Slope, rating and excessive green speeds

[Mike_Young]

I just watched a club championship played on excessive green speeds because of the ignorance ( or maybe egos) of a frat boy membership.  If a group of state golf association raters were to try rating a course under such conditions.....they couldn't.   The only strategy was to be DIRECTLY under the hole.  All other elements of the course were impossible....I realize this happens often with various national and state tourneys but in most cases they have enough knowledge to know which pins will work and which will not.  Anyway I guess I'm trying to say there is no way to  properly rate or slope a course with excessive green speeds...JMO.

[ward peyronnin]

Friday I played Victoria , an intrinsically hard course from many aspects, with the greens rolling 13, by the super's own admittance,  in a 20 mph wind at holes placed literally on internal ridge slopes and domes and from one of an average of 4 to 5 optional members tees ( not championship, senior , or ladies)

As you say Mike  how can slope apply properly? ( I shot at least 6 strokes more than my customary and hit a lot of good shots)

All i can say is everybody is playing the same course however silly it is

[Jerry Kluger]

I recently played Belmont CC in the Boston area which is a Ross course that was restored a few years ago.  At that time they decided that they wanted to raise green speeds in order to satisfy the members and help attract new members so they expanded the surfaces back to their original size but more importantly softened many of the contours.  Now some may say that this is a bad idea but I think the reasoning is sound and practical.

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

As an architect, what's the fine line between buildiing what you feel are highly interesting greens but not going over the edge due to higher green speeds.

I played Nicklaus' Harbor Shores course in Benton Harbor, MI last week and 6 of the greens were closed due to "softening" of few of the central humps in the greens.  If green speeds didn't break 10 on a stimp, would that be necessary?  Since they tweak the speeds to 13 for the Sr. PGA, do the greens need to be softened because a faster green is better than one with interesting undulations?

At what point in our history did green speeds over take importance of green interest?

Ken

[Jon Wiggett]

I recently played Belmont CC in the Boston area which is a Ross course that was restored a few years ago.  At that time they decided that they wanted to raise green speeds in order to satisfy the members and help attract new members so they expanded the surfaces back to their original size but more importantly softened many of the contours.  Now some may say that this is a bad idea but I think the reasoning is sound and practical.

Jerry,

the question is why increase the green speed? It cannot be for a truer putting surface as this is possible with 9' on the stimp. It cannot be for increased challenge as obviously they had to make the green easier by reducing the challenge posed by the contours. It could be keeping up with the Jones's which seems to me to be vanity pure and simple.

However you say it is sound and practical reasoning! What sound and practical reasoning exactly???

Jon

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, In this day and age, you'd think the blue bloods would've figured out their antiquated slope/rating system is so flawed, on many levels, to be considered seriously, by anyone but a novice.

The regrettable result of this status quo is that anyone with a moral compass, won't play in anymore tournaments. (in the USA)

[Brent Hutto]

At what point in our history did green speeds over take importance of green interest?

Presumably it was when golfers started evincing a preference for putting on fast greens instead of slow ones.

You can make more 20-foot putts on a smooth, subtly-contoured green Stimping 12 than you can on a smooth, somewhat more boldly contoured green Stimping 9. Making 20-foot putts is fun and memorable.

Ask any golfer after he walks off the course about his round. He will quickly tell you about any and every putt over 15 feet that he happened to make that day. By contrast, doing a good job of two-putting wildly breaking putts on a severely contoured, slow-rolling green is fun but not as instantly memorable.

Good players (or good putters at least) are now addicted to making putts on fast, flattish greens. They are never going to choose to go back. Lesser players tend to take their cues from the better ones, often to their own detriment.

P.S. Or put another way, the great mass of golfers prefer to have their nerves and touch tested by very fast green speeds than having their stroke and imagination tested by bold contours.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Friday I played Victoria

The Victoria in British Columbia, the one in Melbourne or another course?

[Brent Hutto]

Wayne,

Ward is a member at Victoria National.

[Ken Fry]

Presumably it was when golfers started evincing a preference for putting on fast greens instead of slow ones.

You can make more 20-foot putts on a smooth, subtly-contoured green Stimping 12 than you can on a smooth, somewhat more boldly contoured green Stimping 9. Making 20-foot putts is fun and memorable.

Ask any golfer after he walks off the course about his round. He will quickly tell you about any and every putt over 15 feet that he happened to make that day. By contrast, doing a good job of two-putting wildly breaking putts on a severely contoured, slow-rolling green is fun but not as instantly memorable.

Good players (or good putters at least) are now addicted to making putts on fast, flattish greens. They are never going to choose to go back. Lesser players tend to take their cues from the better ones, often to their own detriment.

P.S. Or put another way, the great mass of golfers prefer to have their nerves and touch tested by very fast green speeds than having their stroke and imagination tested by bold contours.

Brett,

Is Crystal Downs considered a world class golf course BECAUSE Fred Muller has witnessed someone putt off every green or IN SPITE of that fact?  Can a golf course be considered one of the best with greens that typically play less than 10??

Ken

[Brent Hutto]

I really don't any much idea or opinion as to what makes course famous or causes them to be rated higher or lower. Guess my way of experiencing them doesn't admit much in the way of comparisons, rankings or ratings.

I'm just saying golfers obviously prefer fast greens to slow ones and that preference seems to hold in spite of the fact that faster speeds foreclose on really bold contouring.

[Sean_A]

At what point in our history did green speeds over take importance of green interest?

Certainly by the time I became heavily involved in golf in 1978ish, nearly all the talk I heard about greens was centred around speed, not interest.  I recall when I first visited GB&I starting in 1991, there was a lot less talk of green speed and more focus on the quality of the turf and if it was firm or soft.  This was one of my best early lessons in architecture/maintenance which I never heard mention of back home.  Over two decades later I realize its a lesson which s far important than I ever thought possible back in 1991. 

Ciao

[ward peyronnin]

Brent

How do you reconcile your p[osition with the fact that you made at least three 20'+ putts in our match at the Fields on Mike's slower greens?

Priceless

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I agree with you in that I don't know how one can incrementally alter the slope rating based upon excessively fast greens.

Years ago, I believe that Greenwich or Stanwich had a 150 rating because of the severe slope of their greens.

As green speeds increased, those greens became treacherous,, and not alot of fun to play on, especially in medal play.

What's interesting is that Arthur Weber conducted a study relating degrees of slope to green speeds (absent any wind)

One would think that clubs would use that study as their guiding light.

I happen to like TE Paul's premise, find out what speed your most severe green can reasonably tolerate and then apply that speed to ALL of your greens.

[Mike_Young]

I like fast greens and prefer them BUT when a good fast green becomes a faster green just because it can and when such green speed eliminates the other architectural aspects of said green whereby the only shots a good player can play to said green are short beneath the hole and the good player cannot risk any short sides or other strategies that a normal fast speed would allow to particular pin placements, then we have altered the  golf course as much as if a bunker was added or removed on a hole or if a tee was lengthened.  AND also..softspikes look like hell the lower the green is mowed...    It's stupid....and is an injustice to good golf courses...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Over a decade ago, the superintendent at Westhampton, Mike Rewinski, created a post entitled, "The need for speed" where he pretty much echoed your sentiments.

I blame TV, Green Chairman, Presidents and members who want to get their greens diabolically fast in order to protect par and their courses "honor"

[Brent Hutto]

Brent

How do you reconcile your p[osition with the fact that you made at least three 20'+ putts in our match at the Fields on Mike's slower greens?

Priceless

I'd put it down to familiarity. The greens at The Fields were pretty much identical pace as daily play most times of the year at my home course. Plus the grain and so forth seemed to read about like the greens at home, must be very similar varieties of Bermuda.

The rest of the course was nothing like the one I play 120 times a year at home but the greens were right in my wheelhouse. My own putting stroke is pretty fundamentally sound but my touch for distance seems to suffer on very fast greens. So personally speaking, moderate speeds are just fine. I might make more 20-footers on really fast greens but I'll three-putt half a dozen times a round!

[Ed Brzezowski]

Well they can be rated , it would just carry the highest green speed available.

Oakmont is rated so there you go.

[Mike_Young]

Well they can be rated , it would just carry the highest green speed available.

Oakmont is rated so there you go.

Never said a course could not be rated.  But when it is rated a one speed and that speed is changed then it is no different than moving a bunker or lengthening or shortening a tee....a course rate a 73.5 at 11 may become a 76 at 14...IMHO

[BHoover]

If the members want their course to have frighteningly fast green speeds, then so be it.  It is their course after all, so why shouldn't they be able to dictate how it is set up?

[Jon Wiggett]

You can make more 20-foot putts on a smooth, subtly-contoured green Stimping 12 than you can on a smooth, somewhat more boldly contoured green Stimping 9. Making 20-foot putts is fun and memorable.

But then surely the next move is to make multiple funnel positions on the green which ensure the ball always goes in   Brent, what you say does make sense if correct though it is almost certain that the average golfer will also 3 putt a lot more on super fast greens which does not seem to matter if so.

Jon

[Brent Hutto]

It's all about perceptions. The magic formula, as I see it, works something like this...

1a) Golfers think faster is harder

1b) I would argue that more 20-foot putts are made on fast greens than slow ones, at least up to a point.

1c) So golfers get the double benefit of remembering those 20-footers that happened on greens presumed to be difficult due to speed.

2a) Golfers will three-putt more often on fast greens

2b) Golfers blame three-putts on greens with too much contour

3) Therefore golfers prefer fast greens (supposedly "harder" while in fact easier to make memorably long putts) with less contour (to ameliorate the three-putts resulting from faster speeds).

I'm not saying golfers are rational. Just that they seem to like faster greens rather than slower.

[Patrick_Mucci]

At what point in our history did green speeds over take importance of green interest?

Presumably it was when golfers started evincing a preference for putting on fast greens instead of slow ones.

You can make more 20-foot putts on a smooth, subtly-contoured green Stimping 12 than you can on a smooth, somewhat more boldly contoured green Stimping 9. Making 20-foot putts is fun and memorable.

You loaded the dice and the playing field by changing the putting surface from "subtly-contoured" to "boldly contoured"

I'll bet you all the money you want, in a medal play situation that 20 foot putts are easier to make at 9 on the stimp than at 12.

Ask any golfer after he walks off the course about his round. He will quickly tell you about any and every putt over 15 feet that he happened to make that day. By contrast, doing a good job of two-putting wildly breaking putts on a severely contoured, slow-rolling green is fun but not as instantly memorable.

Good players (or good putters at least) are now addicted to making putts on fast, flattish greens. They are never going to choose to go back. Lesser players tend to take their cues from the better ones, often to their own detriment.

P.S. Or put another way, the great mass of golfers prefer to have their nerves and touch tested by very fast green speeds than having their stroke and imagination tested by bold contours.

[Brent Hutto]

You loaded the dice and the playing field by changing the putting surface from "subtly-contoured" to "boldly contoured"

I was addressing a very specific question. Namely, the issue of flattening greens to accommodate faster Stimp readings. If the question is why club members (or golfers in general) want to speed up greens so much that they end up removing contours to keep them puttable, my answer is it's because they'll make more putts on fast, flat greens than slow, contoured ones.

Obviously, some huge proportion of golfers do in fast prefer faster and flatter greens to the opposite. As proven by the fact that putting greens have gotten faster and flatter on average over the past several decades. If huge contours and slow speeds were preferred that's what we would be seeing, wouldn't we?

P.S. Perhaps my experience is skewed by the fact that 99.9% of my golf has been played on Bermuda grass. At least on Bermuda greens Stimping 9 do not roll as smooth, grain-free and true and excellent greens Stimping 12. Plus the slower speed requires a bigger putting stroke, thereby magnifying any technique flaws.

[Jason Thurman]

Brent is on the right track.

The average golfer likes fast greens because they're considered "hard" and they're "what the pros play." Average golfers LOVE playing what the pros play, and they'll blame a bad stroke for a missed putt on a flattish fast green.

Average golfers don't like substantial contour because it's "tricked up" and "doesn't reward good shots." Average golfers HATE when a course doesn't reward good shots, and they'll blame the green for a missed putt on a highly contoured, slower green.

Average golfers also don't play fast greens often enough to become exhausted by them. They're an occasional treat that makes them feel like a pro. They also value conditions over design, and fast greens fit into the definition of "great conditioning!" that gets their blood pumping.  There's nothing rational about any of this, but that's their line of thinking.