Green Speeds: Then and Now

[Brent Hutto]

As I mentioned earlier, I play on Bermuda greens. It might be possible to maintain Bermuda so it putts smooth, true and consistent at a Stimp of 9 but I've certainly never seen them any slower than that and not bumpy and grain-ridden.

And yes, I realized that someone is going to chime in any moment and tell me that grainy is good and for all I know bumpy is good too. Whatever.

The greens I currently play have a *lot* of contour. To the extent that they would not be playable cranked up to 12+ feet like a typical PGA Tour setup. But they are, in fact, puttable in the 10's and 11's assuming due caution, good nerves and (dare I say it) suitably strategic play. They are more fun to me at 10 or 11 than at 8 or 9.

It's absolutely possible to cut greens too fast for their contours. With flat greens "too fast" might be a grass-killing, over the top 14 feet. With my club's greens "too fast" is probably in the 12-ish and up range. I'm trying to imagine a set of greens so contoured that anything greater than, say, 8 feet is "too fast" and honestly I can't imagine such extreme contours are any more fun to play than the ones at my club.

So basically we have a set of preferences at odds here. Some of you lot want to see as steeply sloped, highly contoured, boldly shaped greens as possible even if that means the grass is maintained at a pace where 20-foot putts damned near never go in the hole. And any speed that's "too fast" for those contours is a terrible travesty. Is that a fair enough characterization?

For me it's the opposite. I want my (usually Bemuda) greens to be smooth, true and fast enough that a well-struck and correctly aimed putt from medium to long distance has a fair chance of going in the hole. If that means that I only get to play greens with moderately large slopes and contours, so that speeds of 10 or 11 are not "too fast" then I can live with that. Trust me, there can be a whole lot of contour in a green that's rolling 11-1/2 on the Stimpmeter as long as you don't expect every square foot of those greens to be pinnable.

And somewhere out there are golfers (including probably the typical Tour player) who wants to putt on greens even I think are over the top. Stimp readings of 12, 13, whatever. And they are willing to settle for greens that are pretty darned flat to make that possible. It's just a tradeoff and there is no moral or ethical basis for asserting that slowing down greens to allow huge slopes is more fundamentally valid than flattening greens to allow huge speeds.

Some courses have water hazards on every hole, others can be played with a putter from every tee to every green. Some courses have hugely contoured greens that require slow putting speeds, other have extremely quick putting speeds that require modest slopes. And down here in the land of even Ultradwarf Bermuda grasses, the inevitable cost of slowing greens down to the kinds of speeds Sean probably recalls from 25 years ago is going to be grain, bumps and inconsistencies. And again, yes I know some of you profess to just Love Love Love all the grain you can get but I suspect that's a rhetorical ploy at best.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent says:

"Why should a 30-year-old golfer today be more troubled by having grown up on smooth, fast greens than Jack Nicklaus was by growing up on smoother, faster greens than Bobby Jones played on?"

Because at some point - and whatever that point is, we are now past it - green speeds adversely impact course architecture. More specifically, greens that roll above a certain speed necessarily limit an architect's design options.

Bob

Impact certainly. Adversely impact is a matter of where one draws the line.

If one thinks that the best courses ever built were created back when no architect had to take putting speeds of 10 or 11 into consideration, then it is a valid conclusion that today's architects are constrained w.r.t. green contours in a way that the Golden Age architects were not.

Just keep in mind that some people think any course which can't be set up for modern, fast putting speeds is FOR THAT VERY REASON inferior to courses which allow a modern approach to putting. It's a matter of how much relative importance one places on being able to rock the shoulders slightly and propel a ball smoothly into a hole 25 feet away while correctly judging a 4-foot break.

If one really, truly gains great satisfaction from trying to do that as often as possible then it may not be possible for huge, exciting contours and all the other features of long-ago great courses to seem worth bumping the ball along on slower, less perfect greens.

[BCrosby]

Take two problems with the game today - 1. The longer ball and 2. Greens that stimp at 12 +.

The first has an architectural solution. You could build 8200 yard courses with all the Golden Age, strategic features you might want to include. That is, the arrows in the architect's quiver would not be limited in any way. It would be a course too long for most of us to play from the tips, but such a course would impose no constraints on the architect's design ideas. (Plus, it would be fun to watch a Tour event on such a course. It would play much like courses did for Jones in the 1920's.)

The second problem - green speeds - has no architectural solution. Worse, fast greens limit the kinds of features an architect can build. Higher green speeds remove a number of arrows from his design quiver without replacing them with other design options.

Bob    

[Brent Hutto]

Bob,

I totally agree that there's stuff Golden Age architects did routinely and that some modern architects would like to do that are simply struck off the option list because we know that today's players aren't (generally) going to accept greens which can't be sped up to 12 or whatever.

I guess I just don't see it as a "problem with the game today" so much as a way in which the game as played today is different than half a century ago. As Jim Sullivan pointed out recently in one of these threads, fast greens can certainly provide huge and exciting breaks on putts albeit with smaller slopes than on slow greens.

I'd contend that with sufficiently firm conditions even the approach shot and recovery shot challenge and excitement of contoured greens can be achieved (somewhat) with modest contours suiting the modern preference for putting speeds. It takes different forms (I'm thinking green edge falloffs and/or green-within-a-green type structures) and you can't necessarily do those enormous back-to-front slopes that were so common way back when.

IMO an argument could be made that modern putting speed preferences enforce an additional degree of subtlety to the challenge of a green complex. There were a lot of older courses where for a handicap player the strategy was pretty simple. Always play short of the hole. If you end up hole high or god forbid above the hole then just use your next stroke to somehow get the ball below the hole. And that was often reinforced by the fact that the severe slopes on most greens could probably be seen from orbit! I'd think it's at least plausible that smaller slopes to accompany faster putting speeds can require more judgement on approach shots. Judgment as in decision making as opposed to judgment in terms of distance control to accomodate a fairly obvious requirement.

Or maybe I'm all wet. Maybe it's a net loss of interest when green contours are toned down from an eight foot range to a three foot range per green due to faster putting speeds. All I'm really saying is at least we get something in return.

[Jason Thurman]

Bob, I get that you're lamenting the loss of contour that accompanies fast greens. What, though, is the benefit of that contour? It can't be that putts break more, because faster greens have more break than slower greens even with less contour. It can't be that strategy is more important from the fairway, as staying below the hole is far more important on faster greens than it is on slower ones. What exactly is lost when a course has greens with contours like Augusta's that can be playable at 12+ while still offering plenty of slope, instead of contours like the old ones at Sitwell Park that have vastly more slope but that just don't work at modern speeds?

[Mike_Young]

Would we even know who Ben Hogan was if the modern green existed when he played?

[Mark Pearce]

Of course slope can affect how a ball bounces on firm greens.  If we are driven to almost flat greens by high green speeds then the architect loses the option to challenge the golfer's ability to hit an approach or a chip into a green to a spot and with a trajectory that works with the contour.  Still, on soft greens that skill is moot anyway.

[Brent Hutto]

Of course slope can affect how a ball bounces on firm greens.  If we are driven to almost flat greens by high green speeds then the architect loses the option to challenge the golfer's ability to hit an approach or a chip into a green to a spot and with a trajectory that works with the contour.  Still, on soft greens that skill is moot anyway.

I don't have much experience on Golden Age type courses but didn't a lot of them have a large portion of their contours in back-to-front slopes? Seems that's my mental stereotype of old courses, anyway. To me, greens built like that make the strategy obvious (don't go past the hole) and provide the means to accomplish the strategy (shots tend to bang into the slope and stop unless the green is really, really firm).

Or maybe that's just a degenerate form of what you guys are talking about.

[Josh Tarble]

The one problem I have with modern green speeds are when architects purposely design for very high speed greens (11+)  They end up being relatively flat and benign (no one is designing greens like Augusta, as much as we wish that were true) - which is fine when the greens are running 11+.  They are interesting and challenging and fun. 

When they can't be ramped up to 11+ is when they becoming boring.  Because of weather or disease or whatever, the greens can't get to optimal speed they become really boring and really easy, affecting the overall strategy of the hole. 

Which is why architects should design for a much more realistic, yet still significantly faster than yesteryear, speed. 

[Joe Hancock]

All the back and forth is futile without recognizing the impact of modern irrigation systems and their usage. Contour of yesteryear played different than it does today, for the most part.

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

you do not really address my point which is what do players prefer playing, fast or slow putting surfaces? Even your post kind of says better to play the slower putt.

Your point of why do they have quicker putting surfaces in the majors? Because it looks more exciting not because it is harder. If it was harder that that they wanted why do they flatten greens to counter the speed thus making them easier?

Jon

I don't think most members like PUTTING fast greens--they just like HAVING them.

As others have said,it's more of a club competitiveness thing. Maybe things would improve if all of an area's Green Chairmen got together and reached green speed detente.

JM,

you put it better than I did. They like having fast putting surfaces as they believe it is a prestige measure but very few like fast putts

[Jason Thurman]

Josh, I agree. It's not really an issue with green speed. Classic greens with tons of contour are much more fun in season at modern speeds than when they're rolling at about a 6 during the winter. The issue is with gutless modern architects who cater to players who like to have straight birdie putts every time they hit a green in regulation. They build a lot of boring greens that get especially boring when they're not at peak speed.

you put it better than I did. They like having fast putting surfaces as they believe it is a prestige measure but very few like fast putts

Golfers like bunkers on courses even though they try to avoid them. Most like trees on courses, even though they don't like being blocked by them. They don't like bogeys, but nobody's clamoring for courses where its impossible to make worse than a par. Why wouldn't they like the challenge of fast greens while trying to avoid leaving themselves scary downhill putts?

[Mark Pearce]

Of course slope can affect how a ball bounces on firm greens.  If we are driven to almost flat greens by high green speeds then the architect loses the option to challenge the golfer's ability to hit an approach or a chip into a green to a spot and with a trajectory that works with the contour.  Still, on soft greens that skill is moot anyway.

I don't have much experience on Golden Age type courses but didn't a lot of them have a large portion of their contours in back-to-front slopes? Seems that's my mental stereotype of old courses, anyway. To me, greens built like that make the strategy obvious (don't go past the hole) and provide the means to accomplish the strategy (shots tend to bang into the slope and stop unless the green is really, really firm).

Or maybe that's just a degenerate form of what you guys are talking about.

I was thinking of contoured greens with rather more going on than flat inclined greens.  Take a ridge running across the front of a green.  Pitch on the front part, the upslope, with a steep trajectory and you get the stopping effect you mention.  Carry it just a bit further and the downslope will kick your ball towards or through the back. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Josh, I agree. It's not really an issue with green speed. Classic greens with tons of contour are much more fun in season at modern speeds than when they're rolling at about a 6 during the winter. The issue is with gutless modern architects who cater to players who like to have straight birdie putts every time they hit a green in regulation. They build a lot of boring greens that get especially boring when they're not at peak speed.

you put it better than I did. They like having fast putting surfaces as they believe it is a prestige measure but very few like fast putts

Golfers like bunkers on courses even though they try to avoid them. Most like trees on courses, even though they don't like being blocked by them. They don't like bogeys, but nobody's clamoring for courses where its impossible to make worse than a par. Why wouldn't they like the challenge of fast greens while trying to avoid leaving themselves scary downhill putts?

Jason,

yes golfers like bunkers on courses but you rarely hear them demanding they be made deeper or placed more central even for prestige reasons. Trees are fine for most but there is very little clamour for them being placed in the line of play to make the course better.

So why wouldn't they like the challenge of fast greens while trying to avoid leaving themselves scary downhill putts? Because if they wanted fast putts they would be trying to leave themselves those slippery downhillers wouldn't they?

Jon

[Jason Thurman]

You run a course. If you really believe your own logic, slow your greens down to 4 or 5 this year and see what happens.

[Brent Hutto]

Jon,

Don't be disingenuous.

A fast green (let's say Stimping around 11-12) on which you've successfully left yourself an uphill 20-footer is a joy to putt on. Your chances of making that uphill 20-footer are substantially greater than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9.

On the flip side, leaving yourself a downhill 20-footer on a fast green means at best lagging the putt very defensively to keep from hitting it off the front of the green. That same downhill 20-foot putt on a slow green is no big deal.

Fast greens makes putting easier when you're in good position and harder when you're in bad position. That sounds to me like exactly the sort of rewarding careful, well-planned play that this forum purports to value in a great golf course.

P.S. This discussion reinforced the opinion I've had for quite a few months now that this forum isn't really about "strategy" or "sustainable" so much as it's about "retro".

[JESII]

Would we even know who Ben Hogan was if the modern green existed when he played?

Yep...because ball striking becomes more important when greens get amped up.

Unless you were referring to flat when you said "modern"?

[BCowan]

Brent,

   Greens were modified by reduction in slope on classic courses in the 80's when green speeds were in the 10s and 11s.  Balls were rolling off the greens.  I know some uninformed people think that's cool.  Remember there are usually 2-4 really severe greens on a course in which the those are the ones in which you have to make sure don't get out of hand (rest of greens roll at the pace of your most severe greens). Uphill putts is similar to lag putting, and it is a skill.  You advocated in an earlier post that you preferred your greens rolling at 10, which is much different than 11 and 12.  When you lose pin positions you drastically take the fun out of the game and it turns into putt putt.  When greens are 11 and 12 you can't use half of some greens.  It has nothing to do with nerves.  Augusta's slopes have been flattened.  Arnie has complained that they are too soft now and that they should go back to Bermuda.  Never argue with the King.  I agree with you in reducing as much grain as possible.  

[JESII]

So you've got that going for you...

[JESII]

All the back and forth is futile without recognizing the impact of modern irrigation systems and their usage. Contour of yesteryear played different than it does today, for the most part.

Joe,

Are you referring to soft greens potentially due to over irrigation? Or are you referring to healthy greens and the impact of full grass coverage on slopes as opposed to burned out bare spots on the areas where no water sits?

Or more likely...something altogether different? How does the contour of yesteryear play differently due to today's irrigation?

[MClutterbuck]

The greens I currently play have a *lot* of contour. To the extent that they would not be playable cranked up to 12+ feet like a typical PGA Tour setup. But they are, in fact, puttable in the 10's and 11's assuming due caution, good nerves and (dare I say it) suitably strategic play. They are more fun to me at 10 or 11 than at 8 or 9.

Is this so? In my [very limited] first hand experience with the Tour, they want their greens quite a lot slower than 12+. In fact I found they wanted them just about at 10 or 10.5 and that is on greens without severe slopes. In the example I know the greens were SLOWED down from regular member play speeds to tournament speed.

Is this always the case? It was my understanding thay only a limited number venues such as Muirfield Village get to go much faster than 10.5

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,

so what part am I being dishonest about? Just because you might not agree with a person who holds a different opinion does not make them a liar any more than your opinion being different from mine makes you wrong or even a fool

I do not agree that a fast green stimping around 11-12 increases your chances of making that uphill 20-footer than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9. This is your opinion, not fact and in my opinion is wrong. I would be interested on your golfing pedigree on which you base this.

You then say 'Fast greens makes putting easier when you're in good position and harder when you're in bad position. That sounds to me like exactly the sort of rewarding careful, well-planned play that this forum purports to value in a great golf course.'

But you could also argue that fast greens lead to flatter more boring putting surfaces and so lack real variety and challenge. 

p.s. Maybe in some cases your three points are connected though I agree not always.

[Mike_Young]

Would we even know who Ben Hogan was if the modern green existed when he played?

Yep...because ball striking becomes more important when greens get amped up.

Unless you were referring to flat when you said "modern"?

Jim,
I disagree.  The modern green speed and conditions would have allowed a better putter to more than offset the ball striking skills of a Hogan coupled with his putting. 

[Joe Hancock]

All the back and forth is futile without recognizing the impact of modern irrigation systems and their usage. Contour of yesteryear played different than it does today, for the most part.

Joe,

Are you referring to soft greens potentially due to over irrigation? Or are you referring to healthy greens and the impact of full grass coverage on slopes as opposed to burned out bare spots on the areas where no water sits?

Or more likely...something altogether different? How does the contour of yesteryear play differently due to today's irrigation?

Jim,

Now, don't go trying to make me clarify my thoughts...that takes all the fun out of a day.

But, to your question...my first thought is to use Barton Hills 16th hole as an example. It is a long par 3 over a very deep chasm. The green is fairly deep, especially at the back right side. The play back in the day, I presume, would have been the longest club in your bag, aimed left of the green to utilize a contour that would've fed the ball onto the green, potentially to a back right pin. But now, with everything being different except the contour, you couldn't hit that shot and have it work. To bring the discussion of green speed into this explanation, I think that shot wouldn't work today, even if the contour wasn't irrigated...because the ball would run off the back of the green due to speed.

I am thinking I just think differently....

[Sean_A]

A fast green (let's say Stimping around 11-12) on which you've successfully left yourself an uphill 20-footer is a joy to putt on. Your chances of making that uphill 20-footer are substantially greater than if you faced the same putt on a green Stimping 8-9.

Why?

Fast greens makes putting easier when you're in good position and harder when you're in bad position.

Why?

To me putting is putting.  Good putters adjust to the conditions...there is no general rule of advantage which is dependent on green speeds...its all theory and talk. 

I think my big problem with 11 or 12 stimp is how can they be kept firm for any length of time...which to me is more important than shorter grass.  There is no substitute for firmness and firmness cannot be maintained for any length of time on an 11-12 green without investing more cash and green keeper time...even then its a tough ask for super.  IMO, speed is thwarting firmness...its a tradeoff which doesn't make much sense to me. 

Ciao