Here We Go Again With Green Speeds

[Jon Wiggett]

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.

Sam,


the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.


Jon

[Terry Lavin]

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.

Oddly enough I played that very day at CGC and I can report that the greens were in fact running at 15.  I played with my good friend, Bill Shean, the legendary amateur who won the US and Senior Amateur championships.  I think the superintendent was showing off a little bit because of all of the international visitors and the greens went over the edge.  It happens.  I four-putted from 20 feet on the first hole and Jeff Rude, then of Golfweek, putted into a bunker on 10 from 15 feet away from the hole.  The putt rolled another thirty feet into the bunker.  Crossing over the line into the land of random break and random heartbreak is something that doesn't happen all that often, but when it occurs in a national championship (Shinny, Olympic, Pebble, Pinehurst) it is entirely regrettable, because it's usually entirely avoidable.

[PCCraig]

I think the most interesting point about the green speeds at Oakmont is that the putting surfaces consist of a form of poa that is native to Oakmont and has been maintained at the highest speeds possible for as long as anyone can remember. Therefore, the poa has become a strain of grass that can allow for such incredible green speeds on a daily basis. I remember reading somewhere else that they once tried to transplant/harvest some of the poa to see if they could replicate it someplace else, but it has never worked.

[Sam Kestin]

the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.

Jon--


I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.


I generally concur that there are hole locations that work at slower speeds but not at faster ones, but I will say such a phenomenon seems extraordinarily infrequent to me. I look at courses like Oakmont, Augusta and Winged Foot and can't recall really any hole locations that were formerly usable and now no longer are. I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but if they have lost hole locations I really haven't noticed.


That having been said, I know Augusta regrades their green complexes rather frequently so I wouldn't rule out there being some flattening going on there between seasons to preserve the more contour-heavy hole positions. For example, I know Jack had to redo the 9th green at some point in order to flatten out some of the steeper areas.


As far as your second point goes--while I do agree the slower ball does widen the hole (ever so slightly), the similarly slow moving ball is so much more significantly impacted by contour. Therefore, the dramatically narrowed margin of error inherent in the required harmonization of speed/line seems (to me) to outpace the slightly widened margin of error on lip outs/ins.


I can certainly say that if I had to make a 10 foot putt to save my mother's life, I would SO much rather it be on a slow (but true) left center putt (that I can hit basically any speed I want) than a lightening fast putt I have to play six inches outside the left edge and make sure I give juuuuust the right amount of weight to take juuuuuuust the right amount of break.


Just my opinion, but if you backed Oakmont off to 9/10 on the stimp you might be able to squeeze out a few extra hole locations but would do so at the expense of what ought to be a wonderful test to watch on/around the greens.

[Jon Wiggett]

Sam,


it is basic laws of physics. The lower the resistance the less slope required to keep the ball rolling. As soon as the ball can not come to rest on a slope it is an unpinable slope. The examples of courses flattening their greens to cope with high stimp readings are many and well documented. Higher stimping green are by necessity flatter and therefore do not break more than a slower greens of equal influence. If I had a 10 foot putt that broke by 6" I would rather have it stimping at 15 than 5.

[Mike Wagner]

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.

Sam,


the problem with your point of view is two fold. Firstly, the greens end up being flattened as they have so few pin positions when they are so fast ergo the players ends up with straighter putts. Secondly, good putters learn to cope with high stimping greens very quickly so it is no challenge. However, a good putter will hole more putts due entirely to the fact that the ball will be rolling slower as it gets to the hole. Fast greens are more difficult for the average putter but for a good putter they offer no challenge unlike a green with a lower stimp reading does.


Jon

Jon - Please explain that part about good players, fast greens, and NO CHALLENGE again ... I'm getting a good laugh.

[Andrew Buck]

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

I agree with this.

I truly believe green speeds are almost always estimated about 1.5 too fast.  Greens at 12.5 are really almost a startling fast speed for 90% of golfers. 

Part of the reason for this is it's to the benefit of Supers and Pros to often mislead the membership about the speed of the greens.  Easier to just say the number is higher than it is than to educate in most cases.

[Josh Tarble]

This thread again...

There's 1500 people on the internet that will scream until their faces are blue are too fast. 

And then there's the rest of the golfing population that will scream until their faces are blue that greens are too slow.

[Andrew Buck]

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.

I don't dispute this, or the CG hitting speeds of 15 during the Ryder Cup.  I believe the fastest greens I've ever played were just a touch under 13 in the State Am Qualifier in summer 2010 at Pekin CC.  I played within 20 days of playing Olympia Fields, The Bev, and Westmoreland under normal conditions, and it was such a shock to my system that I had the same experience David had at Chicago golf.  Dropped a ball on the putting green, realized they were going to be fast, and proceeded to hit a put from 15 feet about 3X that distance off the green. 

[Doug Siebert]

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

Yes, but outside of Scotland I've seen very few greens that are "slow but true". In the US, slow greens always seem to be crappy. Is that because of the grass, because greens are slow due to lower quality/cheaper maintenance practices, or other reasons. I have no idea.

My argument is this. When a ball is rolling on the green, all it sees is gravity and friction. If you have less friction (higher stimp) then more gravity (high slope) will give you the same exact effect. If it was possible for greens to stimp at 20, they would need to have extremely gentle slopes or they would be unplayable. If you have true greens stimping at 5, you'd need extremely steep slopes to make it fun.

Now step back and imagine you missed that green, and are playing chip/pitch from 50 feet, with 20 feet of green to work with. Which green is going to be more interesting and provide more options? The pancake green that stimps at 20, or the wildly sloped green that stimps at 5?

[Joe Bausch]

I think the most interesting point about the green speeds at Oakmont is that the putting surfaces consist of a form of poa that is native to Oakmont and has been maintained at the highest speeds possible for as long as anyone can remember. Therefore, the poa has become a strain of grass that can allow for such incredible green speeds on a daily basis. I remember reading somewhere else that they once tried to transplant/harvest some of the poa to see if they could replicate it someplace else, but it has never worked.

Ron Whitten wrote this back in 2007:

Oakmont's greens are unique because they're "perennial Poa annua," says John Zimmers, Oakmont's grounds superintendent since 1999. The greens are a patchy, mottled collection of dozens of rare Poa annua strains that don't die off each summer.

The entire article is here:

http://espn.go.com/golf/usopen07/news/story?id=2899868

[Terry Lavin]

Joe,

The same is true of hundreds if not thousands of US courses. Many have avoided the mistake of regrassing to avoid the supposed peril of poa annua. Oakmont is also able to handle these green speeds because the greens have horizontal slope too. It's not the usual back to front pitch that makes modern tournament speeds untenable.

[D_Malley]

The thing that i find very interesting about this discussion is the example of Aronimink during the recent PGA tour event held there.
The PGA tour actually slowed down the greens compared to what the members normally played.
This allowed the tour to use hole locations that the members have never seen before.
This made it very difficult for the players to get close to some of these hole locations and made lag and short putts very difficult.


could this also apply to Oakmont?

[Jonathan Mallard]

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

My argument is this. When a ball is rolling on the green, all it sees is gravity and friction.

Wind, and to a MUCH lesser degree aerodynamic drag.


The magnitude of friction certainly helps determine how much of an effect wind will have.

[BCowan]

The thing that i find very interesting about this discussion is the example of Aronimink during the recent PGA tour event held there.
The PGA tour actually slowed down the greens compared to what the members normally played.
This allowed the tour to use hole locations that the members have never seen before.
This made it very difficult for the players to get close to some of these hole locations and made lag and short putts very difficult.


could this also apply to Oakmont?

Great post D in regards to Aronimick, What speed did they have them for the event?  If Oakmont ran the greens at 10 for example it could be as bumpy as Chambers Bay

[Randy Thompson]

Just curious..what height are they cutting at?

[Pete_Pittock]

Stimp is an average of balls rolled in opposite directions. For the math enabled, at 14'  what would be the rollout on a one degree uphill slope, as well as the opposite slope, dismissing grain and other variables?

[Ruediger Meyer]

My personal experience with fast greens was in Portugal at Troia. I puttet up the slope, missed the hole on the right hand side, the ball went around the hole, stopped... and startet to trickle down the slope, off the green. So count me towards those who hate excessive green speeds. And everyone who doesn't think Oakmont is on the wrong side this week should just look at the Bnker shot Byeong-hun An postet on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/

[Thomas Dai]

When was the last time a US Open set-up wasn't criticised? Just asking.
Atb

[Mark Pearce]

My personal experience with fast greens was in Portugal at Troia. I puttet up the slope, missed the hole on the right hand side, the ball went around the hole, stopped... and startet to trickle down the slope, off the green. So count me towards those who hate excessive green speeds. And everyone who doesn't think Oakmont is on the wrong side this week should just look at the Bnker shot Byeong-hun An postet on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/BGkW7J7lSoz/

Agreed.  Anyone on here espousing the merits of 14+ speeds needs to watch that video.  Ultra fast greens don't promote skill, they promote luck. 

[Sam Kestin]

I have to admit--I watched the video and I absolutely loved it.


With the hole located in its position there a few paces from the bunker's edge, that bunker should theoretically be the absolute worst place to be. It is the shortest of the short side misses there and should be punished accordingly. Give him the same shot but back the greens off to a 7/8/9 or so and now you've made what should be the grade F place to miss a relatively easy (for the pros, not me of course) up and down.


This may be a minority view, but I do think that there should be areas around the greens on a golf course where you just cannot get the ball close absent a complete and total hero shot. This provides additional strategic challenge that radiates its way backwards from the green to the fairway and the tee. I think faster green speeds help create more of this dynamic.


If you know that long is absolutely dead, what do you do in a situation where you've got 160 to that hole location but you're stuck between clubs that go 154 and 166?


Do you have the courage to try to take six or seven yards off a club you KNOW can reach that nightmare spot to miss?


Would be willing to bet that BH An won't miss the ball there to that hole location during the tournament.


I love videos like that and courses that have misses that leave a golfer in that severe of a spot. The United States Open is supposed to be a test--an examination of all physical and mental skills possessed by the best players in the world. Generally, the more severe the setup the happier I am and the more fun I have watching the action. This attitude unquestionably carries over to green speeds.


Just a personal opinion.

[Jerry Kluger]

Let my try and understand something about grass types and greens speeds.  If you have greens such as those at Oakmont with quite a few different strains of Poa they have to keep them fast, which includes rolling them in order to keep them smooth, because they grow at different rates, which would cause them to become very bumpy as the day goes on.  The infestation of Poa at Chambers Bay combined with the fescue and the different types of grass caused them to be bumpy as they day went on. But if you have one type of grass that is presumably healthy, the grass will grow uniformly and will remain smooth at whatever the green speed is.


For some reason members at some clubs feel that very high green speeds add to the quality of the course.  But it seems that some courses are doing so at the cost of limiting hole locations and the challenges that the architect saw in designing the green contours.

[Anthony_Nysse]

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.

14 would be a slow down, for OCC. You will hear players talk about they being the fastest and purist greens they've ever putting on.

Some many on this site adore Seminole, whose greens run 14+ in the winter...what's the difference? Theyre not hosting the USOpen.

[D_Malley]

The thing that i find very interesting about this discussion is the example of Aronimink during the recent PGA tour event held there.
The PGA tour actually slowed down the greens compared to what the members normally played.
This allowed the tour to use hole locations that the members have never seen before.
This made it very difficult for the players to get close to some of these hole locations and made lag and short putts very difficult.


could this also apply to Oakmont?

Great post D in regards to Aronimick, What speed did they have them for the event?  If Oakmont ran the greens at 10 for example it could be as bumpy as Chambers Bay

Ben,
i would only be guessing at the green speed numbers from Aronimink.
maybe someone else on this board could provide this info.


The greens clearly made the course play more difficult, and i believe that it was b/c they were able to use very difficult hole locations due to slower speeds.

[JESII]

I don't remember any hole locations at Aronimink other than the 17th on Saturday I think...way over on a little knob in the left corner that I'd never thought about. Wish they did this more.


It seems like they're always looking to avoid a complaint by a player which is a fruitless effort.  That said, they played this hole from about 130 when it normally plays 185 or 190 I believe...so it may not have been the speed so much as the club in hand.