Slope, rating and excessive green speeds

[Jerry Kluger]

Jon: It has been my experience that members of private clubs like to say that their greens are fast, like to play on fast greens, and prospective members are usually impressed by fast greens.  It may not be the ideal way for the course to play but it is what the members want and with the dwindling number of members of private clubs, it is practical to do whatever you can to keep the current members happy and induce the prospective members to join.

[Steve Okula]

Jon: It has been my experience that members of private clubs like to say that their greens are fast, like to play on fast greens, and prospective members are usually impressed by fast greens.  It may not be the ideal way for the course to play but it is what the members want and with the dwindling number of members of private clubs, it is practical to do whatever you can to keep the current members happy and induce the prospective members to join.

Quite. In my area, it has become a competition between the top clubs as to who sports the fastest greens, and nothing enhances a club's staus like speed. We supers are pressured for speed and constantly compared to the course down the road. It's got so bad that some of us collude and enter into secretivel "speed-fixing" agreements. I can post that here because I know that none of my members are interested enough in golf design to read this forum.

I haven't done a poll, but from what I've heard from golfers over the past 40 years I would say that at least 95% of them put condition ahead of design.

[Paul Gray]

Jon: It has been my experience that members of private clubs like to say that their greens are fast, like to play on fast greens, and prospective members are usually impressed by fast greens.  It may not be the ideal way for the course to play but it is what the members want and with the dwindling number of members of private clubs, it is practical to do whatever you can to keep the current members happy and induce the prospective members to join.

No, but it is the instinctive response because people SAY that's what they want. What they actually love to play on, week after week, year after year, can be something quite different.

[Steve Okula]

Jon: It has been my experience that members of private clubs like to say that their greens are fast, like to play on fast greens, and prospective members are usually impressed by fast greens.  It may not be the ideal way for the course to play but it is what the members want and with the dwindling number of members of private clubs, it is practical to do whatever you can to keep the current members happy and induce the prospective members to join.

No, but it is the instinctive response because people SAY that's what they want. What they actually love to play on, week after week, year after year, can be something quite different.

People often mean just what they say. My members come back day after day and year after year demanding ever-faster green speeds.

Here's the stimpmeter scale according to my members:

Anything under < 9'6" is unpalyable, unacceptable, and unforgiveable! What the hell do you do all day?

From 9,6" to 10'6" is still way too bloody slow! (No shit, last week my director came to me to tell me that the greens were "unplayable" for being too slow when they were a couple of inches over 10'.)

From 10'6" to 11'6" is only marginal, barely tolerable, and when can we have them fast?

Over 11'6" and the pin positions are unfair! Why can't I train my people to set a pin?

[Mike_Young]

i don't think people are understanding the point I'm trying to make.  I don't care how fast a club wants their greens.  They can do it however they wish.  BUT if they have the greens at say 10 when they rate the course and then they set the greens at 12 or 13 normally then they have a flawed course rating.  Greens, bunkers, tees, trees , doglegs are all stationary but green speeds can do more to determine difficulty than any one element and too fast can make a rating go out the window...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

What compounds your problem is the constant reminder of how fast the greens are at the weekly PGA Tour event course.

What members seem to forget is that the course hosting the PGA Tour event has taken a year to prepare for just four days of competition.

And, members tend to forget about the infusion of money into the budget of the course hosting the event.

It's a very difficult fight, one I don't envy.

And the worst part is, if you heed their desires, and Mother Nature or some other influence results in the greens suffering.......... it's your fault.

This is just one of the reasons why I favor dictatorships at clubs.
You only have one voice to please.

[BCowan]

Steve,

What compounds your problem is the constant reminder of how fast the greens are at the weekly PGA Tour event course.

What members seem to forget is that the course hosting the PGA Tour event has taken a year to prepare for just four days of competition.

And, members tend to forget about the infusion of money into the budget of the course hosting the event.

It's a very difficult fight, one I don't envy.

And the worst part is, if you heed their desires, and Mother Nature or some other influence results in the greens suffering.......... it's your fault.

This is just one of the reasons why I favor dictatorships at clubs.
You only have one voice to please.

+1,

Senior Mucci, you would make a great dictator! 

[Bill_McBride]

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

That was quite a show.   

[jeffwarne]

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.


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.

Or they simply like to announce their Johnson measurement.
Poor strokes and poor imaginations do poorly on slower, more boldly contoured greens, and people want their golf easy- while cleverly announcing to all how fast and difficult their greens are.

[Ed Brzezowski]

i don't think people are understanding the point I'm trying to make.  I don't care how fast a club wants their greens.  They can do it however they wish.  BUT if they have the greens at say 10 when they rate the course and then they set the greens at 12 or 13 normally then they have a flawed course rating.  Greens, bunkers, tees, trees , doglegs are all stationary but green speeds can do more to determine difficulty than any one element and too fast can make a rating go out the window...

I get your point but green speed does not count as much as length of the rough, or length or green target.  You are talking ten to fifteen points out of twelve hundred points. Moving one column on speed will not wildly swing the needle. You want to see a huge difference grow the rough.
Green speed is one factor out of ten sections on the rating form. You want to see a course go out the window we did Merion East and plugged in six inch rough. It pegged the needle. Green speed alone will not skew the figures. Go get a rating book and look.

[David Ober]

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)

Not sure what this means, Adam. I love tournament golf, and play probably 15 - 20 tournaments a year. What is it about tournament golf (in the USA) that you don't like, specifically? Also, where do you play most of your golf (what state/region, etc.)?

David

[David Ober]

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.

Wow, Hutto. You (as you often, but not always do) nailed it. It's just a preference thing. BOTH types of greens can be a blast to put on, both super fast and moderately contoured and slow as molasses, but boldy contoured. I would love to see the USGA and the PGA Tour do away with "standards" when it comes to green speeeds. The only thing we should be looking for in tournament conditions is TRUE greens. They can be 9 or 14. The closer they are to 8 or 9, the more bold the contours can be. That's fun in my book. It's fun to have a three foot putt with two cups of break. And if you try to "jam it in" and play right edge and get a bit "twitchy," then you have a six foot comebacker, just like you would on a 13 stimp green if you play inside the cup and miss when you should play two balls out.

Bottom line: Pros hate looking "stupid," so they will continue to insist on green speeds that are all in a narrow range (11 to 13 for the most part) and bunker conditions that are IMMACULATE. The only place pros are willing to look bad (to their credit) is the rough.

As a crappy, but still competitive mid-am, I understand some of their thinking, of course. Lots of people are unwilling to have a tournament turn on who got the best breaks in crappy bunkers all week, so I understand most pros' aversion to crappy bunker conditions, but I do have a hard time understanding their unwillingness to play slow greens one week and then fast the next. Seems to me that that type of variation would help identify the best all-around putters on tour, not just the best "fast green" putters on tour....

But that's just me. :-)

[Mike_Young]

i don't think people are understanding the point I'm trying to make.  I don't care how fast a club wants their greens.  They can do it however they wish.  BUT if they have the greens at say 10 when they rate the course and then they set the greens at 12 or 13 normally then they have a flawed course rating.  Greens, bunkers, tees, trees , doglegs are all stationary but green speeds can do more to determine difficulty than any one element and too fast can make a rating go out the window...

I get your point but green speed does not count as much as length of the rough, or length or green target.  You are talking ten to fifteen points out of twelve hundred points. Moving one column on speed will not wildly swing the needle. You want to see a huge difference grow the rough.
Green speed is one factor out of ten sections on the rating form. You want to see a course go out the window we did Merion East and plugged in six inch rough. It pegged the needle. Green speed alone will not skew the figures. Go get a rating book and look.

Ed,
With due respect I understand the rating systema dn how points are awarded etc...I'm saying that excessively fast greens may not swing the points needle but they will eliminate strategic options for good players and will increase scores more than high rough IMHO....

[Ed Brzezowski]

Fully agree , it's a freak show out there at times .

[Jon Wiggett]

No shit, last week my director came to me to tell me that the greens were "unplayable" for being too slow when they were a couple of inches over 10'.

Or maybe he just does not have the ability to cope with them. Steve, the use of the word 'unplayable' by your director is laughable. I feel for you having to take orders from such a clown

From 10'6" to 11'6" is only marginal, barely tolerable, and when can we have them fast?

Over 11'6" and the pin positions are unfair! Why can't I train my people to set a pin?

So basically your customers have no acceptable speed for their greens. I wonder how realistic this really is

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon: It has been my experience that members of private clubs like to say that their greens are fast, like to play on fast greens, and prospective members are usually impressed by fast greens.  It may not be the ideal way for the course to play but it is what the members want and with the dwindling number of members of private clubs, it is practical to do whatever you can to keep the current members happy and induce the prospective members to join.

Thanks for the answer Jerry. I was wondering what the practical reason was from a playing point. Though I understand your point about attracting members it is not practical as it does not solve the real problem which is dwindling numbers. A club has got to address this point if  it wants a practical solution.

Jon

[Josh Stevens]

So please explain the difference

I live in Perth, a golfing waste land

I went to watch the Western Australian open last week at Cottesloe, a ghastly place that could be should be great.  First hole is a driveable par 4 which all players had a crack at.  I stood behind the green and saw 3 woods and drivers plug in their own pitch marks on the green, and yet they were running at about 12 I would guess.  Fast but soft

This week they are at Karrinyup.  Greens will probably be a touch slower, but as hard as a bowling ball.  Nothing plugs, and certainly nothing spins back.  Everything leaps forward or sideways or whatever.

Its a different game

How do you measure hardness, is there some tool??

[Adam Lawrence]

There are a number, for example:

http://www.randa.org/en/TheGolfCourse/Playing%20Performance/Objective%20Measurement.aspx

http://www.specmeters.com/soil-and-water/soil-compaction/trufirm-turf-firmness/trufirm/

[BCrosby]

"How do you measure hardness, is there some tool??"

The USGA (and others too I assume) have a tool called a "thumper" that gives a reading of a green's firmness. The measurement is on a scale that will tell you the firmness of your green relative to certain benchmarks.

One of the benchmarks is the firmness measured by the thumper on greens where the US Open was held in recent years.

It's a pretty cool little gizmo.

Bob

[Thomas Dai]

"How do you measure hardness, is there some tool??"

There's a device called a Clegg Hammer. Looks like this -


There's aslo a trueness 'tester' called the Greenstester. Might look a bit similar to a Stimpmeter but it's focus is apparently on the truensss and consistency of roll, not just the speed of the green. Looks like this -


Gadgets, however good, cost money though. How firm under the foot has always seemed a pretty good test. Indeed I quite like the idea of the Melbourne sandbelt courses where the greens are so firm that players can take pull-push carts across them.

atb

[Pete Lavallee]

i don't think people are understanding the point I'm trying to make.  I don't care how fast a club wants their greens.  They can do it however they wish.  BUT if they have the greens at say 10 when they rate the course and then they set the greens at 12 or 13 normally then they have a flawed course rating.  Greens, bunkers, tees, trees , doglegs are all stationary but green speeds can do more to determine difficulty than any one element and too fast can make a rating go out the window...

I would like to see a system similar to that used by CONGU, where for tournaments the field scores are averaged and compared to those in normal conditions to take into account adverse circumstances. For example high winds will surely drive scores up, as could super high rough or like you say excessively fast greens.

[Jason Topp]

i don't think people are understanding the point I'm trying to make.  I don't care how fast a club wants their greens.  They can do it however they wish.  BUT if they have the greens at say 10 when they rate the course and then they set the greens at 12 or 13 normally then they have a flawed course rating.  Greens, bunkers, tees, trees , doglegs are all stationary but green speeds can do more to determine difficulty than any one element and too fast can make a rating go out the window...

Our club was recently re-rated and the raters purportedly suggested they would assign one rating if the green speeds were consistently above 10 and another if they were not.  The difference was pretty significant. 

[Bob Harris]

i don't think people are understanding the point I'm trying to make.  I don't care how fast a club wants their greens.  They can do it however they wish.  BUT if they have the greens at say 10 when they rate the course and then they set the greens at 12 or 13 normally then they have a flawed course rating.  Greens, bunkers, tees, trees , doglegs are all stationary but green speeds can do more to determine difficulty than any one element and too fast can make a rating go out the window...

Our club was recently re-rated and the raters purportedly suggested they would assign one rating if the green speeds were consistently above 10 and another if they were not.  The difference was pretty significant. 

There would be a difference, but less than one shot on the course rating if you increase the stimp from 9' to 12'.
I looked at three recent ratings as a sample and increasing the stimp reading would change the CR/Slope:

6645 yard course
at 9'  - 72.6/133
at 10 - 72.8/134
at 11 - 73.0/135
at 12 - 73.3/135

6531 yard course
at 9'  - 71.7/125
at 10 - 71.9/126
at 11 - 72.2/128
at 12 - 72.5/128

6705 yard course
at 9'  - 72.4/131
at 10 - 72.6/133
at 11 - 72.8/134
at 12 - 73.1/134

On moderately and highly contoured greens, once the stimp reading is above 11', we're already at the max value for the bogey player, therefore little or no change in the slope. 

[Ed Brzezowski]

Well done fine Sir, I hope we can explain that to our hosts from last friday?

[JESII]

"There would be a difference, but less than one shot on the course rating if you increase the stimp from 9' to 12'.
I looked at three recent ratings as a sample and increasing the stimp reading would change the CR/Slope:

6645 yard course
at 9'  - 72.6/133
at 10 - 72.8/134
at 11 - 73.0/135
at 12 - 73.3/135

6531 yard course
at 9'  - 71.7/125
at 10 - 71.9/126
at 11 - 72.2/128
at 12 - 72.5/128

6705 yard course
at 9'  - 72.4/131
at 10 - 72.6/133
at 11 - 72.8/134
at 12 - 73.1/134

On moderately and highly contoured greens, once the stimp reading is above 11', we're already at the max value for the bogey player, therefore little or no change in the slope."


I think this proves Mike's point...does anyone believe our scores only increase by a shot when greens increase from 9 to 12 feet?

For any 10 handicapper I know of, their scores increase by several times that...