[ChipOat]

You guys keep asking for the impossible - which is to return the greens on these courses to realistically manageable speeds and keep them there.

All it takes is one comment from a Golf or Golf Digest rater that might drop a Golden-Era (or later) course into the "next ten" and even the most competent Board and Greens Super will ...........................................

When Coore & Crenshaw were asked to build the greens at East Hampton GC as requested, they agreed to do so on the condition that the club would promise never to let them get faster than "X" (I heard it was 10).

I wonder if East Hampton is still honoring that commitment?  I hope so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

I think the real dilema lies within the realm of understanding contour and slope.

Not all greens are contoured and sloped, but, for those that are, increased speeds seem to have become a mandated progression.

The problem is, if a course has 14 greens absent substantive contour, they're going to want them putting at maximum speeds.

This leads to the dilema, what to do with the other 4 greens, whose contours/slopes create putting nightmares at the higher speeds.

The answer, according to the book of Pine Valley, Merion, Winged Foot West and others, is to soften/flatten those greens.

What the powers that be fail to realize is that greens aren't JUST about putting, they're about approach and recovery as well, and when you soften/flatten a green, you compromise the architect's intended challenge on the approach and recovery, along with his intended challenge on the contoured/sloped greens.

TEPaul, that idiot/savant, got it right on this issue.
I know that's hard for most to believe, but, it's true.
His concept, probably a concept he borrowed or stole from a more enlightened golfer, was to determine the speed at which your most severe green would function as intended, and then, mow ALL of your greens to that height.

That might have a negative impact at many of the greens at Stillwell Park, but, it's a valid, if not THE valid solution to the problem, at PV, WFW and Merion.

Squeezing the distinctive life out of your putting surfaces is an enormous mistake.
A process that can only lead to mediocrity.

Imagine if you will, grasses that can be maintained on a daily basis at speeds of 16.
What will happen to those wonderful greens with contour and/or slope ?

They'll become extinct.

Hollywood and Mountain Ridge, both in NJ, have the most unique, interesting greens you'll ever see.
They present enormous challenge on the approach and recovery.
And, with the possible exception of # 8 at Hollywood and # 3 at Mountain Ridge, present a very challenging putting experience.

I'm not familiar with the daily speeds at Hollywood, but, Mountain Ridge probably strives for about 12 on a daily basis.
Anything greater creates problems.

If the golfing universe moved toward 16 as a daily speed, would elements within those clubs suggest softening/flattening ?
You bet they would.
But, what a terrible mistake that would be.

If PV, Merion and WFW never held a prestigious tournament, would those clubs have flattened their greens ?
I doubt it, so those clubs, architecturally, have sold elements of their architectural soul to speed.

I was recalling how much fun I had playing golf when I was young, in the 50's and 60's, and do you know what ?
I never recalled being unhappy with the speed of the greens.
I played Pinehurst # 2, Seminole, Baltusrol, Mountain Ridge, Ridgewood, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Shinnecock, NGLA, Hollywood, Canoe Brook, Forest Hills, Montclair, Essex County, The Knoll, Glen Ridge, Braidburn and many other courses, and not once did I ever consider that the greens were too slow.

If I traveled back in time, by today's standards, those greens in the 50's and 60's would be very slow, but, only when compared to today's green speeds.

SO, WILL WE BE SAYING THE SAME THING IN 20, 30, 40 OR 50 YEARS, WHEN GREENSPEEDS ARE 16 ?

AND, IF THEY ARE 16, WILL THERE BE ANY REMNANTS OF THE GREENS WE SO DEARLY TREASURE TODAY ?

Read Arthur Weber's treatise on green speeds and slopes.

It's alarming.

If anything, to the astute reader,  it warns of the need to flatten greens as speeds increase.

The other problem I have, is that the PV's, WFW's and Merions set and example for the local clubs of the country as a third party influence.   The arguement at the committee and board level will be, If PV, WFW and Merion flattened their greens, then we can flatten ours.

As much as I love PV, WFW and Merion, the flattening the greens at WFW, PV and Merion has sent out the worst possible signal to the rest of the golfing world.

End of rant

[Mike Hendren]

For example, the new back tee at 14 is a joke.  IIRC, it requires a shot over a stop sign and a ball flight out of bounds.  The only thing missing is the auto ball return after you putt out.  (yes, I'm hyping the situation, but the new tee IS a travesty)

Would this not require the negotiation of an easement or air rights?

Mike

[Ed Brzezowski]

That was a great rant with some worthwhile points. Since you have played Merion do you think those two greens are "in character' with the balance of the course??

I do see your points but always thought those two greens are a bit severe with the slopes in front. No other greens ,well maybe except for 17, are countoured this way. Do you really see it as painting a black eye on the Mona Lisa? Remembering the front of 17 appeared about 10 years ago. In the early 80's i do not recall that front on 17.

I have played there for over 30 years and always heard some members complain about these two greens. my guess is when green speeds went from seven to nine the complaints were heard back then too.

[Mike Hendren]

Pat, in your opinion should the 18th green at Mountain Ridge be flattened?  Interesting that it and the short uphill par three appeared to be the only untouched greens.  I did find their character to be distinct from the other 16 greens.

Mike

[jeffwarne]

You guys keep asking for the impossible - which is to return the greens on these courses to realistically manageable speeds and keep them there.

All it takes is one comment from a Golf or Golf Digest rater that might drop a Golden-Era (or later) course into the "next ten" and even the most competent Board and Greens Super will ...........................................

When Coore & Crenshaw were asked to build the greens at East Hampton GC as requested, they agreed to do so on the condition that the club would promise never to let them get faster than "X" (I heard it was 10).

I wonder if East Hampton is still honoring that commitment?  I hope so.

The impossible?
Really?
Maybe it would be a tough sell at first for some people, but Impossible?


By the way East Hampton's greens still run at the appropriate pace for the design

[Patrick_Mucci]

That was a great rant with some worthwhile points.

Thanks

Since you have played Merion do you think those two greens are "in character' with the balance of the course??

No

I do see your points but always thought those two greens are a bit severe with the slopes in front.

On just about every course, one or two greens will always be the most severe, it's just a matter of comparison.
At Shinnecock you could say that of # 7, but, does that make it out of character with the balance of the course ?
#'s 1, 3 and 6 at NGLA ?
# 4 at GCGC ?

No other greens ,well maybe except for 17, are countoured this way.

Don't those greens add to the distinctive flavor of Merion ?
If they were flat, dead flat, would they bring merit or demerit to Merion ?
Whomever designed those greens, intended them to be that way.
Those greens have stood the test of nearly a century of playing, and now they're being neutered.
Will that neutering, that disfiguration add to or detract from the architecture at Merion ?

Do you really see it as painting a black eye on the Mona Lisa?

A black eye occurs after the trauma, but, to skilled medical personel the evidence presents itself sooner, almost immediately.

The change to the greens is far more insidious than the the trauma which causes the black eye.

If instead of painting a black eye on the Mona Lisa today, I began softening or harshening the tones around her eye over time, few would notice the subtle change, but, over an extended period of time, when the black eye finally became apparent to all but the most obtuse observers, (read TEPaul ) the conclusion/s would be the same.  Unfortunately, the damage will have been done, perhaps irreversably, forever.

Today it's two greens, tomorrow it's three more, then it becomes systemic, then, like the plague, it spreads to other courses.

The process is not healthy for distinctive golf course architecture.

Reducing and/or removing the character from the greens, character that made them distinctive, can't be good for the architectural soul of the golf course.

Remembering the front of 17 appeared about 10 years ago. In the early 80's i do not recall that front on 17.

I'm not so sure of your dating.
Perhaps someone intimately familiar with Merion, who isn't a lunatic, and I know that excludes a great many posters and lurkers, could provide the information surrounding the front of # 17.

I have played there for over 30 years and always heard some members complain about these two greens.


I don't think I've ever been around a golf course, over a period of time, and NOT had members complain about various features.

Golfers tend to complain about things that directly affect their game, with absolutely NO regard for how the various features affect or don't affect the games of the other golfers.

But, let's take your comment to the ultimate conclusion.

If you "FIX" those features which a group of golfers complain about today, will you not "FIX" what other groups of golfers complain about in the future ?   And if you continue with this process, over the years, will the course not LOSE it's architectural soul, the unique design forged by an architect who didn't favor or disfavor any element or sector of the membership ?  And extended to its natural conclusion wouldn't this produce a "quilt like course, absent continuity in design/style, until you were left with a mundane golf course lacking any distinctive features ?

my guess is when green speeds went from seven to nine the complaints were heard back then too.

Green speeds rarely make quantum leaps of two feet.
They tend to have a more even trajectory.

I doubt and will bet that 99 % of the membership at Merion or anywhere else can distinguish between a stimp of 7.0 to a stimp of 7.3, and to a stimp of 7.5.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, in your opinion should the 18th green at Mountain Ridge be flattened?  


Mike,

That's a good question, a fair question.

I think the answer lies in the results of the alternatives, most of which are negative.

I think the green should be rotated on its axis.
But, that also entails the surrounds, not a simple task.


Interesting that it and the short uphill par three appeared to be the only untouched greens.  


The short uphill par 3 appears to have been altered early, sometime between 1929 and 1931.
It is not built as provided in the field drawings and general schematic.

# 3 green is the ONLY other green that's been modified.

ALL of the other greens are today as they were in 1929.

Over the years, the greens shrunk due to maintainance.
Ron Prichard merely recaptured what had been lost over the last 70-80 years.

The greens at Mountain Ridge remain static, although Ron Forse indicated that he felt/remembered that the 5th green had a horseshoe or mound in it, but, I haven't seen any documented evidence of that ..... yet.

I did find their character to be distinct from the other 16 greens.

I don't find # 18 to be distinct considering the surrounding topography.

How different is it from # 9 ?

How different is it from # 17 ?

Donald Ross utilized either slope and contour and sometimes both in the greens at Mountain Ridge.

# 7 seems out of character, although, there's a similarity to # 14, with the primary difference being the severity of the punchbowl

Hope that helps

[Sean_A]

Not to derail the conversation, but don't folks think #5 is just as severe (moreso for the approach!) as the others?  I think this may be the best hole on the course and the green is an integral part of the hole's greatness.  Its was such a sleeper hole which only truly revealed itself when watching the approaches.  

Ciao

[Ed Brzezowski]

OK i have a "history of merion" from a one day event. it's at the office, i will dig it out tomorrow. I think i may/might be correct on 17.

Five is a great hole, any hole placement on the right side is almost impossibe to get to, great call. While i have putted off both 12 and 15 i have not, as yet, putted into the creek on 5. My guess is someone will in 13.

Great discussion guys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Agreed.

# 5 is a great hole for a number of reasons, including the green.

Ed,

Now you have #'s 12, 15, 5 and 17, 22 % of all the greens with "character".

So, in terms of balance, I don't see them being out of context, I see them having more character.

[Michael Blake]

Not to derail the conversation, but don't folks think #5 is just as severe (moreso for the approach!) as the others?  I think this may be the best hole on the course and the green is an integral part of the hole's greatness.  Its was such a sleeper hole which only truly revealed itself when watching the approaches.  

Ciao

#5 a sleeper?  It's listed as one of the 'Best 18 holes in the USA' in The Doak Gazatteer section of the C.G.
The hole's easy.  Just hug the creek with your drive and hit a high fade in.   

[Sean_A]

Michael

Believe it or not, some folks don't take Doak's word as gospel for all things golf - especially those that don't read Doak's words - tee hee.

I don't understand the concept of similar character greens being used as an excuse to alter the uncharacteristic greens.  To me, all courses should have a few or a handful of greens which make one's eyes pop a bit.  That in no way means there can't be a few flat greens or front to back greens or whatever.  This is what totally confuses me about Birkdale's new green.  Why should it have to match the other greens on the course?  I haven't seen the green, but its not like Birkdale has a notable set of greens.  I would think the club should be altering some greens to add character, not take it away.  Same for Hoylake's new green.  Its one of the best on the course yet folks rail on about it not matching the other greens on the course.  I spose we should alter NB's 16th because its not in character with the NB's other greens?  Oh, and its time to tear up Huntercombe's 3rd, 5th and 8th.  Pennard's 7th is a travesty of fun - tear it up.  Oh no, wait, these clubs run their greens at reasonable speeds so its okay to have characterful greens. 

While I did find #12 to be overly severe at the speed I played it, I would rather see speeds slowed down than the green altered.  I didn't find any particular problem with the 15th or the 5th. 

Ciao 

[Bill Brightly]

Tim Martin,

The whole point of my thread is that, IMO, the integrity of the design HAS been restored.

+1

Chip is right. Without knowing the specifics of the changes being made at Merion, in my opinion a moderate softening restores the intent of a classic old green and re-captures lost pin positions while keeping the green speed that the vast majority of today's golfers demand. "Flatten" is a crude word and does NOT mean to make flat...

[ChipOat]

Ed Brzezowski:

Yes, IMO #'s !2 & 15 are NOW in character with the rest of the course in that they are challenging, but fair.  Along with #5, they have always had more pitch - which is why the faster green speeds rendered them unfair while the other 15 greens, while much more challenging than before in many places (e.g. #'s 8 & 14), are still, at worst, playable.

Also, the problem areas on #'s 12 and 15 were much more in the BACK than the front although, in the last 2-3 years, even the front areas became pretty silly on a downhill putt.

As to #5, the whole premise of my thread is that the very real possibility of putting off a green (except for a really misplayed effort) is not what the architect intended and that my endorsement of softening (not flattening) such greens is in response to inappropriate speeds for the pitch/slant thereof.  The good news is that there is about 5 feet of rough between the left edge of the 5th green and the creek.  Still, ................

I'll get to #17 in a minute.

Jeff:

Good news on East Hampton's green speeds.  If anyone on GCA would know, it's you.

Pat and Ed:

Assuming I'm not a lunatic as defined by Pat, the story on the front of #17 is this:

Legend has it that the front of #17 is Hugh Wilson's "Valley of Sin" from #18 at TOC.  I don't believe this is specifically written in his notes, but that has become the accepted genesis of his thinking.  Unlike the less credible impression that #3 was Wilson's Redan - a fine hole but definitely not a Redan - I'm inclined to agree that the #17 theory has merit.  When the hole was originally built, the run-up play through the V of S made total sense because 1) the ground in front of the green was rock hard (no water there),
2) players used the 1.62" ball that plays better on the ground and 3) flying that small ball to that green with the equipment of the day and holding it was more difficult than with today's equipment and ball.  The run-up play is still do-able today - necessary, in fact, for those of us who need a Driver just to carry our tee shot to the fairway in front of the green - but it is less obvious.  What this also means is that, like the slope at the front of #16, you are always putting UP it and never DOWN so the green speed isn't an issue of contention.

Sean:

#5 has never been a sleeper.  1) It is the #1 handicap hole on the course.  2) It was the most difficult hole vs. par in the '71 Open, the '81 Open, and the qualifying rounds for the '89 and '05 Amateur events.  While #18 may be even more challenging to some, it carries the #2 handicap rating because it is on the inward nine.  Either way, #5 has never, ever been considered a sleeper.

Also, you've never had any problems putting on #'s 5 or 15???  You, sir, are GOOD!

Bill Briightly:

Thank you.

[Paul_Turner]

Terrible decision and a bad example for other old courses to dumb down their designs.  The USGA and R&A really are a bullying clubs to change (see the Open rota changes too).

Relieved the 5th was left alone.

[Mark Pearce]

All it takes is one comment from a Golf or Golf Digest rater that might drop a Golden-Era (or later) course into the "next ten" and even the most competent Board and Greens Super will ...........................................

Perhaps the best demonstration available that the obsession with course rankings is a bad thing for golf and golf courses.

I agree with Pat Mucci's post on this (how that hurts!).  Greens are for more than putting.  Firmness is more important than speed and these absurd green speeds mitigate against firm speeds and greens shaped to prefer one approach over another.  Evolution towrads faster, flatter greens is bad for enjoyment of the game and makes it easier for the pros, who are more uncomfortable on slower, more contoured greens in any event.

[Dan Herrmann]

Mark - love that last sentence.

Begs the question:  Is golf being ruined by pro tours?

[Dan Boerger]

Has there been any course that has gone through more changes in its history than TOC?

So, would Merion have made those changes without the impending US Open? Who knows? IMO, however, the "softening" of those two greens is a good thing -- and don't dumb down the experience, but do give more pin positions with speeds consistent among all greens on the East Course.

[ChipOat]

Dan and Mark,

First, nothing was done at Merion to make the changed parts of those two greens even remotely "flat".

Ken Venturi once said during a Masters telecast that, (approximate quote) "Faster putts are often easier since you just have to start the ball on the correct line without actually making a good stroke."

I agree that slower, contoured greens are more challenging for ALL players because a good stroke is required.  I believe this is why Gary Koch was (is?) such a superb putter on Bermuda greens and, by his own admission, less so on Bent.

However, the "easier" putt that Venturi referred to does need to be reasonably playable.  The poster child for this whole issue is #18 at Olympic during the U.S. Open.

The point of my thread is that, since slower contoured greens, except for East Hampton, have regrettably gone the way of snap valve watering systems (irreversibly, IMO), the next best solution is to return any offending greens to something much closer to their original degree of difficulty.

[Terry Lavin]

The point of my thread is that, since slower contoured greens, except for East Hampton, have regrettably gone the way of snap valve watering systems (irreversibly, IMO), the next best solution is to return any offending greens to something much closer to their original degree of difficulty.

Well said.  I think this is absolutely true of any course that wants to host professional events, for better or worse.  We all make compromises in our lives at one time or another and this is one sort of compromise that clubs will have to make if they want to swim in the big pool.  The rest of us can do out bit to try to convince our fellow members and superintendents (less encouragement needed here, obviously) that there's nothing wrong with green speeds of 9.5 on the Stimp if the greens have a fair amount of internal contour and slope.  In fact, as many have observed, the slightly slower speeds provide more "cuppable" areas because the slope isn't as menacing with lower speeds, while ultimately proving just as challenging.

[Mark Pearce]

What green speed is typical for the Open?  I'd be surprised if it was above 11.  It's not the sort of thing the R&A tend to publicise much.  It's rare indeed on this side of the pond to see greens at any more than 10, I'd guess.  I'm certainly always astomished when I play in the US how quick greens over there are maintained.

[Terry Lavin]

What green speed is typical for the Open?  I'd be surprised if it was above 11.  It's not the sort of thing the R&A tend to publicise much.  It's rare indeed on this side of the pond to see greens at any more than 10, I'd guess.  I'm certainly always astomished when I play in the US how quick greens over there are maintained.

Mark,

I would guess that the typical speed for the Open Championship is around 10.  Here in the States, the USGA regularly is trying to get green speeds well north of 13 for our Open.  This staple of the setup book creates all manner of problems if the weather doesn't fully cooperate, which it seldom does!

[Sean_A]

Chipoat

Well, knowing very little of Merion before my visit I was very pleasantly surprised by #5 - as I was by the entire course.  That green is a proper old-fashion one which I have a lot of time for.  

I only played Merion once and while the severe slope brought a huge smile to my face, that same slope, if the greens are firm, will allow an approach to drift below the hole.  The trouble would then be the water.  Considering the rainfall the previous day (measured in inches!), the course played very well, but it wasn't by any stretch firm.  Even so, this was an interesting hole because one could leave it on the high side.  

When something ain't broke, it should need fixin'.  But then, as Terry alludes to, if clubs want to be on the national stage, they have to do what the man says.  Even if knuckling under is inevitable, it still doesn't make it right or sensible.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

I'm with Pat on this one.  While the micro view may be that it's a subtle change that actually improves certain conditions even beyond the tournament, that's missing the forest for the trees IMO.  It's a slippery slope (literally!) that all heads in a bad direction bigger picture.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()