Eliminating Green Contours

« **Reply #75 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:05:28 PM »

Terrific post, Pat Brockwell. Please keep it up!

Much as I hate to say it, I tend to agree with Patrick on this one.

I do think it's kind of irresponsible to say "you probably shouldn't do this, but if you want to, here's how." I'd much rather they put Pat Brockwell's post on their front page.

« **Reply #76 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:09:12 PM »

TEPau-#5 has been seeing some amazing pins over the past few years since the days that Chris Hague was the super straight thru to Tim Kennelly....deep left over the hump, right next to the hump, pretty high left by the hump and extremely low across the hole green are what we've been seeing

Dan Kelly--there was only one picture of BCC-FF. Before the renovations, the super's used to cut those greens at different height and the same problems persisted...now I don't know if they were cut to 8.5 stimp or 9.5, but I do know we still didn't have the pins and the areas in front of the greens at BCC have as long as I can remember been kept firm and fast...please remember, one of Tillie's core beliefs was that every player be afforded the opportunity to get on the green, so every green has a closely mowed opening.

« **Reply #77 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:22:15 PM »

Pat Mucci said this on the world wide Internet;

"To buy carpet for my den that would putt at around 10' or above."

10' or ABOVE!? Pat Mucci bought a stimpmeter so he could putt on his carpet at 10' or ABOVE!?

That should be 10' or BELOW!

You're blaming the USGA for that article on their website and here you are advocating on the WOLRD WIDE INTERNET putting on your carpet at 10' or ABOVE!? What the hell does that ABOVE crap mean? Where is this putting speed increase going to end with you saying things like that on the WORLD WIDE INTERNET?

You're blaming all this stuff on the USGA when it's you all along who's pushing putting speeds higher and causing all this damaging softening and recontouring and causing all the character to be removed from great old greens all over the world.

How the hell hypocritical can you get??

This increased speed syndrome is all your fault!

« **Reply #78 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:31:56 PM »

Patrick Mucci --

Have you considered establishing a Stimpmeter Lending Library?

We could pass it around, from gca member to gca member (all but the llamas), so that we would all know precisely how fast are the carpets in our offices and homes.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd consider it a Public Service.

I'll put my '86 Masters tape in circulation if you'll do the Dewey Decimal thing with your Stimpmeter.

« **Reply #79 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:37:48 PM »

I used to have a four foot swale in my living room but the carpet stimped at above 10 and I had only one pin.

« **Reply #80 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:47:02 PM »

"TEPaul-#5 has been seeing some amazing pins over the past few years since the days that Chris Hague was the super straight thru to Tim Kennelly....deep left over the hump, right next to the hump, pretty high left by the hump and extremely low across the hole green are what we've been seeing."

dcarroll:

That's amazing. Are you saying that the "maximum reasonable" speed for all those pin placements on #5 is a stimp number of 5? What an amazing coincidence! Do the members know that? If not you should definitely tell them all!

Another idea might be to redo all your greens beginning by creating a super wild green on #1 where 1 on the stimp would be all that was reasonable. Then #2 could be slightly less wild but wild nonetheless with a max stimp of 2 and so on and so on through the course with each hole # being matched by the the similar max stimp # ending at a pancake flat #18 that could run a top speed of 18 on the stimp!

Coolest idea I ever heard of! And imagine the variety?! This might be golf architecture's next real breakthrough or the true "next level"!

Very Cool!

Frankly, this could be the best answer of all to the problems of ever increasing greenspeeds. It'd inherently have to stop at 18 on the stimp because that's all the holes there are on a golf course.

Of course we'd all have to remember to call the other courses on 36 hole facilities "the second eighteen" or else some of these idiotic greenspeed merchants might start getting more bright ideas!

« **Reply #81 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:53:59 PM »

TEPaul-pretty funny, I thought you mean the 5th hole, not a stimp of 5 --a mere coincidence since the 5th at Five Farms is one of the wildest contours on the course

« **Reply #82 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:58:55 PM »

TEPaul,

I have to run to an appointment, but I want you to know that my house has other rooms in addition to my den.

Those other rooms have carpets.

If I want to practice chipping or putting on greens that run at
1' on the stimpmeter, I go to the back room and practice on the shag carpet.

If I'm going to PV, NGLA or Oakmont, I practice putting on the tile floor in my kitchen.

We discussed the massive humps on the old 12th green, and decided to place them outside of the putting surface, rather then within it, in the event the green is restored.

« **Reply #83 on:** November 04, 2003, 03:04:12 PM »

Patrick:

I worry about you but the one who needs to worry more is Debra. She shouldn't be all that surprised or shocked if during a rainy day she finds you mowing one of those carpets in your house like that commercial with Brad Faxon and his wife when she found him mowing one of their carpets down to a stimp speed of about 13!

« **Reply #84 on:** November 04, 2003, 03:14:08 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on November 04, 2003, 02:58:55 PM

We discussed the massive humps on the old 12th green, and decided to place them outside of the putting surface, rather then within it, in the event the green is restored.

Was this decision due to playability or maintenance?

« **Reply #85 on:** November 04, 2003, 04:05:51 PM »

Pat Mucci said;

"We discussed the massive humps on the old 12th green, and decided to place them outside of the putting surface, rather then within it, in the event the green is restored."

Patrick:

What the hell kind of restoration is that? That changes the entire strategy and character of Emmett's or Travis's hole! What gives you the right to redesign a hole that way?

You should have done it exactly as it was originally designed and built with the humps within the green. Now answer George Pazin's question of whether it was maintenance or playability that caused you to take those outrageous liberties with a true restoration. If it was playabilty that caused you to make that terrible decision you have a lot of explaining to do. Why didn't you just recommend the club slow their course's greenspeed down to accomodate the way those humps originally played?

« **Reply #86 on:** November 04, 2003, 06:02:49 PM »

George Pazin & TEPaul,

As you know a committeeman, has but one vote on a committee, and what a committee decides doesn't necessarily reflect the position of each individual committeeman.

Often, a decision is a compromise between various view points, and the selecting of a position that will be palatable to the membership, and not necessarily the purist.

I think you could call the intent a sympathetic restoration, but, like many things, it's presently in limbo, with the window of opportunity not likely to open again, for some time.

TEPaul,

I think the bunker restoration would be the primary feature in restoring the hole to its previous look and play, with the mounds secondary.

George, it's a compromise of all three, including construction.

« **Reply #87 on:** November 04, 2003, 07:57:20 PM »

I find it interesting that the USGA feels it is proper to recommend the "proper"way to flatten contours on putting greens.

They accomplish this by removing rootzone material from the high points and adding material to the low points.

It is one thing to do this to the old style "push-up"greens and quite another to do it to a USGA spec green.

These greens are constructed with a herringbone drainage system, a 4" layer of gravel, and covered with a uniform 12"+/- 1/2" layer of rootzone material.

They are specific that each layer must mirror the sub-grade.

The result of this type of construction (USGA) is that a "perched" water table is achieved and theoretically the perched table will be the same distance from the surface for the entire green.

When the amount of rootzone material is decreased, that area will become damper and when the amount of rootzone material is increased, that area will become drier or droughty.

« **Reply #88 on:** November 04, 2003, 08:38:01 PM »

Patrick:

I don't care if you are just one vote among many--I fully expect you to get your way in toto! Some think you're capable of terrorizing and cowing entire memberships so what's so tough about you overwhelming some puny little golf or green committee?

« **Reply #89 on:** November 04, 2003, 09:54:29 PM »

Dick Kirkpatrick,

Altering a USGA spec green is substantially more involved, almost requiring a bathtubing out, and reconstruction of, the intended area.

I'd be curious to know how USGA spec greens that were recontoured, were recontoured, and how they perform from an agronomic and playability perspective over time.

TEPaul,

I see you've adopted one of my methods,
asking a question, to which you already know the answer.

I think you would agree that we should hold this particular discussion in abeyance.

« **Reply #90 on:** November 04, 2003, 11:09:06 PM »

Thanks for the honest straightforward answer - I certainly wasn't implying anything negative.

BTW, my shop stimps at about 50.

« **Reply #91 on:** November 05, 2003, 05:13:06 PM »

Did anyone offer a solution to greens such as #9 at Manufacturers that are basically unplayable above 7 or 8 on the stimp?

« **Reply #92 on:** November 05, 2003, 07:33:25 PM »

"Did anyone offer a solution to greens such as #9 at Manufacturers that are basically unplayable above 7 or 8 on the stimp?"

Mark:

Yes, my understanding is a solution to the problems on Manufacturer's #9 green was offered. I believe the green has been or will be recontoured and softened. I believe the consulting design work might have come from the Fazio organization.

« **Reply #93 on:** November 05, 2003, 09:21:13 PM »

Tom,
I meant does someone have a solution "instead of softening". What do people think should be done when you have a green like that?
Mark

« **Reply #94 on:** November 05, 2003, 09:58:16 PM »

Patrick Mucci:

That is the point I was trying to make. The USGA in their recommendations does not differentiate between push ups and perched greens.

It is very difficult to create a new bowl for the putting surface only as the grades of the apron and beyond will need to be changed for appearance and playing conditions.

Properly done, the entire drainage system has to be removed, the sub-grade corrected to the proper slope which is usually 2 1/2% or less, and the drainage system etc. re-installed.

As I pointed out, the areas with less rootzone will be damp and the areas with more rootzone will be drier.

Agrinomically, I think both of these are problems, superintendents are always dealing with "localized dry spots" on putting surfaces for instance.

« **Reply #95 on:** November 06, 2003, 04:09:16 AM »

Dick Kirkpatrick,

Have you ever seen a successful, partial redo, or softening of a green built to USGA specs ?

« **Reply #96 on:** November 06, 2003, 04:57:28 AM »

"Tom,
I meant does someone have a solution "instead of softening". What do people think should be done when you have a green like that?
Mark"

Mark:

I sort of figured that's what you might be driving at. And I agree with you that the answer to that should be forthcoming on this thread. We have a lot of people apparently railing against that article on the USGA website that talks about the right and the wrong way to recontour putting greens that may be too sloped or contoured for today's greenspeeds but so far we haven't heard a particularly good solution or reasonable solution.

#9 Manufacturers is a super well known area of a green that's been over the top for years (it happened to me about a month ago) but if those who rail against that article on the USGA website really believe that a green like #9 Manufacturers shouldn't be softened then the only imaginable solution as far as I'm concerned would be to return the maximum greenspeed at Manny's to about 7-8 on the stimpmeter to compensate for #9.

If those on here feel strongly about not softening and recontouring old greens then they should just come right out and say that in their opinion a course like Manufacturers should return their maximum greenspeed to about 7-8 for the rest of time. Other than that I'd like to hear another solution from them although I can't imagine what it might be. I'm about 99% sure, by the way, that Manny's greens are of the old "pushup" variety.

« **Reply #97 on:** November 06, 2003, 05:07:14 AM »

Dick Kirkpatrick:

Very good points there about the potential problems of attempting to recontour or soften the surface of USGA spec greens when it comes to matching the contours of the subgrade. I've always heard from architects and supers that a USGA spec green that fails to match surface and subgrade contours is a real perscription for drainage problems--eg, localized dry spots and wet spots!

It'd seem to be major oversight on the part of the author of that article on the USGA website about the right and wrong way to recontour if they failed to make the necessary distinction between USGA spec (or modified) and the old pushup style construction!

« **Reply #98 on:** November 06, 2003, 10:48:48 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 06, 2003, 04:57:28 AM

... if those who rail against that article on the USGA website really believe that a green like #9 Manufacturers shouldn't be softened then the only imaginable solution as far as I'm concerned would be to return the maximum greenspeed at Manny's to about 7-8 on the stimpmeter to compensate for #9.

If those on here feel strongly about not softening and recontouring old greens then they should just come right out and say that in their opinion a course like Manufacturers should return their maximum greenspeed to about 7-8 for the rest of time. Other than that I'd like to hear another solution from them although I can't imagine what it might be.

That's what I tried to get people to discuss about a page ago!

Tried, and failed.

How would Manufacturers play at 7-8?

« **Reply #99 on:** November 06, 2003, 11:34:45 AM »

TEPaul,

I believe the article targeted older courses, classic courses, and not recent courses built with USGA spec greens.

Just altering the rootzone mix would seem to be a disaster for a USGA spec green. The higher elevations that were reduced would be thinner, and the lower elevations that might be elevated would be thicker, creating inconsistent surfaces, agronomically and from a playability point of view.

News:

George Pazin

david h. carroll

TEPaul

Dan Kelly

david h. carroll

TEPaul

david h. carroll

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

George Pazin

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Dick Kirkpatrick

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

George Pazin

Mark_Fine

TEPaul

Mark_Fine

Dick Kirkpatrick

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

Dan Kelly

Patrick_Mucci

An Error Has Occurred!