Here We Go Again With Green Speeds

[Jerry Kluger]

It has been reported that Mike Davis wants to get the greens at Oakmont running at 14 feet for the US Open and to me this really hurts the game.  It makes other courses try and see how fast they can make their greens even if they were never designed with those speeds in mind.  I know of courses that have taken interesting contours out of their greens during renovations just so they can find hole locations for the high green speeds that the members want.  Personally, I love greens that have really significant contours and there is no need for them to run at incredibly high speeds.  I have to imagine that architects take into account the expected green speeds in designing courses today but my fear is that the demand for the high speeds make the game so difficult that we will lose players.

[Pete_Pittock]

Jerry,
in this case he is probably trying to slow the greens down.http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif

[Jerry Kluger]

Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.

[Dean Stokes]

Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.

ditto. i've worked an many clubs and played many more where the green speeds are far too fast for both the slopes on the greens and also for the golfers attempting to putt on them! It's become "chic" to make your club golfers look silly by three and four putting ten times a round. Congrats!!!!!

[Jon Cavalier]

Like anything else in golf, there's a place for greens running 15, just as there's a place for greens with wild slopes. All things in moderation.

The problem arises in that so many courses are lemming-like in their efforts to replicate these kinds of things.

But I don't think we can blame Oakmont for that (which is not to say that you were doing so, Jerry).

[BHoover]

Where exactly is there a place for greens stimping at 15? Maybe for a superintendent's revenge outing, but for everyday or tournament play, that's utterly ridiculous.

[Jon Cavalier]

Where exactly is there a place for greens stimping at 15? Maybe for a superintendent's revenge outing, but for everyday or tournament play, that's utterly ridiculous.

Oakmont, for one. It seems to be working pretty well there. I don't hear their members complaining.

[BHoover]

I stand corrected. I didn't know a drone also carried a microphone to pick up member commentary.

In tournament golf, however, those speeds are untenable.

[Jon Cavalier]

I stand corrected. I didn't know a drone also carried a microphone to pick up member commentary.

In tournament golf, however, those speeds are untenable.

I'm not really sure I understand your remark about the drone microphone, but in any event, you asked me "where, exactly, is there a place for greens stimping at 15." My point is simply that there seems to be a place for them at Oakmont, given that they've been maintained that way for quite some time, and the members of the club who, presumably, play the golf course rather often, have decided that they like it that way. Clearly, those speeds are tenable for everyday play there.

Whether they're tenable for tournament play isn't relevant to my point, which is simply that the problems arise when courses and clubs without the ability to replicate those conditions or the greens on which they work attempt to mimic them.

[Pete_Pittock]

Come on now Peter - it's a shame that members of a great course for some reason feel it is necessary to say that they have the fastest greens, really, I would rather say we have the best greens.

Come on now Jerry, I tried to put a smiley face at the end.

[BHoover]

I said I stand corrected in response to your comment that Oakmont maintains green speeds at 15 for member play. I have not played Oakmont, so I will take your word for it. I still think it's rather ridiculous, but it's their course and their choice. 

My point, which was the point of the thread, I believe, is that ramping up green speeds in tournament play is untenable because (a) it leads to unrealistic expectations amongst golfers to expect similar speeds at their own courses, and (b) the field will not finish play in less that 5 hours.

[Jon Cavalier]

I don't disagree with either of those things, Brian. I just don't think we can blame the club for what others decide to do or expect at their own courses as a result.

I think that's better aimed at the organization running the events, the golfers whose expectations for their own clubs don't line up with reality, and the clubs that don't seem to be able to grasp that what may work for Oakmont on a daily basis (tournament or not) almost certainly won't work at theirs.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

jerry,


The members like their course hard. The pros play the same course except for the rough.


http://www.golfchannel.com/media/head-pro-oakmont-course-difficulty-pros-and-members/

[Jon Wiggett]

What fools they are! Do they not know that faster greens are easier for the top players? That a ball is more likely to go in on a faster green.


They should listen to Peter Thomson who said in his interview on the website


'Observing professional golf, I have noticed that slow greens are more difficult to putt on. How often do you hear players complain about slow greens, saying they couldn’t get the play up to the hole. And if slow greens are a problem to deal with, then that’s what we should have when there is a championship.'



Alas, the people in charge are so convinced in their doctrine 'fast is hard' they fail to see the truth staring them in the face.

[Thomas Dai]

Isn't 'trueness of roll' more what we should be trying to achieve?

As to pace, a point I'd like to make is that the slower the greens the more 'hit' is required in a putt and more 'hit' tends to mean a greater number of less than perfect strikes, which is maybe where Peter Thomson is coming from.

Another couple of aspects worth mentioning -

- the loft on modern putters is less than in the old days when slower greens were the norm.

- if greens had always been slow we might not have seen the long-putter and anchoring debate - it's pretty difficult to hit long slow putt with a long-anchored putter, maybe more chance of hitting your foot than the ball (sic).

Atb

[David Whitmer]

I don't disagree with either of those things, Brian. I just don't think we can blame the club for what others decide to do or expect at their own courses as a result.

I think that's better aimed at the organization running the events, the golfers whose expectations for their own clubs don't line up with reality, and the clubs that don't seem to be able to grasp that what may work for Oakmont on a daily basis (tournament or not) almost certainly won't work at theirs.

I agree Jon. I have never been a fan of concluding that just because Oakmont has fast greens, or Augusta has its particular conditioning, that it "makes" other clubs try to replicate them. A club will try or not based on their own choices. If a greens chairman or membership decides to speed up their greens strictly because Oakmont has fast greens, I say shame on them. My seven year old daughter tries to justify things by saying "Well Abby does it!" My response is "I don't care what Abby does." Why can't clubs have the same response?

My club would never try to get the greens faster than about a 10...some greens are so sloped that it wouldn't work. We strive for pure, smooth greens, like Thomas mentioned. And to list another club where ultra-fast greens work, I played Chicago GC a few years ago with Mr. Shean, and they were rolling at a 15 (the week of the Ryder Cup). He said it doesn't get there very often, but when they do the membership enjoys it. 

[archie_struthers]

 




Jerry, I've only played Oakmont once but that day the greens were perfect and really , really fast.  It's been said that they might be more than fourteen on the stimp for daily play and its most likely a true fact . There was lots of golf,on the course that day and our pace of play was quite good.  This club does it right on a daily basis !




Sure you can make an argument that speed kills pace of play , but its more about the mindset of the player . The slowest players we see are those that aren't ready to play , talk incessantly with their partner or caddy , or have ridiculously elaborate pre-shot routines.  Green speed can certainly contribute to slower play , but its far from the number one culprit.


If the costs of maintaining is the issue , you've got a good point for the average club.

[jeffwarne]

A green rolling and playable at 15 is either a
myth
fantasy
flat
or a boring pin

But most likely a myth.

Just disturbing when leaders of organizations perpetuate myths by throwing out stupid stimp
numbers

[Sam Kestin]

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.

Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.

Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.

I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.

[Terry Lavin]

A green rolling and playable at 15 is either a
myth
fantasy
flat
or a boring pin

But most likely a myth.

Just disturbing when leaders of organizations perpetuate myths by throwing out stupid stimp
numbers

A bit of personal experience might be of interest to some:

After a few days of rain and foggy conditions, the sun and wind returned to Olympia Fields in time for weekend play at the 2003 US Open. As grounds chair, I watched the USGA oversee double cutting and triple rolling of the greens and saw the Stimpmeter reading of 15 which necessitated some alterations of hole locations owing to excessive slope. In that event, they simply tucked the hole as near a  greenside bunker as possible. The low scores went bye bye and only three players broke par for the championship. It's all about the setup decisions. Had they not cut the rough to three inches the green speeds may not have gotten that fast.

[JESII]

I've seen you say this before Judge and it's so disappointing that the USGA cannot maintain the foresight to prepare a course as they want and the courage of their convictions to carry it through. From a more distant position, I witnessed similar insecurity at Shinnecock in 2004(?).


Set a plan appropriate for the course, stick to it and let the chips fall where they may.

[jeffwarne]

I disagree with a lot of the sentiment here. Fast greens (to me) bring out the art of putting--the touch, the feel, the imagination. Everything breaks more and mistakes are dramatically amplified. Green reading skills become more important as putts that would be inside the hole at 7/8 on the stimp become well outside the hole and require the proper read, speed and line (as opposed to just the proper line). Downhill short putts become tests of character and courage--asking the player if he/she is willing to hit the ball at a pace that will send it six feet by in order to eliminate the break.

Short game shots seem to require more creativity as dramatically more run-out must be accounted for. Pitches that you could land a couple yards short of the hole now need to flirt with the front edge of the surface--and any contours that may exist around those edges start to come more into play.

Poorly played shots from the fairway leave short-side misses in significantly more trouble--enhancing the strategy from the fairway as well. A miss to the short side on slower greens can be just fine while greens running at 12+ would render a ball played to that spot absolutely dead.

I almost always love golf courses and conditions that rate highly in strategic complexity. To me, faster green speeds only add to that complexity and therefore make the playing experience that much richer.

What Jim Sullivan said!
It would be nice to see the chips fall where they may indeed.


and I am a big fan of continuing to play championships at classic courses


Sam,
i think everyone here agrees with your sentiment-that fast putts are fun and an integral challenge-and that greens come alive at a higher pace.
It's just that what is fast?
10? 12? 15? It all depends on the slopes and contours of the greens
at some point, all greens and more quickly-many pins-become unuseable.
and as stimps rise, greens(by redesign) and hole locations(by setup) have to get flatter-see Terry Lavin's post


What's scarier and harder to judge?
a 6 degree slope down to a hole cut on a 3 degree slope that is barely tapped?(on a green stimping 9)
or a 2 degree slope down to a hole on a 1 % slope that is stroked at the same pace (on a green stimping 13-I refuse to deal with fantasy 15 numbers [size=78%])[/size]
Much harder to make that judgement when on the previous hole you were putting uphill at the speed of the first example (stimp 9)

[Matt Frey, PGA]

I had a young man tell me that there is no such thing as a green that's too fast, no matter how much slope there is in the green...he thinks all greens should be above 16 on the stimp, no matter what it would do to people's scores and pace of play.


The horror...the horror....

[Sean_A]

I can't imagine 15 stimp...it doesn't compute for a guy who thinks 11 is fast if the greens have any interest at all and if they are anything close to firm.  That said,  would think the faster the greens, the less rough there should be around greens.  If an interesting green is stimping 12 and the typical US rough surrounding the surface is employed...it would become very boring very quickly trying to hit high lob shots for every recovery when most of us don't have that skill to dig balls out of 2 inches of rough and land softly. 


I disagree with the concept of 15 stimp, or 14 or 13 or 12, but there is no way its Oakmont's fault if clubs go that route.


Ciao

[David Whitmer]

My experience with a 15 stimp was, as mentioned earlier, at Chicago GC a few years ago. When I first stepped on the putting green, I could tell they were very fast. I tossed a ball down, picked out a hole about 25 feet away, and figured I had to hit it very soft. I tried my best, and it still went at least 15 feet by. That was Wednesday of Ryder Cup week, and my host said they were measured at 15 that Monday. I obviously have no first-hand knowledge on its authenticity, but I think my host is a very respected guy whom I have no reason to doubt.

It took a while, but I got used to the speed. And after a few holes, I quite honestly didn't think about it. I just got the feel for how hard to hit each putt, and it seemed to work out. After a bogey on #1, I parred 2-8, so it is doable on those greens with those speeds. I have never played Oakmont, so I can't say if their greens are sloped more or less than CGC. But on the day I played CGC, the green speeds were acceptable. You just can't let your guard down on any putt, especially a down hill putt. And Sean...when I think of it, I realize I got up-and-down for pars from short grass, not rough around the green (with the exception of back-right behind the 8th). I seemed to miss short if I missed, and therefore didn't have to contend with much greenside rough. Probably one of the reasons why I was okay with the speeds.