suspect he might tell them whatever they want to hear, which is fine with me!

But we discussed this general concern at a recent green committee meeting anyway and we seem to agree if we are faced with the problem of some member or members who want to push for higher stimp readings and speeds that our super just might take a small window of time and give it to them and let them see what a freak show it can be!

I've never run into anyone who actually enjoys 3-4-5-6 putting and that's what it would be! And if after that they recommend softening in the name of higher speeds anyway they will be told to get lost!

[Mark_Fine]

SFGC!

[brad_miller]

It will not be noticable because all the greens are being taken up to ride the club of some wormy pest, don't you think Doak will grade out the "few" changes in a suble manner, this isn;t patch and paste as others have done.

[Mark_Fine]

I'm sure Tom will do as good a job as anyone could do.  I was just curious what the group thought about this concept of taking contour out of greens?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

What has Tom Doak said about it ?

[brad_miller]

TD, any comments?

[Tom Doak]

I haven't said anything about , because the club would rather not discuss their business in public.

The greens are being converted to A-4, and a couple of the most steeply sloped greens will be subtly softened.

I agree that heavily contoured greens such as National's are the solution to keeping golf interesting for the modern player.  However, when a green is evenly tilted at 4 to 5 percent, and the greens speed increases to modern levels, there is simply no place to put the hole.

Leaving the full tilt in them and planting A-4 would be about equivalent to giving your son the keys to a Ferrari and telling him to drive carefully.

And to answer the other obvious question:  no, we're not restoring holes 13-14-15 to their original design.  Maybe someday, but the politics of that are very controversial at the club, and they didn't want the greens reconstruction to be jeopardized by the politics of "restoration."

That's all I will say about this subject.  The rebuilt greens should be open in September; go judge for yourselves at that time.

[Mark_Fine]

I'd love to see some of the old bunkers restored, the old green brought back on drop shot par three 8th, some more trees removed to open up vistas of other holes,...  I doubt they will relocate bunkers to accomodate changes in length of the modern player.  It's generally not the right thing to do as they were set where they are for certain reasons.  If anything they might add some back tees but the course doesn't have much room to expand.  I'm sure Tom will push for much of this but how much he'll be allowed to do only time will tell!!  
Mark

[brad_miller]

mark, did you mean "par 3 7th", my understanding is that green has changed over time. From what I've heard this will be a wonderful "restoration" with only the return of 13-15 lacking.

[john stiles]

At other courses,  there is also its evil twin sister, the often unavoidable 'softening the greens contour' so that you can have four (4) tournament pin positions.  Another strange phenomenon in deciding upon hosting major events.  This affects greens where otherwise, 'softening' may not have been necessary.

That has already been done, many years back, as noted in a Chicago newspaper column and posted on the clubhouse walls at OF.

[Mark_Fine]

Yes I meant the 7th.  Sorry about that!