Has the demand for fast greens taken the fun out of greens?

[jeffwarne]

Sean and Jeff,

I am having trouble envisioning fast and wet greens.  Don't think I have ever seen one.  Firm and fast I understand.  

Aren't most fast greens at least a little bit dry, or more likely with USGA greens, watered precisecly to field capacity or just below?  An overwatered green is rarely fast.  I don't recall the USGA watering greens to speed them up, they dry them out, roll them, etc.

Jeff,
Are you serious?
I can show you greens stimping 13 that leave footprints when you walk.
I can also show you greens stimping at 6 that you couldn't spike if you jumped.
Additionally I can show you greens firm and stimping 12.5
All within 5 miles of each other
The softness/wetness doesn't MAKE them fast, it's what allows them to be maintained at that height of cut or budget, or both.Or it's just to appease a membership that wants fast, yet greens that will "hold".
Firm and fast is a great ideal, but soft and fast is what you most often get. (unless you have a serious budget, climate/time of year. or a hell of a super,combined with an enlightened membership)
If given the choice, I'll take firm and medium with contour over soft and fast with or without contour.

Put another way, greens that are cut short or rolled or both to get "modern" speed tend to need more water to stay alive (all things being equal)

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I'd like to see greens that are soaked that are over 10-11.  I've yet to play a set of greens that were 10 or more on the stimp that weren't firm.  Utah was notorious for this given thier hot summers.  They would water the hell out of the greens to survive the 100+ degree heat and there wasn't any greens in the entire area that played more than a 8 the entire summer long.  When it would cool off in the fall and they turned the water off and cut em lower...that's when the greens would return to being fun again.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I'd like to see greens that are soaked that are over 10-11.  I've yet to play a set of greens that were 10 or more on the stimp that weren't firm.  Utah was notorious for this given thier hot summers.  They would water the hell out of the greens to survive the 100+ degree heat and there wasn't any greens in the entire area that played more than a 8 the entire summer long.  When it would cool off in the fall and they turned the water off and cut em lower...that's when the greens would return to being fun again.

Look I'm not saying the water speeds them up, I'm saying the demand for "fast" greens has caused many courses to maintain their greens softer than they might otherwise to  protect the turf while keeping them fast (ish),particularly as you say in the height of a hot summer.
I am saying with a higher height of cut that they could back off on the water and retain a bit of firmness.

Kalen I'd venture there are 80 high end courses in Metro NY that stimp above 10 with greens that are soft and heavily moisture laden in the height of a hot summer.
I'd also venture perhaps 5-10 more of them are fast AND firm due to a large budget, perfect construction, a great super, or all three at the same time of year.
Obviously not their firmest and fastest of the season, but still firmish and fast.

I'd like to see the 80 that go for fast and soft, go for firm(er) and medium, and use interesting pins while they wait for the weather to cool.

[Kalen Braley]

Fair enough Jeff,

I admitedly have played very little golf east of the Mississippi...only one course as a matter of fact.

So perhaps with the humidity they are able to maintain those shorter grass lengths.  Out West it tends to be a lot drier, especially in Utah and Arizona which are very dry, so that could be the difference.

I certainly need to expand my horizons!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff W,

Well then, name names, please and I will go look at them. 

In my experience, golf courses go to USGA or similar greens, plant the newest varieties that take low cut and are meant to be kept lean and dry, etc.  Usually, the experiments to try to push, say penncross or poa to shorter cuts is short lived and unsustainable.

However, I don't get every where in the country, so I am by no means sure of my convictions here. 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff W,

Well then, name names, please and I will go look at them.  

In my experience, golf courses go to USGA or similar greens, plant the newest varieties that take low cut and are meant to be kept lean and dry, etc.  Usually, the experiments to try to push, say penncross or poa to shorter cuts is short lived and unsustainable.

However, I don't get every where in the country, so I am by no means sure of my convictions here.  

PM on the way

Many/most older courses don't have the luxury of replanting the newest varieties,but they stll have the pressure from the course down the road that does or has "faster" greens for whatever reason.
just because they're "high end" doesn't mean many aren't facing extinction and fierce competition for a shrinking pool of candidates

[Sean_A]

Jeff

In my experience bent greens in the summer that run fast are usually wet.  Of course, you may have a different definition of wet than I do.  To me, firm is when a ball hits the green it doesn't leave a mark.  If a crater is created by an approach the green is wet - by definition it must be. 

Ciao

[Carl Nichols]

The greens last year at Congressional were not really firm/dry; anyone know what speed they were rolling?  Many courses around Washington have fast greens that, in the summer at least, are also pretty wet.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Down here in TX, most bermuda greens don't show much ball marks.  Greens from bents like G2 are kept pretty dry.  Some ball marks, but not to the small divot category.  Of course, it varies.  In general, its just as hard to keep great turf in a too wet condition as it is too dry.  Keeping perfect moisture is tough, I agree.

[jeffwarne]

Many courses with bent grass in the south have fast, super soft greens May-September.
hybrid bermuda is changing that

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Down here in TX, most bermuda greens don't show much ball marks.  Greens from bents like G2 are kept pretty dry.  Some ball marks, but not to the small divot category.  Of course, it varies.  In general, its just as hard to keep great turf in a too wet condition as it is too dry.  Keeping perfect moisture is tough, I agree.

Jeff

At least I am getting some traction with wet greens.  I am finding it very difficult to believe that nearly everybody on this site hasn't encountered a great deal of wet greens in the summer - much wetter than could be explained by the weather.  It is good to know different hybrids of turf are helping to rectify the situation, but again, the reason for the continued research is to create grasses that can be kept short more consistently and with less water/feed.  Why? - speed.  I would much rather clubs focused on firm greens and let the rest take care of itself.  Unfortunately, speed is often seen as the most important feature of a green and that nearly always leads to higher maintenance costs and lower sustainability.  Sure, the rich clubs can continue to re-lay their greens with the latest and greatest grass and say its money spent on a re-model, but in truth, this is money spent on maintenance.  Its a cycle I am told has to end soon or we will start to see greens which are no more than 1% grade.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Sean,

Down here in TX, most bermuda greens don't show much ball marks.  Greens from bents like G2 are kept pretty dry.  Some ball marks, but not to the small divot category.  Of course, it varies.  In general, its just as hard to keep great turf in a too wet condition as it is too dry.  Keeping perfect moisture is tough, I agree.

Jeff

At least I am getting some traction with wet greens.  I am finding it very difficult to believe that nearly everybody on this site hasn't encountered a great deal of wet greens in the summer - much wetter than could be explained by the weather.  It is good to know different hybrids of turf are helping to rectify the situation, but again, the reason for the continued research is to create grasses that can be kept short more consistently and with less water/feed.  Why? - speed.  I would much rather clubs focused on firm greens and let the rest take care of itself.  Unfortunately, speed is often seen as the most important feature of a green and that nearly always leads to higher maintenance costs and lower sustainability.  Sure, the rich clubs can continue to re-lay their greens with the latest and greatest grass and say its money spent on a re-model, but in truth, this is money spent on maintenance.  Its a cycle I am told has to end soon or we will start to see greens which are no more than 1% grade.

Ciao

Sean,
It's better than that, because after the money as you say is spent on "maintenance" which speeds up the greens, they then have to do a "remodel" to accomodate the new speed.

To the  original question, speed has not taken the fun out of all greens, it has made many greens more fun.
But it certainly has made it difficult to build fun greens at new courses and keep them at classic clubs, and it definitely has eliminated many great pins and pinnaable areas.

[Bradley Anderson]

I played a fantastic set of greens this week at the Culver Academies course http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/culver-academies/

The Academy does not employ a greenkeeper these days and the greens were rolling around 7 - probably about the range of speed that they rolled when they were built by Langford  & Moreau in the 1920's.

There are some unbelievable slopes on those greens and even at this speed the ball was breaking, but if you got those greens up to 10 they would be world class. At 11 they might be too much for most golfers.







A round at Culver Academies might be the closest thing you will experience to what it was like to play back in the golden age. Nothing has changed there since it was first built - except that they let the bunkers grow over with grass.

[jeffwarne]

As I played Southampton today(what a great March ) I thought about how fun and challenging the greens were even at the pace they were rolling which couldn't have been more than 8-9.
If they were built with a max slope of 2 degrees to accomodate "modern speeds" how much fun would they be.
Shouldn't greens be built with pinnable portions at slopes greater than that to accomodate players playing when green speeds are not at their highest?
If we build a green with a slope for speed of 12, the green's only fun at that speed.
What about early/late season, post aerification, super hot summer, or other times when greens aren't at peak speeds.

Put another way, a green with more slope that's ideal at 8-9 is going to be more often fun than a green that needs to be at its' optimal 11-12 to shine.
Why?   --because it's a lot easier to consistently deliver 8,9,10 than 12 day in day out for 8 months.

[Bradley Anderson]

Jeff,

For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.

So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?

If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.

So why we are rebuilding classic greens to accommodate ultra fast speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies the champion?

If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.

Hallelujah

Now I've been ranting for days the mantra of firm and slow   without a whole lot of actual knowledge
but am I correct that(in general) greens maintained slower are easier to be kept firm due to less stress on the turf, therefore needing less water to get through tough periods,allowing them to be less soft?

[Bradley Anderson]

The simple answer is you can have anything you want. With the newer bent grasses you can have fast and firm. With Poa you can certainly have fast, but firmness is just going to be much more expensive to maintain than it will with the newer bent grasses; tournament level firmness on Poa is effected by weather conditions.

My point is it needs to be understood that speed is not the determining factor in what truly toughens a green. Firmness has much more of an effect on scoring than speed. And I wonder: if that sensibility were more prevalent in golf would there be less pressure put on clubs to soften the slopes on greens that have great character? Would there be more of a willingness to accept a speed of say 10-11 as opposed to 11-12 if it meant saving the greens that have a lot of slope in them?

[Aaron McMaster]

Jeff,

For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.

So why we are rebuilding classic greens to accommodate ultra fast speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies the champion?

If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.

Hallelujah

Now I've been ranting for days the mantra of firm and slow   without a whole lot of actual knowledge
but am I correct that(in general) greens maintained slower are easier to be kept firm due to less stress on the turf, therefore needing less water to get through tough periods,allowing them to be less soft?

Jeff the tool Brad is talking about is called the TruFirm and it does a great job of telling you how firm a green is but they run about $9,000.  They say that this is 100% dependent on moisture.  I personally think they are concluding this without looking at all factors.  What type of sand is the green built or topdressed with can make a difference in firmness and there are more that I won't bore you with. 

If you cut a green shorter it typically puts more moisture stress on the green, which requires more frequent irrigation.  This can be because you are stressing the turfs root system so you have to keep water in the upper root zone and as the TruFirm shows water softens greens.  If your cutting higher and the plants root system is healthier you could go longer without moisture.  All of that is seriously dependant on mother nature.  There are newer bents or the newer bermudas that you can cut extremely low and still sustain a good root system to give you firm and fast.  They are producing bent grasses such as V8 that not only tolerate .100 mowing heights but thrive on it.  You would get speed and firmness if you wanted it out of a product like that.

No doubt thought, the quality of putting greens have helped tour players go lower as opposed to making a course more difficult.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff,

For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.

So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?

If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.

If the Tour doesn't care about speed anymore, then why do their design guidelines insist that hole location areas on greens have no more than 2.25% slope?  That number was derived from a green speed of 12 or 13.

[Aaron McMaster]

Jeff,

For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.

So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?

If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.

If the Tour doesn't care about speed anymore, then why do their design guidelines insist that hole location areas on greens have no more than 2.25% slope?  That number was derived from a green speed of 12 or 13.

We used to do a pro am the week of the buick open and for the day we would get the greens up around 13 and all the tour guys would say you could never play a tournament on greens like that.  Therefore, the only option is to take the slope out of the greens.  No mistake about it the tour cares about speed and the players like flat.

[Aaron McMaster]

I played a fantastic set of greens this week at the Culver Academies course http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/culver-academies/

The Academy does not employ a greenkeeper these days and the greens were rolling around 7 - probably about the range of speed that they rolled when they were built by Langford  & Moreau in the 1920's.

There are some unbelievable slopes on those greens and even at this speed the ball was breaking, but if you got those greens up to 10 they would be world class. At 11 they might be too much for most golfers.







A round at Culver Academies might be the closest thing you will experience to what it was like to play back in the golden age. Nothing has changed there since it was first built - except that they let the bunkers grow over with grass.

Brad good to see you, hope all is well.  These pics are hillarious...to see the surroundings in March, no leaves and then you in shorts!!

[BCrosby]

Jeff,

For three or four years now the PGA Tour has been measuring firmness with a special tool made by the USGA. What is significant about this is the Tour returns to several courses every year so comparisons can be made to determine how firmness effects score. Without going in to all the details of their methodology they have determined that green speed has almost no effect on score, but firmness definitely does effect score.

So why are we rebuilding classic greens to accommodate plus 11-12 speeds when speed isn't the condition or factor that identifies our champion?

If anything we should be working on ways to make greens firmer. The Tour doesn't even care that much about speed anymore.

Brad - I went to Culver, was on the golf team for four years and played the Academy course hundreds of times. An old Langford-Moreau course that I hope will be restored someday. The original plan was for 36 holes back in the 20's. I've been trying to track down the drawings. I'm not sure they have survived.

But to your post quoted above - fascinating. Though I'm not as sure as you are about what the survey proves. Could the fact that firmness correlates better than speed with higher scoring be simply a function of Tour players' unfamiliarity with playing firm greens?

Second, firmness and speed are not independent variables. At some point slow, hairy greens affect the roll that even a firm green gives you, no? Which is to say that the value of the PGA survey depends on green speeds being held more or less constant over the courses surveyed.

I would love to see the details of the survey. I am raising questions about it because someone will raise the similar objections at some point along the way and I hope there are good answers to those questions.

I would like to think that firmness matters more than speed. Because with firm greens the architecture of the hole matters more. Approaching a green from a wrong angle can mean death with firm greens. Defending par with fast but softer greens has the opposite effect. It diminishes the importance of architectural features.

Bob   
 

[Tim Nugent]

Making banket statements fai to take into account variables.  Type of grass (Poa, Bent, Fescue (or any combination thereof) and different strains of Bermudas.  Subsoil makeup - Perched water table USGA, California, push-up with 4-6" of sand topdressing.  Mowing Regime - walk or tri-plex mowed, mowing frequency, single or doube-cut, cut and rolled, rolled on non-cut days. Irrigation - totaly automatic, weatherstation/sensor controlled, sprinker syringed vs hand watered.  Wind, Sunlight/shade, Trees (tree roots), and canopy temperatures can a play into how firm or soft a green is.  One aspect that has gotten no talk here is that of the amount of Thatch that is present. A green can be relativey dry but have a thick thatch layer which will cause it to be soft.  I have seen this with Poa greens that were maintained at double-digit speeds but easiy marked.  I think top-dressing plays a role in this.
Actually, for many club members, this is the best of both worlds - fast but soft- because it is harder for them to hold shots on firm greens. But just because they are soft, it doesn't mean that they are wet.

I just saw a survey from England on golfers desires and #1 was True putts not Fast putts.  Perhaps in the quest for Truer greens, they were rolled more, cut shorter to mitigate the effects of grain and topdressed more frequently to remove minor surface varients.  All these tactics also lead to faster greens.  And since speed is easiy to quantify, it becomes the defacto measuring tool.

[Aaron McMaster]

Making banket statements fai to take into account variables.  Type of grass (Poa, Bent, Fescue (or any combination thereof) and different strains of Bermudas.  Subsoil makeup - Perched water table USGA, California, push-up with 4-6" of sand topdressing.  Mowing Regime - walk or tri-plex mowed, mowing frequency, single or doube-cut, cut and rolled, rolled on non-cut days. Irrigation - totaly automatic, weatherstation/sensor controlled, sprinker syringed vs hand watered.  Wind, Sunlight/shade, Trees (tree roots), and canopy temperatures can a play into how firm or soft a green is.  One aspect that has gotten no talk here is that of the amount of Thatch that is present. A green can be relativey dry but have a thick thatch layer which will cause it to be soft.  I have seen this with Poa greens that were maintained at double-digit speeds but easiy marked.  I think top-dressing plays a role in this.
Actually, for many club members, this is the best of both worlds - fast but soft- because it is harder for them to hold shots on firm greens. But just because they are soft, it doesn't mean that they are wet.

I just saw a survey from England on golfers desires and #1 was True putts not Fast putts.  Perhaps in the quest for Truer greens, they were rolled more, cut shorter to mitigate the effects of grain and topdressed more frequently to remove minor surface varients.  All these tactics also lead to faster greens.  And since speed is easiy to quantify, it becomes the defacto measuring tool.

Tom most of your points all reveal things that effect the moisture in the soil, which is what the TruFirm data points to as the overriding factor in green firmness.  Perched tables, Cal greens, types of sands, Wind, Sunlight/shade which is the tree factor all point to how a green may or may not dry out or the ability of the turf manager to dry the greens out without losing turf.  The same with grasses, poa needs for frequent irrigation vs bermuda etc.  If a green has to much thatch you need to keep it wet all the time or it will become hydrophobic so high thatch usually means a super has to keep too much water in the system therefore it's soft.  Now in the long term high thatch will lead to terrible greens so to even consider having good firm greens you need to control thatch.  There is a difference too between thatch/mat and organic matter.  The greens you refer to that club members like are higher organic soils not high thatch/mat.  You will have a hard time mowing a green short with high thatch/mat it will just buckle and scalp.  Rolling also has little effect on a high thatch greens since it's like rolling a mattress, it will bounce right back after you roll it losing most of the effect on speed and firmness from the rolling.

As far as topdressing, certain sands hold more water than others but again it all comes back to moisture.  Now you could add soil to a greens mix and then roll it to compaction and get firm but your rooting is going to suffer and turf loss could occur at some point.  I do think the more leaf tissue a green has the softer it will be if the soil has the same moisture as a green with shorter turf.

This topic could use a thesis to be honest   

[Bradley Anderson]

At clubs where the tour has returned to play each year, since the TruFirm tool came out, there have been years where the greens were firmer due to drier weather conditions in the days leading up to the event. When comparing all the records that were kept on firmness, pin placements and stimpmeter speed readings, the firmness factor had the greatest overall effect on scoring. Speed just does not effect the touring pro's score like it does the average golfer. Which is why I suggest that clubs should not be too hasty to rebuild greens specifically for making them faster for hosting Tour events. Fast greens will not protect par, but firm greens can.

The PGA Tour Course Conditioning Guidelines read as follows:

“In general most Superintendents will be asked to provide consistent greenspeeds in the range of 9½ to 11 feet as measured by a USGA Stimpmeter by the end of Advance Week.  This allows the PGA TOUR Rules Official to make a final determination on a tournament speed which can be adjusted up or down as required.  Arbitrary and excessive greenspeeds can eliminate prime hole locations for the tournament, and this must be avoided.  The Stimpmeter will be used frequently prior to and during the tournament to check the overall pace and consistency of all greens.  It is essential that the prescribed greenspeed be maintained as consistently as possible during Tournament Week.  Situations where the greenspeed dramatically increases or decreases in speed as the tournament progresses must be avoided. Firm, but not overly hard greens are the goal for tournament play.  [emphasis mine] This may require hand watering prior to and during the event.  Key staff members should be trained to recognize areas of the greens that dry out and require supplemental irrigation.  The use of two SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES FIELD SCOUT TDR 300 Soil Moisture Meters and possibly a LANG PENETROMETER can assist the staff in determining how much water to apply.  If conditions are extremely dry, it will probably be necessary to do some overhead watering with the automatic system during Tournament Week.  This will help maintain a consistent baseline of moisture in the rootzone.  The PGA TOUR Agronomist will work with the Superintendent to determine the best combination of both hand and automatic watering.”