[Pete Lavallee]

Rather than highjack Mark B's thread I'll ask the question here. On the other thread thread there seems to be almost universal agreement that slower greens are harder to putt than faster ones. Is there anybody willing to dispute that?

This quest to have faster and faster putting surfaces definetly leads to flattening of what were once significantly sloped greens. A perfect example is Torrey South. Once noted by Jeff Sluman as a course were you had to controll your spin on shorter irons, for fear of backing the ball off the green, due to their significant back to front slope. When the Open Doctor was given his marching orders in the redesign the most common explanation was that: "at US Open speeds the ball would not stay at rest on such sloped surfaces". So we got greens which are seperated into 3 disticnt areas with ridges; however each of the 3 areas are comparatively flat. To me these are much less fun to putt on than the North course which still has Billy Bell's back to front slope. You will encounter puts that break 6 inches to a foot there; that just doesn't happen on the South anymore.

So why does the USGA insist on such extreme speed? My guess is that since you really can't practice for that anywhere it is a different experience. But like others I don't think it provides a greater challange, just a different one.

[John Kavanaugh]

It makes for better entertainment.  Basketball is harder for girls, that doesn't make it watchable.

[Mike Hendren]

It makes for better entertainment.  Basketball is harder for girls, that doesn't make it watchable.

Says you.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/story?columnist=voepel_mechelle&id=5262861

[Pete Lavallee]

Sorry Bogey, I'll have to side with Barney on that one; perhaps if they had sexy shorts like women's volleyball I could get interested.

[John Kavanaugh]

It makes for better entertainment.  Basketball is harder for girls, that doesn't make it watchable.

Says you.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/story?columnist=voepel_mechelle&id=5262861

Mike,

Of course there is value in girls basketball but there is not ratings.  My initial point goes back to the famous thread of John Kirk about watching the ball roll.  I personally love watching the ball roll around on a fast green.  The paradox of it all is that it takes longer for a ball on a green stimping 14 to travel 10 feet than on a green stimping 6.  

[Stewart Naugler]

First of all US Open greens don't stimp over 14. I've stimped greens at 2 U.S. Open's and both rolled around 13/13.5. If anyone tells you they have 14+ speeds, I wouldn't buy it. Once you get greens rolling that fast it's hard to get an accurate reading on a truly flat surface. We pushed green's to the max at last years Open and we only reached speeds of 13.5.

[Dan King]

The USGA has bought into the players preference of bad consistency over good inconsistency. The easiest way to ensure consistency is to take all the greens to the limit.

Golf's very nature encourages inconsistency. It is the heart of the game. The players have convinced tournament organizers, including the USGA, that the inconsistency inherent in the game is unfair and needs to be eliminated.

Cheers,
Dan King

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
 --Ralph Waldo Emerson

[George Pazin]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
 --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Dan-O, pro golf must surely be the exception in today's world...no one else strives for consistency.

Seems the very notion of a stimpmeter encourages flatter greens. I'd rather see greens taken to the speed limit at same contours/pitch, but maybe that's just me.

I'll agree with John that harder is generally more interesting to watch, I just don't know that flatter and faster is necessarily harder.

SNaugler -

Is there really that much difference in measuring accuracy between a 13.5 & a 14?

[Peter Pallotta]

I think it's the equivalent of the 'me and my friends' school of journalism, you know, those opinion pieces/articles by young writers who spend all their time with other young writers longing for the perfect New York apartment in Brooklyn, and so write with rapt and endless and blind devotion about looking for the perfect New York apartment in Brooklyn -- as if everyone else in the world was equally enraptured by their ridiculous obsession.  As nice and as good as they may be, I figure the USGA types spend way too much time hanging out with other USGA types and country-club members obesseing about testing the best players in the world, and so assume that everyone else must share both the goal and the proposed solution.  In short, both those young writers and the USGA types live in a bubble...and nothing we chirp at them from the outside that bubble do they consider paying attention to.

Peter

Dan K - very nicely put, i.e. the best players have convinced the USGA (read: golfers who wish they were good enough to be tour pros) that golf's inherent inconsistencies are not the spirit of the game but the bane of it.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

I did not say harder was better, I said faster was more entertaining.

[George Pazin]

George,

I did not say harder was better, I said faster was more entertaining.

That's what I meant, sorry for the confusion. I interpret faster as harder and entertaining as better.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

The OP opines that slower is harder. I agree.

[David Ober]

Rather than highjack Mark B's thread I'll ask the question here. On the other thread thread there seems to be almost universal agreement that slower greens are harder to putt than faster ones. Is there anybody willing to dispute that?

Yes, I'll dispute it. :-)

If the greens are the same, 8-10-stimp greens are much, much easier to put than 13 stimp greens. You will 3-putt (and 4-putt!!) much more frequently on the same green stimping at 13 than at 10. At my old home course the greens generally stimped around 8.5 in the summer and 11 to 11.5 in the winter. There was simply no comparison as to the "ease" of putting in those two conditions for me (and most other members). In the summer, I would frequently go 5, 6, even 10 rounds without ever 3-putting. In the winter, I would 3-putt, on average once a round.

[JMEvensky]

 The paradox of it all is that it takes longer for a ball on a green stimping 14 to travel 10 feet than on a green stimping 6.  

 I've never considered this but it seems to make sense and certainly does make for more exciting TV.

 The reason that the USGA goes all out on green speed is because these are the best players in the world.I just wish they'd add a disclaimer that other clubs shouldn't try this at home.

    

[JMEvensky]

George,

The OP opines that slower is harder. I agree.

You can't seriously believe that slower greens would be harder for the US Open field. It might take them a while to get acclimated to putting on slower greens,but they'd adjust pretty quickly.

Slow greens would remove a lot of the fear factor.

[George Pazin]

George,

The OP opines that slower is harder. I agree.

I assumed he meant slower in conjunction with the original pitch/contour. I guess I was wrong with that assumption.

[JMEvensky]

 the perfect New York apartment in Brooklyn

Peter,by definition,the perfect NY apartment will never be in Brooklyn.

[David Ober]

George,

The OP opines that slower is harder. I agree.

You can't seriously believe that slower greens would be harder for the US Open field. It might take them a while to get acclimated to putting on slower greens,but they'd adjust pretty quickly.

Slow greens would remove a lot of the fear factor.

Exactly. Lightning fast greens simply magnify everything. Your slight misses very quickly become horrible misses. Miss a putt on the low side on a moderately breaking putt on 13-stimp greens and you have an 8-footer coming back. Miss a putt on the low side on 8.5 greens, and you have a one-footer coming back. It's really not even arguable in my opinion.

Now if you are saying that slower, more-severely sloped greens are tougher to putt, I might agree with you. Maybe. :-)

But, like you said, the pros just adjust.

[JMEvensky]

Now if you are saying that slower, more-severely sloped greens are tougher to putt, I might agree with you. Maybe. :-)

No,I was just comparing apples to apples--same contours with speed are harder to putt than without speed.

Whether it's harder to putt slow/contoured versus fast/flat is another discussion.

[John Kavanaugh]

JM,

The only people I care about are this who make it to Sunday afternoon. The fear factor of fast greens is by that time moot. The number of times a tournament is lost by three putting is rare compared to those lost by poor ball striking.

When playing well, which is what winners do, fast greens are infinately more true than slow. I really don't mind seeing a champion crowned who was least scared to win.

[Richard Choi]

Doesn't +14 stimp says more about Congressional greens than about USGA?

[Anthony_Nysse]

First of all US Open greens don't stimp over 14. I've stimped greens at 2 U.S. Open's and both rolled around 13/13.5. If anyone tells you they have 14+ speeds, I wouldn't buy it. Once you get greens rolling that fast it's hard to get an accurate reading on a truly flat surface. We pushed green's to the max at last years Open and we only reached speeds of 13.5.

Stewart, Stewart, Stewart....Greens of 14+ are more common than you think for special circumstances. We've been over 14.5" for member guest and the following video will prove that it does happen. Seminole's greens are 13.5-14' consistantly....

ftp://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hoG7_ukb1w

[Bruce Katona]

+8-10 greens allow for more pin-able areas where the interior greens contours may be more severe. At + 13 - + 14 many hole locations are eliminated as a missed putt would be 25' away for the come back (the Open several years ago where a few of the pro's used their putter to stop the ball on the 28th green as the pin location was marginal at best).

Consistant inconsistancy in conditioning would perhaps be a better test for the best golfer, not "defending par". 

Just my $0.02
BK

[JMEvensky]

JM,

The only people I care about are this who make it to Sunday afternoon. The fear factor of fast greens is by that time moot. The number of times a tournament is lost by three putting is rare compared to those lost by poor ball striking.

When playing well, which is what winners do, fast greens are infinately more true than slow. I really don't mind seeing a champion crowned who was least scared to win.

You can't disregard the impact of fast greens on those who makes it to Sunday afternoon.It's probably just as much the fast greens as the ball striking which decides the last few groups.Whether or not that's a good thing is open for discussion.

I'm probably in agreement on the ball striking argument relative to what happens late on Sunday afternoon--but that's just speculation.

But,you never really know how green speed effects ball striking.The argument can be made that some ball striking errors are due to an attempt to avoid a difficult spot on the green to putt from or an attempt to get to a good spot to putt from.

[Steve Kline]

I've played on greens that were 14 in a tournament in Houston. I presume they were telling the truth. They were most certainly the fastest greens I had ever putted on by quite a bit. Also, they were easiest greens I've putted on. You could make putts from every where once you got used to the speed because they were so smooth. You knew a foot or two off the putter if the putt was going to go in. I find slower greens harder make putts on because they aren't as true. Of course, you won't three putt as much either. I think slower greens lead to more two putts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()