[JMEvensky]

It's an interesting issue because putting on greens at 6 feet would certainly be more difficult for me than 11 feet in the same way playing off fairways an inch long is a bit tougher than whatever height they are typically cut at today...1/4inch? There's alot more left to chance, which I'm fine with, but in an either/or conversation, is more difficult necessarily better? Nope!

Not necessarily.

Greens faster than 11 or fairways mowed under 1/2" would have been inconceivable to you--all you would've ever known was the green speeds and fairway heights that were common.The changes were evolutionary--they didn't happen overnight.Good players just adapted,albeit some skills got more important and some got less.

You're a good player now,you would've been a good player then.

[JESII]

Jeff,

I don't disagree...but I think we do have to look at it as an overnight issue.

"Are there greens that are better now then they were then based on green speeds?" was the topic question and I think it's valid (fairway heights as well) because, as you say, nobody notices the differences year to year...effectively, there is no difference year to year.

[Jim_Kennedy]

There's some intreresting stuff in this report 9 page about green speed:

http://tinyurl.com/6sq4fhs

From the abstract:

Twenty-nine golf courses in Connecticut participated in a study where 448 golfers were asked in a questionnaire to rank the speed of selected greens into one of five categories from slow to fast. These rankings were paired to the same USGA speedchart categories for regular play based on measured Stimpmeter ball-roll distances. Overall, there was no significant (P = 0.72) relationship between golfer rankings of green speed and USGA speed categories. Low-handicap golfers were able to detect increasing trends in green speeds only slightly better than higher handicapgolfers or golfers with no handicap. Overall, the majority of golfers (74%) ranked green speed into slower categories than those determined by the Stimpmeter. However, golfer rankings correctly matched USGA categories in 41.4 to 48.8% of cases when measured speeds were classified as medium to medium fast, respectively. Regardless of ball-roll distance, 87.5% of respondents rated the putting green speed as satisfactory. The data suggest that use of the Stimpmeterfor delineating greens into arbitrary speed categories may be obsolete. Instead, it should be used as a tool to determine "ideal" green speeds at individual golf courses based on golfer preferences, and to ensure relatively uniform green speeds throughout the course.


edit: The link works now

[JMEvensky]

Jeff,

I don't disagree...but I think we do have to look at it as an overnight issue.

"Are there greens that are better now then they were then based on green speeds?" was the topic question and I think it's valid (fairway heights as well) because, as you say, nobody notices the differences year to year...effectively, there is no difference year to year.

Fair enough.For the purpose of this conversation,better only for playing--maintenance is another issue.

For fairways,I say undeniably better today at <1/2" than what was common 30(?) years ago--for all the reasons you could think of.That said,I can find you plenty of guys who think anything under 1" is "tight".They like to be able to get their 11 woods airborne.

For greens,today's faster is much better for me.BUT,the greens I usually play,and played growing up,would be much flatter than what you are used to in Philly (or so I gather).Plus,growing up,I played courses which were wall to wall common bermuda--a completely different animal than bent or poa.Speed was almost irrelevant compared to grain.Back then,a fast green coupled with contour and grain,would have forced a lot of guys into tennis.

So,my "better" is parochial since I rarely putt on heavily contoured greens.If I'd grown up putting Merion's or PV's greens,I might give you a different answer.Not that it really matters anymore since I started putting like a man with Tourette's Syndrome.

[JMEvensky]

There's some intreresting stuff in this report 9 page about green speed:
  
http://www.green-resource.com/wp-content/themes/greenresource/uploads/resource_files/resource_golf/Putting%20Green%20Speeds%20-%20A%20Reality%20Check!.pdf

From the abstract:

Twenty-nine golf courses in Connecticut participated in a study where 448 golfers were asked in a questionnaire to rank the speed of selected greens into one of five categories from slow to fast. These rankings were paired to the same USGA speedchart categories for regular play based on measured Stimpmeter ball-roll distances. Overall, there was no significant (P = 0.72) relationship between golfer rankings of green speed and USGA speed categories. Low-handicap golfers were able to detect increasing trends in green speeds only slightly better than higher handicapgolfers or golfers with no handicap. Overall, the majority of golfers (74%) ranked green speed into slower categories than those determined by the Stimpmeter. However, golfer rankings correctly matched USGA categories in 41.4 to 48.8% of cases when measured speeds were classified as medium to medium fast, respectively. Regardless of ball-roll distance, 87.5% of respondents rated the putting green speed as satisfactory. The data suggest that use of the Stimpmeterfor delineating greens into arbitrary speed categories may be obsolete. Instead, it should be used as a tool to determine "ideal" green speeds at individual golf courses based on golfer preferences, and to ensure relatively uniform green speeds throughout the course.

Interesting,but I swear that some magazine,SI or GD maybe,did something similar years ago and came to completely different conclusions.

From memory,that study found an almost exact correlation between ability to putt and ability to guess green speed.PGAT players could guess within 6",low handicap amateurs could guess within 1',etc.

As usual,I may be misremembering.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,

I think the abstract says that all golfers can tell when the speed goes up, that it's not just the realm of the lowest handicap players.

The link should be working now, and you'll find this in it (so your memory is probably intact):

When all 448 respondents were included in the analysis, there was no significant relationship between golfer rankings of green speed and USGA green speed categories (χ² = 0.13, P = 0.72). However, a weak relationship was found between the < 10 handicap group rankings and the USGA rankings (χ² = 3.45,P = 0.06), but not for the other handicap classes (P ≥ 0.10). This suggests that lower-handicap golfers may have a slightly better ability to match green speeds to USGA speed charts than higher-handicap golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For the most part, no.  The green complexes at most Golden Era courses were creatively severe - which was part of their well deserved reputation (think NGLA, PV, Shinnecock, Cypress, Augusta, Pasatiempo, Winged Foot and Merion among many others).

However:

Mark Johnson - You are correct about Pinehurst although, as a resort when golf was not "huge" and $300 green fees were unthnikable, those greens were kept slower because nobody cared. 

Chip, that's not true, people did care.  And, you're forgetting that Pinehurst hosted the North-South Open, the North-South Men's Amateur and the North- South Women's Amateur every year.  It was a destination golf resort for "golfers"  While there was skeet, horseback, tenns croquet and other actiivities, golf was king.  But, it was in North Carolina where they converted their sand greens to bermuda.
Probably Common Bermuda which didn't putt like the current strains.
But golfers migrated to Pinehurst as a great golf course complex much like they do at Bandon today.
So, the expectation was high in terms of the quality of the product.   

Now that Pinehurst is a resort where $400 green fees are the norm on #2 because golf is "huge", the business decision has been made that you have so presciently observed.

Phillippe - I think you nailed it with Garden City although I think we must wait for Patrick to validate that assessment.

While there's not a lot of contouring on GCGC's greens, other than perhaps # 4, 11 and 16, almost every green is sloped.
Sloped in a bedeviling way.
GCGC is at it's best when F&F conditions are the norm, so the entire course, and play of the course is enhanced with increased speed.
When I first played there, in the 80's, Bobby Ranum was the Superintendent and I remember one putt in particular on the 13th green.
I had deliberately hit my approach long of the hole, leaving me about a 15 foot uphill putt for a birdie.
I then had a 6 foot downhill putt for a par.
I was shocked at how fast that uphill putt was.
Greens # 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14 and WOW # 15, # 17 and # 18 are entirely sloped, with the other greens having less slope, so those greens and the play of those greens benefit from fast rather than slow speeds.

The question is, how fast before the course transitions from challenging to goofy ?
You may not be able to define it, but, you know it when you play it.

I will add Maidstone and Fishers Island to the list as virtually all of their greens are not so threatening and, for the most part, faster is more challenging but still fair. 

 Piping Rock also s/b included as only their Redan is scary fast. 
The Creek is questionable as I can think of half a dozen greens that are now "Jesus, I could putt this thing right off the green."

Moving down a notch, both Inwood and Rockaway Hunting Club now have greens that are both very quick and very fair.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()