The proper green speed for the design of the greens

[Dan Herrmann]

I recently had a discussion with a friend about green speeds and pinnable positions.  I know the architect of our course suggested the green speeds shouldn't get much above 10.5 to sync with his design intents.

If we went much above 10.5, we'd lose a lot of pinnable locations.

My friend was saying he played a course recently with green speeds about 13 (his guess).  Thought that the greens were completely unplayable due to their significant contouring.

Should a course have a maximum green speed and hold to it?  Are courses ruining themselves by trying to achieve speeds that just won't work for their green designs? 

I think so..  you?   And if you agree, what can be done to stop it, and possibly preserve some of our great courses?

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

I've had multiple owners PROMISE me during construction that the green speeds were not going to be super-fast, and then go back on their words by the end of year 2.  Jack May at Stonewall was the first of them [and I loved Mr. May, other than that]; Michael Pascucci is the most recent.

But, in both of those cases, it's their course, and there's really nothing I can do when they decide they want to "test" the members.

Private clubs (where nobody is solely "in charge") pose the same problem in a different way ... they keep changing leaders, and some of them increase green speeds just to prove they're better committee leaders than the last guy.

The real problem is that so many golfers are impressed by fast greens, irrespective of their contours.  I've said it before, but I will say it again ... there is no such thing as a green that's too steep ... it's just a green that is being maintained too fast for its contour.

[Tim Gavrich]

Doesn't the membership ultimately decide what green speed is optimal?  If a superintendent gets his greens up to 12 or 13, either players will enjoy the test it provides or they will think it's excessive relative to the greens' contours.  If the membership wants faster greens and they are achievable, chances are that that is what will happen.

[Ian Larson]

Dove Mountain

[Dan Herrmann]

Ian,   Is Dove Mountain an example of runaway green speeds in relation to its architecture?

[Jeff_Mingay]

The real problem is that so many golfers are impressed by fast greens, irrespective of their contours.  I've said it before, but I will say it again ... there is no such thing as a green that's too steep ... it's just a green that is being maintained too fast for its contour.

I've been at a club where I'm consulting this entire week, where the course features some really exciting greens with steep pitch, and expressed the same to the Green committee the other night. I agree with Tom: There's no such thing as a green that's too steep. Speed should simply be tailored to the character of the greens; not vice versa.

Smooth is much more important than fast. If steep greens featuring interesting contour are smooth, desire for increased speed (logically) shouldn't be an issue... logically!

[Jason Topp]

We have a retiring superintendant who did a terrific job of ignoring pleas to push green speeds beyond what makes sense for our course.  His replacement has promised to make them a little bit faster.  I have no problem with a little bit, but I will have a problem if we can no longer use some of our most interesting hole locations.

[Ian Larson]

Ian,   Is Dove Mountain an example of runaway green speeds in relation to its architecture?

Dove Mountain was a tour stop in the desert back in the spring. It's was the only non major tournament that kept me completely interested all week because it is a perfect example of bold contouring and severe slopes with the green speeds maintained to perfectly match. The greens were stimping an 8 or 9 for the tour and it was so entertaining to watch.

[Steve Okula]

I get two complaints from members regarding the greens.

If speeds are less than 11', "The greens are slow".

Above that speed and it's, "Whoever set these pins has no idea about golf!"

[JMEvensky]

I get two complaints from members regarding the greens.

If speeds are less than 11', "The greens are slow".

Above that speed and it's, "Whoever set these pins has no idea about golf!"

Have you ever asked them to try and connect the dots?

[jeffwarne]

Dan:

I've had multiple owners PROMISE me during construction that the green speeds were not going to be super-fast, and then go back on their words by the end of year 2.  Jack May at Stonewall was the first of them [and I loved Mr. May, other than that]; Michael Pascucci is the most recent.

But, in both of those cases, it's their course, and there's really nothing I can do when they decide they want to "test" the members.

Private clubs (where nobody is solely "in charge") pose the same problem in a different way ... they keep changing leaders, and some of them increase green speeds just to prove they're better committee leaders than the last guy.

The real problem is that so many golfers are impressed by fast greens, irrespective of their contours.  I've said it before, but I will say it again ... there is no such thing as a green that's too steep ... it's just a green that is being maintained too fast for its contour.

The ego of the owner, if not the ego of the superintendant,(as well as the uninformed opinion of the better players at the club) unfortunately often demand otherwise.
Contoured greens at lower speeds demand better putting skills, but few want to admit this.
If even uphill putts are fast, how much skill do you need (other than the ability to make a 2 inch backswing?)
Slower contoured greens demand solid contact-superfast ones don't

[Lou_Duran]

Dan,

I have two courses with significant contour, one maintains the right green speed, I am guessing around 8.5 to 9, and the other maintains them too fast for my taste but they claim it works for the members.

Kelly,

Could it be a function that there are more flat spots on the faster greens course?

I don't buy the argument at all that slow speeds favor the better putter, quite the opposite, in my opinion.  But, might it also be that the club with the faster greens caters to a different type of player?  How can one explain why Oakmont's membership insists on ultra-fast speeds on their undulating greens (from what I hear, I haven't played golf in PA)?

[Pete_Pittock]

What about the desire to have consistent speed on all greens? Many years ago (before the invention of the stimpmeter) speeds differed from green to green, either by forethought to steepness of slope or by benevolent indifference. Part of the education of a golfer was to learn the idiosyncracies, thus gain an advantage over the opponent.
My club's two courses have different speed limits because the green contours are more pronounced on one course. Unfortunately they missed last Sunday.

[Dan Herrmann]

PP - I think #12 at Merion East was a bit slower than the other greens during the Walker Cup.

[Pete_Pittock]

Dan
Pretty sure you are right. That is the problem with blanket statements.

[TEPaul]

"Should a course have a maximum green speed and hold to it?"


Dan:

Absolutely they should and it is going to be inherently different from course to course. It is really not all that hard for a club and course to determine the maximum effective greenspeed for their particular course. The important thing to understand is that it really should be held to in the future because what we certainly do know is we can create higher greenspeed pretty much anywhere but one thing we are never going to change is PHYSICS!!  


For the first time in our club's history I was truly surprised this year by the greenspeeds we were able to run consistently (I call it the greenspeed "differential" (low to high differential)). Personally I think it is just too high for our membership and even for tournaments. I am often suspicious of the number some clubs advertize as not being as high as they say but for us with one of our recent tournaments I watched them stimp and it was actually higher than the USGA top target speed for the US Open!!!

I mean, come on, what in the world do you think we are doing or trying to prove? The odd thing was even if it seemed like a totally over the top freak show in that tournament pretty much all the players seemed to like it!   

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Wasn't your club one of those which found the optimum green speed a couple of years back?

And are you saying they have now exceeded it?

I'm shocked.   

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:

Wasn't your club one of those which found the optimum green speed a couple of years back?

And are you saying they have now exceeded it?

I'm shocked.      "



TomD:

Not exactly. What I said some years ago on here was that I was proposing to my club that they find the ideal MAXIMUM green speed for our greens. I recommended a couple of ways to go about that including that "blind stimp number test" application that was basically developed out of the method your Crystal Downs had used that was picked up by the U of Michagan scientist (Thom Nicoli sp. ?). I proposed my club buy and buy into that speed test procedure but they refused!

So yes, in my opinion, my own club has now essentially exceeded what I feel is the ideal maximum green speed for our particular greens and the more alarming thing is for the first time this year they exceeded it on a very consistent basis.

And so I guess my next campaign with my own club will be to insist and insure that if they think in the future that these new and consistet high speeds are too fast for any of our slopes and contours that they do not resolve the problem by touching our slopes and contours but that they only reslove it by slowing our greens down to the point that we can find the maximum effective green speed for our particular greens and our membership.

Obviously one way to do this is to somehow get the club to put into the by-laws (or something similar and as effective) that in no case in the future will they ever touch our slopes and contours in some effort to soften them in the name of maintaining higher green speed.

[Sean_A]

I am struggling to see why any well designed and maintained green needs to roll quicker than 9, 10 tops.  This need for speed on greens is a worse disease, by quite a margin, than the length issue which people hammer on about endlessly.  Most people don't have any idea as to the stimp # in regards to speed.  Its sort of like wind - they make it up and the number is often vastly inflated.

Ciao

[Mark McKeever]

I agree that there should be certain speeds that a couse can tolerate based on the design of the greens.  I live in Allentown PA and have played a new build called Woodbridge Golf Course.  The greens are very severe and there are a lot of areas of the greens that were unputtable in the summer, but now that the greens are slowing down a bit, it seems that they are much more playable.  There are a number of pin positions that they wouldnt think to use in the summer, but this time of year, its nice because they can get away with it.  I would honestly like to see them bring the speed down a bit year round to allow for some of these pin positions.

Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan:

I've had multiple owners PROMISE me during construction that the green speeds were not going to be super-fast, and then go back on their words by the end of year 2.  Jack May at Stonewall was the first of them [and I loved Mr. May, other than that]; Michael Pascucci is the most recent.

But, in both of those cases, it's their course, and there's really nothing I can do when they decide they want to "test" the members.
Tom, I always thought that increased green speeds at Sebonack, and other clubs, would lead to the greens being altered within five (5) years to accomodate speeds beyond the current green's ability to accomodate those speeds.

Some of those greens become frightening with increased speeds, especially when combined with the ever present wind.

For some reason, members, including high and medium handicap members, seem to relish these incredibly devilsh paces on undulating putting surfaces.  Perhaps it's the "green badge of courage" you reference, where clubs want to boast that their greens are faster than your greens.

It's a dangerous trend for Superintendent, golfer and unique, interesting architecture. 

Private clubs (where nobody is solely "in charge") pose the same problem in a different way ... they keep changing leaders, and some of them increase green speeds just to prove they're better committee leaders than the last guy.

The real problem is that so many golfers are impressed by fast greens, irrespective of their contours.  I've said it before, but I will say it again ... there is no such thing as a green that's too steep ... it's just a green that is being maintained too fast for its contour.

Arthur Webber (sp?) authored a study on slopes and green speeds.
That study should be mandatory reading for Green Chairman and others who influence green speeds at their clubs.

Increased green speeds can only result in the demise of greens with substantive contour and character.

One has to ask, do you want to putt on a high speed table top, void of character and interest, or a green replete with slopes and contours that's not quite as fast ? 

I'll vote for the latter every time

[Dan Herrmann]

Here's a rough transcript of our last green committee meeting (I'm changing the names):

Bob:  I was out playing the morning of the senior championship last week.  Got to the 9th green, and now I know why Gil wants the green below 10.5.  That hole location was so tricky that it'd have been unplayable with greens any faster.

Carl:  Isn't it great that we have so many interesting pin positions?

Bob:  That's because the greens aren't crazy fast.

Carl:  That's what I meant - The greens are at the perfect speed.

Doug:  No way we'd want them any faster.  I think they're perfect right now.

----------------
It's SO nice working with folks that "get it"

----------------
Sean - maybe it's a North American thing, but a lot of guys like the greens to be as fast as possible.   They like pretending they're on TOUR.  I wonder if they are still courses that post their stimp readings....

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Some of the green speeds I've seen in the last few years on courses that are offering it just for members and guests are actually higher (stimpmeter reading higher) than anything the Tour players play even, in something like the US Open. I know what the USGA's target speeds were on a few of the last US Opens; believe me I do, it came right from the primary sources.

Believe me, the people who set up Tour stop pins with greens speed and the people who set up USGA championships, certainly including the US Open, definitely know what they are doing in this vein and not just with localized "pinnable area" testing (which too many clubs do only) but with "whole green" testing with any particular pin position. If someone doesn't believe me I suggest they spend the time to watch these people do the testing; it is quite the education! Occasionally they have gotten over the top on a green or two but it is pretty rare and when it happens it is big news that tends not to ever get forgotten.

In our big annual member/guest tournament this September there were a few greens that had pins that given the speed we were running Tiger Woods could not possibly have two putted from certain points on those greens to the pin positions we were using.

Frankly, I think pin position testing under tournament setups is a super ball and an incredible education. I've been doing it for years with the tournaments I've officiated. Thank God I don't mind getting up real early in the morning! 

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
I'd imagine that greens like 18 could be almost unplayable if you were above the hole with speeds like that 

Lord knows that your course stands on its own - it sure doesn't need insane green speeds to be considered great!

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Really good call there on your part with #18. Obviously you have quite the eye and feel for these things when you see a golf course! That one was the worst problem that we actually used. I flagged one on #14 that had I not insisted on flagging it that field would not have come close to finishing on Friday.

Next in concern was the pin on #18 but it stayed. It was was over on the right (on the other side of that ridge and traditionally one of our standard pin positions) and the majority of the balls coming from anywhere on the left of that ridge (which is most of the green) were not just not two putts but they were rolling off the green and about 50-60 yards back down into the fairway. Had it not at least been a match play better ball it would have been a pretty firm set-up disaster.

I most assuredly do not blame our super in any shape or form. I think he thinks it's as nuts as I do but I do admire him for being able to actually give them what they asked for without even coming close to putting our greens in jeopardy!