#11 at Crystal Downs

[Gary_Nelson]

I'm a long time lurker but a "newbie" at starting threads.  Oh well... here goes.


Mike Cirba's thread today got me to thinking about the 11th hole at Crystal Downs.  I was fortunate to have played there a couple times last year and certainly can't forget the 11th... a par and a bogey... not too shabby.

My questions are this:

1.  Are the slopes on this green (especially back to front) the same as when the course was first constructed?

2.  Were the green speeds (stimpmeter readings) the same then as they are now?   The obvious answer is "no" but I'd like to know how different they roll in comparison.

3.   I'm assuming the answer to #2 is "dramatically slower" back in the old days.  If so, is there a point in time where it becomes necessary to revise the green contours in order to maintain the original strategic intent of the architect?  The other alternative might be to slow down the greens.


My point of all of this is to ask if the "maintenance meld" at the 11th hole has tipped too far toward "firm and fast"... beyond the intent of the designers... reducing the number of options for the player.

Thanks,

Gary

[RJ_Daley]

I hope Tom Doak or MIke DeVries weighs in on this.  But, as members of CD and architects, it may be a delicate question.  Personally, I think the 11th false front or back to front slope needs to be softened, just a little.  But, how much?  Not to make it fair in the conventional wisdom sense of no more than 2% as a rule of thumb for modern green speeds.   It still needs to be over the top and quirky.  But, what the answer is, I don't know. I don't agree with Mike's assessment that 13 is over the top on the front to back ledge severity of that green.  I think that one is great and does afford a couple of approach options including a layup short of green, a running bunt off the high mound left approach, or I think a perfectly struck shot can hold that green.  What does he care what par is?  Number #10 left side high to down right is very severe and more in the realm of need for softening, as is the false front of #8 and high right to down left of #9, if we are talking about some modification to the slopes of greens that don't conform with modern green speeds.  I wonder if those slopes were softened, if internal contours of slight humps or hogsbacks within the green would be a legitimate trade-off.  The precedent is there for internal rolls in the #6 green, which is Maxwell at his best IMHO.

But, these are momentus decisions beyond my standing or knowledge to speak authoritatively on, except to offer 2 cents worth of conjecture.

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary:

I know there are complaints about the greens being too fast at Crystal Downs, but personally I would hate to see anything done other than slow them down a bit.

Both #11 and #13 are especially controversial, I suppose. But, isn't it better to leave them as they are and make pulling off just the right shots an experience golfers will always remember and treasure?

There is plenty of modern stuff out there. Let's leave Crystal Downs alone.

[Gary_Nelson]

Tim & RJ,

I suppose the membership's interests might be a deterrent to slowing down the greens.  It seems there are a lot of folks who equate "fast" greens with a "great" golf course.  

Are there any examples of golf clubs realizing their greens were too fast for the contours?  Have any of them put "speed limits" in place?

Thanks,

Gary

ps.  I agree that a redesign of the greens should NOT be done.  It would be like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

[TEPaul]

If one wanted to apply the logical "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer" to Crystal Downs #11 would obviously be the spot to work off of. Ten years ago that green was getting pretty scary.

In this regard #11 CD has reminded me a lot of PVGC's #5 which really was a problem on the right front. Some years ago PV very subtlely softened the right side of #5.

Softening great old slopes and contours isn't a great idea in my book though. Yesterday a member of CD told me during the season CD's greens are only around 8 on the stimp. I don't know if he has that right or not and it's probably more like 9 or 10. But the latter speeds are all that CD should ever run max. Anything higher than that and a lot of spots on those greens will turn into a freak show.

[Todd_Eckenrode]

I believe I recently saw an article in Golf Course News or maybe Superintendent News on a multi-year study by the Super. at CD (at least I think it was CD) with regard to finding the "most popular" greenspeeds.  This was done by polling the membership after rounds on the course on their feelings of how the greenspeeds were that day, noting the stimpreadings for that day, and assembling that data over many years  The same attitudes towards fast greens may have been the result, I don't recall, but it was interesting the extent to which they went to find what maintenance meld was most popular by their members.  

This is all off memory, so if anyone with CD could weigh in with better details, that would be great!  

[Tim_Weiman]

Gary:

I am not aware of any clubs in the United States realizing their greens were too fast for the contours. Such thinking is more likely to be found across the pond than here in the States.

This business of equating "fast" with "great" is a mindset we need to change. Greens should be designed with at least three things in mind:

 - interesting approach shots
 - interesting recovery shots
 - putting

Overall, taking contour out of greens just to allow a faster pace does more harm than good. Let's keep approach shots, recovery shots and putting interesting by building and maintaining greens that probably can't be played at much more than 10 on the Stimp.

[TEPaul]

I'm actually in the process of trying to offer a proposal to my club to CAP our greenspeeds for the rest of time. I recommend using the STIMPMETER to do just that. Our super has been very good at not letting things get out of control but I think a stimp number of maybe 10 or 10.5 is the limit of speed for the slope and contour of our greens. At that speed anybody would have all the challenge they'd ever want or need with the way our greens are.

It'd be interesting if the golf and green committees and the Board accepts this and they just might. It could be the first time I've ever heard of using the stimpmeter and a number in a way to defend against increasing greenspeed.

The whole idea behind this is so no one will EVER suggest that our greens should be recontoured and softened. If the club accepts the proposal I'll offer to go out there and shoot the grades on every part of every green we have so the club can check if anyone ever claims some grade has changed and needs to be softened!

[Ville Nurmi]

TEPaul,

Did you put your green speed test in writing in some of the posts? You have written so many, that I cannot find it.

I would show it to our secretary and greenkeeper.

Thanks,

Ville

[Tom_Doak]

I missed this while I was in Tasmania this past week ... but that's a story for another day.

Gary, I believe that the green contours at Crystal Downs are pretty much as designed.  (Like other clubs with severe greens, I would guess the front edge has been deliberately built up a bit over the years by topdressing.)

I would much prefer to see them keep the greens slower than to change the contours of the 11th.  For one thing, trying to flatten a green built into a similarly steep slope will not end well.  For another, it opens up a can of worms -- if you want to change the 11th, why not the 1st or 10th or 13th, all of which are also too severe for high green speeds.  (Thirteen is much tougher to play than the others, in my opinion, because you can't just play short of the green and chip to it.)

Ironically, as mentioned above, Mike Morris the superintendent of Crystal Downs just did a two-year USGA-sponsored study of green speeds -- what affects them (height of cut, moisture, etc.).  The study also pegged an "optimum speed" based on feedback from a test group of golfers who were questioned throughout the season.

And they said the optimum speed for our greens was 10 1/2!!!

The sad part is, Crystal Downs was one of the ten best courses in the world when the greens were 8 1/2 and 9 on the Stimp.  Now it's not, and it's not.  But, what do I know, I'm just a member.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  The greens at Crystal Downs have never been particularly firm, in my experience.  They were built out of a soil mix which was a bit muckier than what we use today.  Considering the effects of the wind there, I've never wanted to see them too firm.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak;

Are you saying that CD is no longer one of the ten best courses in the world in the magazine rankings, or in your opinion?

[Gary_Nelson]

Tom,

I played a year ago in April.  Maybe the greens were "springtime fast".  There were laughs and agony as others in the group chipped on from the side of #11 green.  We goaned as the ball rolled completely off the front and down the fairway.  While I believe there ought to be a penalty of some sort for missing a green, the penalty in this case (30 yards down the fairway) seemed a bit severe for the offense (missing the green by a yard or so).

Big undulating greens are really fun to putt... when the speed is kept in balance.

Tearing up greens sounds messy and... like you said... opens up a can of worms.  I'm not surprised the test group of golfers said "10 1/2" was the optimum speed.   My preference is for slower greens with more undulation.   It's just my opinion... I could be wrong.

Gary

ps.  I'm enjoying a brisk morning on the East Traverse Bay.  Wish I had my clubs.