How do you like your steak? - Preferences for Golden Age greens

[Jason Thurman]

We all know people who order their steak medium-rare, and people who order their steak medium-well. Most of us are also cultured enough to pass judgment on people who fall into one of those two categories.


We all also know people who like Golden Age greens kept at controlled speeds, and people who love putting on Golden Age greens running like glass. Who do you think less of, the hillbilly who likes slow greens or the yahoo who likes them running at 12+?

[John Kavanaugh]

No two restaurants share the same definition of medium rare. The better the joint the rarer the steak. I always order my steak rare just to be safe.

I also prefer my greens so fast that a quick change in the weather may cost a super his job. On the cusp of a Salmonella outbreak so to speak.

[Josh Tarble]

Generally, I prefer the greens to be a bit slower.  I hate it when they're so fast that anything above the hole is either a make or you're hitting a 8 foot comeback.

However, there is something about putting on really fast greens that you just feel like everything is going in.

I would say the main thing is smoothness - nothing beats an awesome, smooth putting surface.

Oh, and if you're ordering your steak anything more than medium (that's being generous) I do get a bit judgy

[Jason Thurman]

John, I always order rare as well in the hopes that I get something on the right side of Bradley Cooper's new movie. It’s not dissimilar to the way green speeds work. If you want your superintendent to maintain greens that run above 10, you need to ask for greens that run at 14.

Of course, on the rare occasion that a restaurant prepares its meat correctly, I end up with 12 oz of cold, congealed fat. It’s a lot like when I make a visit to my national club, where the superintendent really does keep the greens around 12 (and the fairways around 8 when weather cooperates). I go from leaving putts six feet short while locals talk about how “fast these babies are running!” to putting downhillers toward spots where I’ll have a chance to get up-and-down.

[BHoover]

I generally despise extremists and extremes. So I prefer greens at a comfortable 10-11. Not too slow, not too fast.

I don't want to agree with JK, but the better the steakhouse, the rarer I order the steak.

[Paul Gray]

A green stimping at 14 when it was never supposed to be, meaning someone inevitably gets it into their head that the contours need to be made less severe in order for the speeds to be more severe, is every bit as bad as a steak cooked to death. In both instances you are removing what the product is all about.

[Matt Frey, PGA]

Quick is nice, but it needs to be fair. Many Golden Age greens contain some pretty significant slopes and, as previously stated, when greens get too quick, they can become unfair. Give me medium all day.

[Jason Thurman]

The rare-well chart, adapted for greens:
 
Rare: Fast enough that a 10 handicapper or better might consider doing something more than aiming at the pin and/or aiming toward the center of the green from the fairway, in hopes of staying below the hole
Medium-Rare: Fast enough that a 5 handicapper or better will think about staying below the hole on approach shots
Medium: Fast enough that the guy with the suction cup on the end of his putter and the white crew socks will shout out “Boy these babies are really running!” prior to reaching the 5^th tee
Medium-well: The speed at which you can hit a downhill putt about as hard as you’d hit an uphill putt on a medium-rare green
Well-done: The speed at which suction-cup guy will shout out “They’re only running around 10 today!” prior to reaching the 5^th tee


I like my greens somewhere between blue-rare and rare, purely for selfish reasons. I gave up on one-putts years ago, but I at least find it much easier to two-putt at those speeds. Once the greens hit medium, I'm facing that 8-footer Tarble wants to avoid on every second putt because I suck at gauging speed. Well-done is fine though, because then I just hit every putt as hard as I can and it seems to work out okay.


Another point of comparison between greens and steaks: In both cases, the blue-rare preparation originated in Pittsburgh.

[Mark Pearce]

Jason,
 
You have it the wrong way round.  Rare is slow, giving all the original flavour.  As Paul says, fast is cooking the taste out and leaving something unappetising and unenjoyable.  Obviously, as we all know, the correct cooking is beyond cold and blue.  I'm yet to see an interesting set of greens that aren't just about perfect at around 10.

[Jason Thurman]

Mark, as creator of the chart, it follows my rules. The blue-rare Pittsburgh parallel is just too juicy to pass up.


Honestly, if I had created the temperature chart for steaks, I'd have made well done a nice red juicy center, because it reflects a steak that's been well-prepared. I'd have made rare the overcooked, dry, brown plank of nasty meat, because it should rarely be ordered and should be eaten even less frequently. But it's not my chart, unfortunately, so I must choose between swallowing my cognitive dissonance and swallowing a dry chunk of kibble.


Going back to the OP, I definitely pass judgment on anyone who orders a well done steak. I also must admit I pass judgment on anyone who orders a well done green.

[Jason Topp]

It depends on the greens.  I like them at the fastest speed that they can be played while preserving interesting hole locations and not becoming silly.  At my old course that was 9-1/2 - 10.  (which was considered stupid fast 30 years ago and is probably slower than normal now).
At my current modern course, the faster the better. 
 

[jeffwarne]

On interesting greens, you have both diabolically FAST putts and SLOW putts, and an administration smart enough to know how get the correct pace for that, while still enabling the more interesting pins.


On uninteresting greens you have one or the other

[JLahrman]

I'm a vegetarian, and I also barely have time or money for golf. Coincidence?

[Phil Young]

I prefer my steak well done as I find far more subtle flavoring in it when it is done properly.

As for golden age greens, I most enjoy when the green speed fits the "lay of the land." Never rare nor burnt to a crisp, just properly well done. Match the speed with the undulating character of the putting surface.

[Phil McDade]

I gave up on one-putts years ago, but I at least find it much easier to two-putt at those speeds. Once the greens hit medium, I'm facing that 8-footer Tarble wants to avoid on every second putt because I suck at gauging speed. .

This is an interesting point that deserves perhaps a bit more exploration. Do faster green speeds mean that it's more difficult to judge pace, or judge line? I have long had a tendency to be a better judge of pace -- no matter what the green speeds -- than line; i.e., my misses tend to about the correct speed (near a line drawn perpendicular to the hole), but sometimes way off line. One could probably argue faster green speeds exacerbate that problem, but I have a tendency to have some really bad misses reading the line on slower greens.


This touches on the whole debate surrounding highly contoured greens -- the notion that old-fashioned, Golden Era greens with considerable contour (or tilt) need to be kept at slower speeds in order to be "fair." So Golden Era courses hoping to host major championships, where green speeds are pushed up, can sometimes suffer from green defacing (Merion East).

[Mike Hendren]

Hillbillies are unconcerned with doneness. Like putting surfaces, it's all good. Pass the ketchup please.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I generally despise extremists and extremes. So I prefer greens at a comfortable 10-11. Not too slow, not too fast.

I don't want to agree with JK, but the better the steakhouse, the rarer I order the steak.

10-11 on an old course is comfortable? Good lord.

[BHoover]

I generally despise extremists and extremes. So I prefer greens at a comfortable 10-11. Not too slow, not too fast.

I don't want to agree with JK, but the better the steakhouse, the rarer I order the steak.

10-11 on an old course is comfortable? Good lord.

Doesn't seem particularly unreasonable. But I'm of course speaking generally. If the greens are sloped such that slower speeds are more appropriate, then so be it.

[Carl Rogers]

No two restaurants share the same definition of medium rare. The better the joint the rarer the steak. I always order my steak rare just to be safe.

I also prefer my greens so fast that a quick change in the weather may cost a super his job. On the cusp of a Salmonella outbreak so to speak.

You should play the George Cup!!

[Peter Pallotta]

What happened - did all you guys just become the dreaded "card and pencil" types?

It seems so; because if you weren't as interested in your score as you seem to be, you'd all be opting for the quickest greens possible.

They are indeed more fun.

The slope-speed combination on my one time at Crystal Downs was the toughest-fastest I'd ever played, and I hit a lot of putts, and a lot of badly mis-judged putts, and I shot my worse score in years.

But there was no doubt it was terrific fun. And I am a card and pencil type!

[Jason Way]

The slope-speed combination on my one time at Crystal Downs was the toughest-fastest I'd ever played, and I hit a lot of putts, and a lot of badly mis-judged putts, and I shot my worse score in years.

But there was no doubt it was terrific fun. And I am a card and pencil type!

I played Crystal Downs in mid-September several years ago in conditions like you describe.  It was a certain kind of masochistic fun. 


However, this summer they kept the greens a little slower to help recover from winter damage (if I recall Tom's explanation correctly).  I played twice and it was much more fun.  With the greens running a little slower, every putt on the course was puttable.  That doesn't mean we didn't roll some putts off greens - we still did, and that is going to happen when you hit too many approaches in the wrong places on greens like that.  But at least there was a chance of pulling off a great putt.  Whereas before, there are certain putts on those greens that are simply impossible at 11+ on the stimp. 


For all of the yapping we do around here about the virtue of architecture that creates the potential for recovery shots through the green (as opposed to excessive water hazards, dense trees, or OB), it seems hypocritical to say that one would want greens with speeds such that there is no chance for miraculous "recovery" putts.


I want to be able to use all of the green that the architect created.  Any speed that is so fast that it shrinks the green is too fast for me.   

[Jason Way]

Oh yes, almost forgot - the more fat in the steak, the more I want it cooked.  A little extra time brings out the flavor in the fattier cuts IMHO.

[Jud_T]

Anyone who orders a steak medium is simply dense and/or has never had a really good piece of meat.  As for green speeds there is an optimal speed for each set of greens, climate, soil, grass, design etc.