[Brent Hutto]

For my weak-ass, short-hitting bogey golfer's game I've almost never seen greens that were too firm per se. What I have encountered quite often are green surrounds, fringes and especially fairway-to-green apron areas that are too soft, thereby creating the illusion of too-firm greens.

[BHoover]

Brian,
What agronomic advice would you give your supt? Water them a little for the ladies, a little more for the juniors, just a tad for the seniors, and dry as a bone for the tour guys?
Of course I'm being a wise ass, but partially serious. We're not talking about speed, we're talking about firmness. It would appear that you believe that we should control how hard the greens get. To do that, we have to soften them up, or keep the rollers and mowers off of them...or water....whatever.  
Of course we have been managing firmness for decades and most often it is done with the application of water often in excess of what the grass plant requires.  I think it a good discussion that if we have to do that to get proper playability, should we be discussing the design?

Don, I'm not an expert on agronomy or greenskeeping, and I will be the first to admit that is the case. I'm probably not even a novice. I don't know how courses should be maintained for men, women, juniors, seniors, or any particular group. I'm basing my assertions on this thread on the fact that (a) I listened to Mike Clayton on the latest SOTG podcast, (b) I found said podcast to be informative and entertaining, and (c) I revert to and respect Mike Clayton's opinion on how RM played during the Women's Open because he (i) knows the course far better than I do, (ii) he caddied in the event and witnessed the conditions firsthand, and (iii) he has experience with tournament golf. So when he said that he thought the greens were perhaps too firm in that instance (the Women's Open), I am inclined to take his word for it. I also recall him admitting that Lydia Koh played the course masterfully, so she obviously was able to handle the conditions presented. I did not interpret his comments to mean that greens should be soft, as much as they can sometimes be too firm. I won't put words in his mouth, go listen to the podcast and tell me that I'm wrong, in which case I will be only too happy to admit to being wrong.

Despite my lack of almost any knowledge of agronomy and the ins and outs of effective greenskeeping (come see my lawn as evidence of that), I prefer playing firm greens. I prefer firm greens infinitely more than soft greens. I would rather the greens be too firm than too soft. Not sure whether any of this answers your questions, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

[Tommy Naccarato]

John Kavanaugh,
The greens at Riviera were to firm to the point of lunacy.  You weren't out here. You don't know.

[John Kavanaugh]

A 17 yr old shoots 9 under. What should she shoot on fair greens?

[BHoover]

A 17 yr old shoots 9 under. What should she shoot on fair greens?

Please, listen to the podcast. That's all I can ask of you.

[Steve Lapper]

If you listened closely what Mike first said was that good shots were indeed rewarded on what might have been just a tad too firm of a green for the girls who don't spin the ball the same as their counterparts, the men. He went on to say that a "different definition of a good shot" was necessary.

Those who've been fortunate enough to have played RMGC on any hot summer day will quickly explain that any breeze effectively dries everything out, thus firming their greens up even further. That's what the recent tournament conditions were. Unlike over here, they don't default to syringing the turf at the first evaporation. The shots called for when such conditions are evident are precision approaches landing from the collars to just over the false fronts where applicable. Normal professional-style hole-hunting is the WRONG strategy.

Of course, many if not most of the pros, being so flexible and adaptive , whine like schoolgirls when forced to play this type of golf. They rail against having to change their ball flight, gauge big springy bounces and aim away from pins. Calculations that they've never been forced to make since high school proved vexing and elusive. It was joy to watch Lydia Ko prove that she had the right stuff.

The course was firm and perhaps a tad over perfection, but it was hardly tricked up. Mike noted that the tees were set correctly for the most part to accommodate the ladies game and the apparent firmness of the turf.

Newby posters around here that have NEVER played RM (or all the other venues they can't help critquing but have viewed through Google Earth), make callow, uniformed judgements for effect and sheer folly...once again proving that they can devolve even the best conversations into a form of charades. Maybe they ought to head over to Facebook or Twitter where they have a better chance of adding value/


Don,

  Good question re: tournament conditions v. member play. I asked two of my member-friends (and perhaps Ben Jarvis might want to pipe in?). Both said they might water less for a tournament, but not more for the members!! Sandbelt courses have some very hearty turf that has had plenty of stress over the last few years as the region has endured drought-like rain volumes relatives to the past.
 

[Mike_Clayton]

A couple of points.
The reality of the Women's Open in Australia is it needs the best players to play for it to survive. If players choose to avoid it -and the scheduling this year was terrible - it hurts the event. We don't need players like Stacey Lewis avoiding it because they think the courses too demanding or silly - pick you're own interpretation of her motives.
Her 'the course doesn't reward good shots' comment was somewhat odd given she only lost in a playoff when the tournament was last at RM.

The greens at Muirfield Village for the Presidents Cup were absurdly soft with the ball stopping where it landed on the green. If there was a scale of 0-10, soft to hard, they would be a 0
If hard is never even seeing any evidence of where a ball has landed on the green that would be a 10.
What I was saying was I don't think we need to be at 10. 8 is fine.8 would still be pretty hard.  There is a significant difference between firm -something we all want - and rock hard.
11 on the stimpmeter is fine too. 12 and above on greens that are 9 or 10 on my imaginary hardness scale for women is extreme IMO.

Which other events on any professional tour in the world - men's or women's play to greens which are 10 on the 'hard' scale?

[Thomas Dai]

This thread prompted me to go searching for other Royal Melbourne threads and I came upon this very informative one started by Mark -

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37942.0.html

There is a lovely little phrase used within the thread about the firmness of greens - "the crunch".

atb

[BCowan]

''If hard is never even seeing any evidence of where a ball has landed on the green that would be a 10.
What I was saying was I don't think we need to be at 10. 8 is fine.8 would still be pretty hard.  There is a significant difference between firm -something we all want - and rock hard.
11 on the stimpmeter is fine too. 12 and above on greens that are 9 or 10 on my imaginary hardness scale for women is extreme IMO.''

    If it gets very windy/hot and the greens dry out and get really hard, why can't the HOC be raised, instead of softening the greens to 8.5?  Mack greens run best at 9 or 10.  Why does rock hard always take a back seat to greens running too fast for their original intention?

[Andrew Bernstein]

No, thought leaders should never say that greens are too firm, or that fairways are too firm, or as an example that we are too free.  It only leads to a destruction of all that is good.  Every reaction is met with an unequal over reaction until a balance is found in mediocrity.

Are you describing course maintenance or the current Congress?

[Mike_Clayton]

BCowan

'Too fast' has always been an issue at RM but 12-14 on the stimpmeter has always been seen as a badge of honour on the sandbelt.
One wonders what MacKenzie would make of it but I assume he didn't ever imagine such speeds.

Despite it all and the debate over the conditions, Lydia Ko was brilliant.

[Benjamin Litman]

Mike,

I'd be curious, per my earlier comment, whether other players both (a) understood and (b) embraced Royal Melbourne's challenges as openly as Lydia. That is, I think one of the reasons she played so well--apart from the fact that she is so good and precise--is that she "got" Royal Melbourne's architecture better than most. Did you hear similar comments about the course from the players? (I know you heard negative comments from some, as you profiled in your articles during the tournament, so I'm focused more on positive/understanding ones.)

Many thanks, as always,

Benjamin

[Brent Hutto]

Did Tiger Woods in 2000 "get" the architecture at Pebble Beach while nobody else is the field was able to understand it? More likely he was just playing tons better than anyone else at that time.

I'd suggest that Lydia Ko is dominating the LPGA Tour at the moment no matter where they play. She also seems to "get" some fairly crap courses and setups better than anyone else. The simplest explanation is that she's just better than the rest of the Tour at the moment.

[Benjamin Litman]

Brent:  We're not disagreeing. All I said was that her attitude toward the course helped--"apart from the fact that she is so good and so precise." That is, I agree with your general point that she's just playing great golf no matter the course, but I heard her make specific comments about Royal Melbourne and its challenges that suggested to me that she did "get" what it demanded better than some of her competitors.

Same thing with Tiger; if you hear him talk golf, he does "get" architecture better than some of the other pros (perhaps not as well as Ogilvy, but still well). The latest proof is in the courses he's now designing.

[John Kavanaugh]

A couple of points.
The reality of the Women's Open in Australia is it needs the best players to play for it to survive. If players choose to avoid it -and the scheduling this year was terrible - it hurts the event. We don't need players like Stacey Lewis avoiding it because they think the courses too demanding or silly - pick you're own interpretation of her motives.
Her 'the course doesn't reward good shots' comment was somewhat odd given she only lost in a playoff when the tournament was last at RM.

The greens at Muirfield Village for the Presidents Cup were absurdly soft with the ball stopping where it landed on the green. If there was a scale of 0-10, soft to hard, they would be a 0
If hard is never even seeing any evidence of where a ball has landed on the green that would be a 10.
What I was saying was I don't think we need to be at 10. 8 is fine.8 would still be pretty hard.  There is a significant difference between firm -something we all want - and rock hard.
11 on the stimpmeter is fine too. 12 and above on greens that are 9 or 10 on my imaginary hardness scale for women is extreme IMO.

Which other events on any professional tour in the world - men's or women's play to greens which are 10 on the 'hard' scale?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand the importance of adjusting one of the greatest courses on the planet to satisfy the whims of Stacey Lewis. I regret if I played a part in making you say that in public.

[Tommy Naccarato]

A 17 yr old shoots 9 under. What should she shoot on fair greens?

John Kavanaugh, You've played Riviera, what? One time?  There are those that have studied the hole for years; they go to the tournament every year, report on it and have seen every type of golfer from Amateur to Professional, Hack to Hero, play the hole both successfully and non-successfully to the point that it highlights the very words of Captain George Clifford Thomas III, "It is only lately that we've heard of the inequity of the green with rolls on it; of the error of making any grade which accelerates the speed of the ball after its putted.'

I do believe the man who designed the course knows what he is writing about.  You don't . Further, I'll take the guy's word that probably knows the hole better then anyone.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tommy,

I have played Riviera from every different set of tees in all types of conditions. You are the same guy who thought I had never played Rustic. Geoff is your friend, I expect nothing but loyalty to him from you.

[Mike_Clayton]

John

Where did I say we had to satisfy the whims of Stacey Lewis? I said she was an 'idiot' for her comments. She is not an idiot clearly but I think her view that Royal Melbourne does not reward good shots, 'idiotic'

I'm saying adjust it back from 10 to 8 on the scale of hard greens. They would still be in the firmest 5% of greens pro golf - men's or women's - professional golf goes to. Maybe they would still be the hardest.

[Josh Stevens]

So, just to clarify, is it the hardness or the speed that is a concern, or a combo of the two.   I have played on greens on UK links that were hard as granite, but running at less than 10 on the stimp.  A challenge but an interesting one.  If they were running at 13 then it would have been crazy.  Conversely the greens at Muirfield village I'm sure were quick as greased lighting, but as hard has yoghurt

Perhaps we need a new statistic for the nerds - some mathematical way of combining speed and firmness - lets call it the Fimp meter

[BHoover]

In all fairness to Muirfield Village, the course was inundated with heavy rains the week of the 2012 Presidents Cup. Same thing seems to happen each spring just in time for the Memorial Tournament. It's not as though the club chooses to keep their greens so soft.

[DMoriarty]

Gee what a surprise.  Shackelford was mentioned so Kavanaugh is trolling.   What I can't figure out is why people even bother with him after all these years of the same old shit?

[Tommy Naccarato]

John, it has nothing to do with loyalty. It has everything to do with respect.  Your the one that always seems to be wanting to call Geoff out on something and you do a good job trolling his site to the point that its just weird. Why even go to his site?  Boredom perhaps?  Or just the thought of creating some sort of chaos? No! Not you, never, ever!  ::

Once again, when it comes to Royal Melbourne--a place I've never been to, I'll be listening, learning from someone that knows it better then anyone on this website and that's Mike Clayton. When it comes to Riviera, obviously I'm going to go to the talented golf writer who grew up playing the course and can tell when hole(s) are over-cooked. this because they both have my respect and certainly, if your a fan of Rustic Canyon, you would too. But there is them and their long list of accomplishments, and then there's you...... Hmmmmmm???

[DMoriarty]

We're not talking about speed, we're talking about firmness. It would appear that you believe that we should control how hard the greens get. To do that, we have to soften them up, or keep the rollers and mowers off of them...or water....whatever. 
Of course we have been managing firmness for decades and most often it is done with the application of water often in excess of what the grass plant requires.  I think it a good discussion that if we have to do that to get proper playability, should we be discussing the design?

Don, I am trying to understand your point in this quote and in your other posts, but I am not sure I do.  I always thought that historically and at less sophisticated courses water was/is added in excess of the minimal requirement at least in part as a matter of caution or a buffer, so as to provide insurance that the grass won't die. Is this not accurate?

Rather than intentionally "softening" greens for every day play, isn't it possible that some courses are more likely to flirt with extreme, cutting edge conditions for a tournament and that those conditions are too close to the edge for every day play?  Think of the last US Open at Shinnecock for example.  

[Joe Hancock]

David,

The problem with discussing irrigation practices as it pertains to championship venues is that they are courses that always have water...until two weeks before the championship. Then we talk about greens being on the edge. Of course they are, they just got deprived of what they always get.....water, in copious amounts.

That's what makes Fishers Island so interesting from an agronomic perspective. It is deprived on a regular basis, so it doesn't look, or act, like it is grass on the edge. But no one wants to listen or learn from that great example.

Joe

[Tommy Naccarato]

David,

The problem with discussing irrigation practices as it pertains to championship venues is that they are courses that always have water...until two weeks before the championship. Then we talk about greens being on the edge. Of course they are, they just got deprived of what they always get.....water, in copious amounts.

That's what makes Fishers Island so interesting from an agronomic perspective. It is deprived on a regular basis, so it doesn't look, or act, like it is grass on the edge. But no one wants to listen or learn from that great example.

Joe

Crazy Joe,
And this is why I have serious Manlove for you!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()