[Jeff Schley]

Played there last week a day after playing Sherwood CC.  Sherwood had just hosted the Champions Tour event the week prior and I thought those greens were in great shape and rolling around 10, which some of those greens have some pretty big undulations. 


I get to LACC the next day and holy shishkabobs...... lucky I had the local knowledge of the caddies for they had to have been rolling 12 or more. Of course those greens were flawless as well, but the speed really was significantly faster than Sherwood.  Without a caddie telling me how hard to hit it and the line I would have been 10 shots worse with putts alone.  Should be a fun US Open in a few years.

[Jon Wiggett]

Oh goody!!! lets hope the ramp them up to 15+ and extend the course out to 9000+ yards. WHAT, no yawning emoji!!!!!


Sorry Jeff but faster greens are easier to putt on for the tour pros not harder. It is contours which make the pros worry.


The US Open is slowly losing its ……..

[jeffwarne]

Oh goody!!! lets hope the ramp them up to 15+ and extend the course out to 9000+ yards. WHAT, no yawning emoji!!!!!


Sorry Jeff but faster greens are easier to putt on for the tour pros not harder. It is contours which make the pros worry.


The US Open is slowly losing its ……..

and the last few events Mike Davis has announced they'll have the greens around 15(that's not a typo) by event time-which is BS-but hey killling the greens is an annual tradition.


It makes me giddy to know that only with the help of a local "expert" caddy (pure joy in itself-hopefully a hung over bitter career guy) can I derive any enjoyment from the experience.


yikes....

[Tim Gallant]

Oh goody!!! lets hope the ramp them up to 15+ and extend the course out to 9000+ yards. WHAT, no yawning emoji!!!!!


Sorry Jeff but faster greens are easier to putt on for the tour pros not harder. It is contours which make the pros worry.


The US Open is slowly losing its ……..

Jon,


Interesting point. Curious though - what's the difference between a green that is so fast that it is impossible to get home in 2 from certain spots, and a greenside bunker where it is impossible to get up and down from?


The US Open has set its stall out to be the toughest championship test in golf. We know that pros don't really find it all that difficult to get up and down from bunkers and everyone seems to have an issue with long rough. So why not test their ability to hit to the correct spot of a green and if not, they pay the price? Is it one-dimensional and boring? Sure, but it's one way to test them, no?

[jeffwarne]

Tim,


I don't think John's point is that fast is "unfair" (or impossible to get down in 2 from certain spots), it's that if the greens are super fast, especially on new construction, they are almost always designed with flatter "pinnable" areas with minimal slope, as opposed to designing them with more tilt or overall slope, rather than with flatter tiers.


A green stimping at 8 can yield as fast a downhill putt as a green stimping at 13,(and the correspondingly uphill putt plays SIGNIFICANTLY different thus adding more variety, judgement and skill to master the slower green)
 the difference being that that same 8 stimp green may have 3 degrees of slope in a 6 footer and the 13 stimp never will as the ball won't stop near the hole so they won't put the pin in that area and end up designing more flatter areas to create more pins.


Anecdotally, I was surprised how fast the greens were in Europe(Morfontaine was crazy fast) on my last 3 trips, and every single pro in the shop tells me "oh they are usually much faster"
Sound familiar?


Of course the 9 hole Valliere  course with untouched old school slope had appropriately slower greens than the main course that yielded far more challenging putts as they could still use interesting pinnable areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

LA provided one of my funnier moments years ago.  Asked the super what the green speed was, with some members present, but not where they could see his face.  His answer was 12, but he also winked at me, seemingly indicating he told them 12, but they were 11 or at least something less. 


I have since got that type of answer from other supers.  Hate to say it, but fudging up your numbers while not actually matching them is probably the best way to keep members egos happy.


I also played with a digital level in the bag, measuring (after the putt) several tough green slopes. It was there that I noted that many of the greens (at least then, think its been redone since) had pinnable slopes at 4%, not just the 3% recommended then and now by the USGA.  Made me think you could have a little, maybe not a lot, of play in how you graded greens.

[Ian Mackenzie]

It probably last rained there in April...;-)


You see the news lately?

[corey miller]

Nothing worse than a course with "super fast" greens where one needs expert reads to be a competent putter especially when the caddies are double bagging and reading super difficult putts for four.  And even worse when they are four members, that are somehow trying to justify the stupid caddie fees any way they can.

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting point. Curious though - what's the difference between a green that is so fast that it is impossible to get home in 2 from certain spots, and a greenside bunker where it is impossible to get up and down from?


The US Open has set its stall out to be the toughest championship test in golf. We know that pros don't really find it all that difficult to get up and down from bunkers and everyone seems to have an issue with long rough. So why not test their ability to hit to the correct spot of a green and if not, they pay the price? Is it one-dimensional and boring? Sure, but it's one way to test them, no?

The difference is that you don't have to be in the bunker, and you'll probably only see a handful of them, but when the greens are too fast you've gotta deal with it 18 times (or 40!).

[Terry Lavin]

My Eleventh Commandment here is “Thou Shalt Not Slander LACC.”  LACC is one of the great experiences in American golf. If the greens get a little too hot when the Santa Ana winds get over 50 mph, I’d give the superintendent the benefit of the doubt.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I have explained the problem of fast greens in numerous other threads but I will humour you. As a youngster me and couple of other lads used to have putting competitions on the clubs wooden dance floor when the weather was bad. Despite the floor stimping at what must have easily been 20+ it was fairly easy to judge distance after a short time. Ergo the distance the will roll is no difficulty for good putters.


I do not consider high stimping greens to be 'fast' as most people mistakenly believe because the ball actually has to roll slower to cover the same distance as a green with a lower stimp reading. If the ball is running slower as it gets to the hole it is much more likely to lip in than lip out so the hole is effectively bigger. On top of this greens have to be flattened so you high stimp reading lead to flatter greens, slower putting speeds and larger targets or easier to hole putts.


The hole thing has been driven by the machine and chemical companies who sell much more due to this coupled with pros who like being made to look better and clubs run by people who do not see that the ' high stimping greens are harder' brigade are peddling a lie.


Hope this answers your question. As to the US Open setting out its stall as the toughest. At the moment it is rapidly becoming the most farcical and is in danger of becoming the least credible of the majors which is a shame.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I have explained the problem of fast greens in numerous other threads but I will humour you. As a youngster me and couple of other lads used to have putting competitions on the clubs wooden dance floor when the weather was bad. Despite the floor stimping at what must have easily been 20+ it was fairly easy to judge distance after a short time. Ergo the distance the will roll is no difficulty for good putters.


I do not consider high stimping greens to be 'fast' as most people mistakenly believe because the ball actually has to roll slower to cover the same distance as a green with a lower stimp reading. If the ball is running slower as it gets to the hole it is much more likely to lip in than lip out so the hole is effectively bigger. On top of this greens have to be flattened so you high stimp reading lead to flatter greens, slower putting speeds and larger targets or easier to hole putts.


The hole thing has been driven by the machine and chemical companies who sell much more due to this coupled with pros who like being made to look better and clubs run by people who do not see that the ' high stimping greens are harder' brigade are peddling a lie.


Hope this answers your question. As to the US Open setting out its stall as the toughest. At the moment it is rapidly becoming the most farcical and is in danger of becoming the least credible of the majors which is a shame.

Jon,

Thanks for this, and I don't disagree with anything you say. But my question was more in relation to the US Open set-up. Based on your above statements, sure they might hole more 10 footers, but if they're out of position, it brings 3 & 4 putts into the equation because they may simply not be able to stop the ball. Is it farcical? Maybe. But if everyone is playing the same course, then does it matter if they all struggle or not?


To your point about needing to flatten greens to allow for these higher speeds, I am in agreement that it is more interesting, challenging and varied to have slower greens with more contour. That said, at a place that is already built and world-renowned (like LACC), I'd much rather they stimp the greens at 16 for two weeks than plant trees between 2 and 17 to tighten the hole. As a defence method for the US Open, if their goal is to challenge, then I say challenge away in a way that won't destroy the course in the long-term


Caveat* All of this is cart before the horse stuff. But if that's the US Open's intent (however misguided) then is it not better to cause as little impact as possible long-term to some of these classic courses?

[Tim Gallant]

Interesting point. Curious though - what's the difference between a green that is so fast that it is impossible to get home in 2 from certain spots, and a greenside bunker where it is impossible to get up and down from?


The US Open has set its stall out to be the toughest championship test in golf. We know that pros don't really find it all that difficult to get up and down from bunkers and everyone seems to have an issue with long rough. So why not test their ability to hit to the correct spot of a green and if not, they pay the price? Is it one-dimensional and boring? Sure, but it's one way to test them, no?

The difference is that you don't have to be in the bunker, and you'll probably only see a handful of them, but when the greens are too fast you've gotta deal with it 18 times (or 40!).

Isn't Crystal Downs a perfect example of this? I'm sure I heard the story that the Head Pro said he has seen at least one ball putted off every green. Imagine if they hosted a major event (which they never would).

[Nick Ribeiro]

I like the way Golf Week separates Classic and Modern rankings. Every year there is more separation from what each should be. Unfortunately we live in a world were Supers are judged on playing conditions, good being considered as close to what we all see from our sofas on Sunday.


If classics were more concerned about actually preserving the entire property instead of keeping up with modern golf courses, many of us would be much happier. Personally I am a fan of all golf, I like variety and like both moderns and classics for what they are. I do not like when classics are desperate to keep up with moderns, hiding behind statements like "We preserved the original angles when adding 1,000 yards to this classic" and "The same slopes are there from a hundred years ago they just aren't as dramatic so we can maintain championship green speeds".


Why can't classics be classics and moderns be moderns? 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I played Wilshire on Saturday and they were running fairly fast as well.  The main reason is that we are experiencing Santa Ana winds that dry everything out. Knowing LACC, they were probably moderately to very firm, so the Santa Ana conditions ramped the speed up.  I highly doubt they were trying to achieve a 15 stip, but for the health of the greens, they are not going to overwater in order to slow them down.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

My Eleventh Commandment here is “Thou Shalt Not Slander LACC.”  LACC is one of the great experiences in American golf. If the greens get a little too hot when the Santa Ana winds get over 50 mph, I’d give the superintendent the benefit of the doubt.

+1

[Joe Hancock]

I played Wilshire on Saturday and they were running fairly fast as well.  The main reason is that we are experiencing Santa Ana winds that dry everything out. Knowing LACC, they were probably moderately to very firm, so the Santa Ana conditions ramped the speed up.  I highly doubt they were trying to achieve a 15 stip, but for the health of the greens, they are not going to overwater in order to slow them down.

As if applying water is the only way to slow down a green......

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I understand your points but would suggest that 3 or 4 putts come about not because of the high stimp reading but rather because the combination of it with the contours and/or wind make the putting farcical. As to protecting par which the USGA are so enamoured with:


Committee Member 1: Hey we can't have these golfers shooting birdie fours on this 500 yard hole it makes us look stupid.
Committee Member 2: Yeah, Birdie fours will look dumb
Committee Member 1: Hey, if we make the par 5 a par 4 that makes a 4 a par.
Committee Member 2: Good idea, birdie 4 looks dumb, par 4 makes us look much better and makes the course play much harder.


Perception is reality for some. I found the US Open so will sappingly boring I switched the channel over to some else.

[Tom_Doak]

The difference is that you don't have to be in the bunker, and you'll probably only see a handful of them, but when the greens are too fast you've gotta deal with it 18 times (or 40!).

Isn't Crystal Downs a perfect example of this? I'm sure I heard the story that the Head Pro said he has seen at least one ball putted off every green. Imagine if they hosted a major event (which they never would).

Tim:


The greens at Crystal Downs are very difficult - right up there with Augusta and Oakmont and other famous courses.  They are not nearly as fast as those others, as a general rule, but there is even more tilt to some of them.  I'm the one who quoted Fred Muller as having seen people putt off every green at one time or another, but remember, he has been the pro there for 42 years.  I think I've personally seen it on every green over my 31 years as a member and +/- 250 rounds.  For sure, I myself have putted off more than half the greens at some point, and I'm not a bad putter.


But to me that's much different than greens rolling at 15, where every putt of any length is twitchy - uphill or downhill.


The Downs is only a 6500 yard course from all the way back, so it's not like you need to be hitting long approaches to greens that screw you over.  If you go above the hole on the most severe greens, it's pretty much on you for being there.


The one time they did play a tournament on it, the U.S. Senior Amateur, the wind was blowing hard and it was cold and the greens were diabolical.  Many of those who played in the event hated the course due to the stupid set-up.

[Tim Gallant]

The difference is that you don't have to be in the bunker, and you'll probably only see a handful of them, but when the greens are too fast you've gotta deal with it 18 times (or 40!).

Isn't Crystal Downs a perfect example of this? I'm sure I heard the story that the Head Pro said he has seen at least one ball putted off every green. Imagine if they hosted a major event (which they never would).

Tim:


The greens at Crystal Downs are very difficult - right up there with Augusta and Oakmont and other famous courses.  They are not nearly as fast as those others, as a general rule, but there is even more tilt to some of them.  I'm the one who quoted Fred Muller as having seen people putt off every green at one time or another, but remember, he has been the pro there for 42 years.  I think I've personally seen it on every green over my 31 years as a member and +/- 250 rounds.  For sure, I myself have putted off more than half the greens at some point, and I'm not a bad putter.


But to me that's much different than greens rolling at 15, where every putt of any length is twitchy - uphill or downhill.


The Downs is only a 6500 yard course from all the way back, so it's not like you need to be hitting long approaches to greens that screw you over.  If you go above the hole on the most severe greens, it's pretty much on you for being there.


The one time they did play a tournament on it, the U.S. Senior Amateur, the wind was blowing hard and it was cold and the greens were diabolical.  Many of those who played in the event hated the course due to the stupid set-up.

Tom,


Thank you for this. I actually played CD the same week as Oakmont, which are said to have the highest stimped greens, and yet, I found the greens at Crystal much scarier because there were seemingly 'no-go' spots due to the tilt. I loved it.


I take your point that as a shorter course, more or less a great player should be able to keep it below the hole (as an example) if required. Whereas at a place like LACC, they may have longer approaches into some of the holes, which may leave it up to chance whether or not they end up in the 'wrong spot'.


That said, to your last paragraph, the course obviously showed a challenge to the Senior Ams and part of that was due to the challenge of the green speeds (whether manufactured or otherwise). Wouldn't you rather see this than them add a bunch of new tees and bunkers? It's only one week, and, however misguided, is one way to ensure they don't shoot 57s, no?

[Sean_A]

To your point about needing to flatten greens to allow for these higher speeds, I am in agreement that it is more interesting, challenging and varied to have slower greens with more contour. That said, at a place that is already built and world-renowned (like LACC), I'd much rather they stimp the greens at 16 for two weeks than plant trees between 2 and 17 to tighten the hole. As a defence method for the US Open, if their goal is to challenge, then I say challenge away in a way that won't destroy the course in the long-term

Tim, if we accept that clubs and tours are going to do what they are going to do, then yes, +1 to your sentiments.  On the flip side, if the members want fast and less sloping greens then so be it.  The what seems to always be the ultimate argument of top clubs and tours as negative role models can only be taken so far before it becomes stale and toothless. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Would be enlightening to hear what’s required, and what the timesales would be, to bring greens back to ‘normal speed’ after they’ve been prepared to achieve say 15-16 for a tournament.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Would be enlightening to hear what’s required, and what the timesales would be, to bring greens back to ‘normal speed’ after they’ve been prepared to achieve say 15-16 for a tournament.
Atb

In rare cases [such as a winter cold snap in the south], the greens may stay fast for quite a while after an event because the grass just isn't growing much.


In general, though, if you don't mow them for a day or two, don't roll them, and raise the heights slightly, you can get them back to slower speeds in a matter of a few days.  It takes longer to go the opposite way and get them a lot faster, without stressing them to the point of turf loss.


Years ago, I showed up at Royal Melbourne to film the 6th hole for a documentary, only to find the famously steep green rolling at 8 on the Stimpmeter.  The producer, who knew nothing about agronomy, asked if we could mow the green shorter, and I had to explain they weren't going to scalp it for us.  But the greenkeeper double-cut the green at the same height, and double rolled it, and that took the speed from 8 to 10 in the space of an hour.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()