The 4th Refreshing DisConvention

[V. Kmetz]

So in the last months, I've made some posts and new threads regarding three (3) of the items that I think, with minimal hurt (AND minding that the practical compass of GCA is pointing towards the sustainable and viable in our current era) could refresh the practice in light of the many challenges, concerns -- but opportunities -- that it faces.


To recap they are:
1. Removing individual hole par designation
2. To embrace a greater frequency of holes in the 250 - 290 yd range (scant few now).
3. To see more instances of the sub-95 yd hole.


And now for the final piece I've been thinking about:


4. Non uniform green speeds throughout the 18 holes...instead, three or four different speeds matched to the design of particular contours, the nature of the hole, topographical/agronomical green site conditions...

• A 140 yard in a shady nook with wild "Stoke Poges" contours and medium size?... It's grassed and cut at 6.5 - 7.5
• A 400 yard dogleg in a meadow with a plainer larger surface that runs away from play?  ... 9.5 - 10.5
• An uphill semi blind 320 yarder with its flat surface in the sun all day?... blazing fast...11.5 - 13...

And so on... whereby the player will have to exercise increased judgment, more feel, more awareness of what approaches, chips, pitches, putts and bunker blasts are correct for what they are trying to achieve.
At the slower end, I think this approach would allow more dynamic, amusing greens to be made, slopes that can't be countenanced at high-end/championship speeds.
On the faster end, I think a blazing, dangerous putt can be more countenanced when its on a flatter, bigger surface.


So roast away, but the only critique I'll snuff now is that it can't be done maintenance wise; I've spent my adult life at a golf course and I know how maintenance is performed.

[Tom_Doak]

Deliberately screwing around with variable green speeds seems pointless to me.


But you could just quit measuring them and let nature take its course.

[V. Kmetz]

Deliberately screwing around with variable green speeds seems pointless to me.

But you could just quit measuring them and let nature take its course.

I don't want to draw you in if its pointless in your first take; but one point I see is that it will increase the value of putting and close chipping as honest judgement shots and less robotic shoulder movements.  I think players like a good bash.


Wouldn't a reasonable slower speed allow for bolder contours and more green interest on a greater number of holes TD? I thought having bolder contours was a happy thing for you?


I don't measure them, I experience(d) them. I've heard/seen very few definitive green speed sin all my 40 years, I surmised and saw and was either delighted or disappointed that it was way too fast to define skill and too slow to elicit challenge out of interesting sites...sometimes perfectly neutral.

[Mark Mammel]

I think the question of variable green speed is interesting. If it is in the sense of playing the course as terrain dictates, especially if a classic designed in an era when stimp was still someone's nightmare, sure. But here are my concerns: if this involves mowing different greens at different heights, this seems to really be artificial rather than interesting. On the other hand, when greens on a course have lots of movement, mowing at the same height will still result in some greens playing faster than others, because of the fall of the terrain. This makes me think of Askernish, where minimal green maintenance is done and the grass is long compared to most courses today. But as nature dictates, some greens are faster and it's a challenge to figure out. But as a general rule if different greens on a course are specifically cut to produce different speeds it both makes it impossible for the player to figure out what a shot will do and artificially alters the design. IF I'm missing something let me know- seriously.

[Thomas Dai]

You have indeed raised some interesting threads recently VK. It can be good to think outside the box a bit even if you ultimately still end up staying inside it!
As to this thread, a couple of initial comments -
1) Variable green speeds could be achieved by not cutting the greens every day.
2) Less trees/brush should result in greater wind effect on putts and thus more variety in speed.
atb

[Joe Hancock]

We used to have variable speeds within each green; it was commonly referred to as “grain”. Then, we discovered how to eliminate that condition, not realizing that we also took away an inherent mental skill in putting. Ask Ben Crenshaw if he felt he had an advantage over his opponents by having the ability to properly identify, and adjust for, grain.


Giving all golfers the same mental ability has diluted the essence of the game.

[Craig Sweet]

You have variable green speeds now...Perhaps in the hour after being mowed, or rolled. there is some consistancy but that is it.

[Ronald Montesano]

Would the variable green speeds be posted on the daily pin sheet? Nothing precise, beyond 1=Fast 2=medium fast 3=medium 4=medium slow.


I would like that on certain, topographically-seductive courses.

[Joe Hancock]

Would the variable green speeds be posted on the daily pin sheet? Nothing precise, beyond 1=Fast 2=medium fast 3=medium 4=medium slow.


I would like that on certain, topographically-seductive courses.

What daily pin sheet? Another unnecessary piece of information that dilutes the senses, levels the intellectual playing field, and ultimately dumbs down the game.

[V. Kmetz]

You have variable green speeds now...Perhaps in the hour after being mowed, or rolled. there is some consistancy but that is it.

I don't dispute that CS. My meaning is that:


1. All would start from a different speed... three or four general types
2. With healthy variance between the slowest type of those three or four "morning cuts", to the fastest. (6.5 - 12.5)
3. I do not know if there is a scientific establishment, but perhaps greens cut slower (morning 6.5) grow more (and get nearer 5.5) than do greens cut faster (11.5), who might not go below 11... either way with #1 & #2, its folded into my program; but the possible percentage rate that slow and fast ones grow is an added bonus, no matter what. For even if its factor is neutral, a course's strength in its greens will still expose the thing I'm looking for (greenside play and putting more examining of a players sight judgement and variety of shot approaches) as the all greens grow up across the day from those original three or four morning cut/speeds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

vk,


And now for the final piece I've been thinking about:[/size]4. Non uniform green speeds throughout the 18 holes...instead, three or four different speeds matched to the design of particular contours, the nature of the hole, topographical/agronomical green site conditions...And so on... whereby the player will have to exercise increased judgment, more feel,[/b] more awareness of what approaches, chips, pitches, putts and bunker blasts are correct for what they are trying to achieve.[/size][/font][/size]As mentioned, for many places, its a bit of a struggle to try to maintain consistency, and probably just as much to maintain inconsistency, LOL.  My biggest problem with the idea is that if every green is different, how can they judge or feel what they need to do?  At least, consistent greens allow some sort of strategic thinking on the shot before, which is higher level thinking than reacting to a shot right in front of you. [/font]

[V. Kmetz]

Would the variable green speeds be posted on the daily pin sheet? Nothing precise, beyond 1=Fast 2=medium fast 3=medium 4=medium slow.

I would like that on certain, topographically-seductive courses.

I don't see a problem with that; I'm not sure its necessary beyond first time/unaccompanied play, but I kind of like it.  Just like my removal of par, I'm not resisting any idea that welcomes/informs the player to the different paradigm...and has a grounding in the previous one. Truth be told, the only time I see a green speed posted at the clubs I have served is when there is high acrimony among members that the the greens are too this or not enough that.  And at private clubs, pin sheets themselves are only issued for championship/tournaments.

What daily pin sheet? Another unnecessary piece of information that dilutes the senses, levels the intellectual playing field, and ultimately dumbs down the game.

I understand this Joe, and even chorus some individual pieces of the philosophy behind it (...the dumbing down of the game for what is thought to be economic participation, the needless influence of what elite money players do on TV, slower play, etc.


But I also acknowledge in my shared discontents, that there is attractive intellectual fun for golfers of all stripes to figure out pin positions, gain insight on the nuances of a green they play, and with the grids/icons and math, even start to see the course as an architect does (a growth phase I think all regular golfers come to) all sorts of inchoate, "intellectual" puzzles and thoughts...plus that "promise" that there's a way to figure it, here's another clue, a treasure map.


It makes me think that when all these board threads ask and answer "What's Good for the Game?," it's usually a Trojan horse for what's "bad for the game" or "I don't like this about the game, a club, a course, a hole, a shot"  As the years go by, I ask myself that question repeatedly: "What's the 'health' of the game?"


My answer? The health of the game is that many and more people play it and that it takes as on as many as it can while rebuffing as few as it can. People playing it will make more people to serve it, build it, earn at it...architects will have jobs to perform, kids will have more ranges to pick, more loops to make, more young men and women pros to develop, communities will not see it as a unnecessary or contentious, damaging projects for white males, people will find it "unhassling to play" or "walk on eggshells" around it. I want your local golf environment to enjoy the same civic feeling that the best parks, libraries, hockey rinks, beaches and center greens do...a place where as many as possible recreate, as easily and as routinely as is possible.


That gets far afield from the big and small GCA issues we discuss, but my emerging attitude, is to say yes to things that are innocuous, but often still superfluous, ornaments to the game and might still provide a combination of needs and interests among the mass that doesn't yet play to provide this health I'm speaking of.


Music, pin sheets, lasers, carts, paths, tee benches, ball washers, halfway house pre-orders, hats on backwards, pull carts,  they are OK with me; in a perfect health of the game (as I am seeing it), there would be places to exercise or eschew a broad range of such ornaments.


The health/good/custody of the WHOLE game is not in the preamble to the 147; that is a narrow, narrow world view. The Game is not a child or a piece of property; it needs no landlord or parent, it's health and goodness is about how many people are engaged with it to their life-profit. I suppose the GCA summation is that fresh interesting, amusing, ready, accessible design/environment that doesn't dictate or unduly penalize will only increase that health and that potential profit.


When the homely 9 holers are filled again and you have to navigate the weekday evening leagues among local spots, as was the case 30 years ago and before, the game will have restored some health, and some goodness will have been done for it.

[V. Kmetz]

We used to have variable speeds within each green; it was commonly referred to as “grain”. Then, we discovered how to eliminate that condition, not realizing that we also took away an inherent mental skill in putting. Ask Ben Crenshaw if he felt he had an advantage over his opponents by having the ability to properly identify, and adjust for, grain.

Giving all golfers the same mental ability has diluted the essence of the game.

I think you're more correct than you know about grain... and even though agronomical/maintenance science can produce 18 billiard smooth surfaces, grain STILL is a massive factor, even on the fastest cut bent in these parts. 


Every caddie and just about every player at the WF courses know that the grass for 34/36 greens on the property grow to WSW (11th W green/12th W Tee if you can reference) ... that IN CONCERT WITH THE PARTICULARS OF THAT GREEN the putts will be faster, break a touch more going WSW...and conversely a touch slower, a touch less break going away from that direction. 


Its f'n diabolical and one of the many reasons those greens are so special+.  Such is the case, that one of the true vagaries of green reading the WF courses is that certain putts (almost always around the concave saddles) will break the opposite way depending on your chosen speed.... Firmer, regular speed?...split left edge.... feather-three revolutions?... cup and half outside right.

[V. Kmetz]

As mentioned, for many places, its a bit of a struggle to try to maintain consistency, and probably just as much to maintain inconsistency, LOL.  My biggest problem with the idea is that if every green is different, how can they judge or feel what they need to do?  At least, consistent greens allow some sort of strategic thinking on the shot before, which is higher level thinking than reacting to a shot right in front of you.

You might be right; it may be disconcerting on that first play, and if you're skilled enough to think about and extract value out of slow or fast green play on your approach, perhaps moreso (so maybe RM;s idea of a 1st tee posting is in order). Also, watching your group play will potentially give some of that information

But I'm not with you on the "higher level of thinking" that goes into it, I think the more minute, greenside play/in front of you is what will endure as a figuration, and now that you're upclose to the surface and can observe it, feel it underfoot, perhaps see other shots prior to your own and of course, one's own imperfect sense of it combined with our already imperfect skills.. ay there's the rub.

[Kalen Braley]

I think its certainly an interesting idea.  In practical terms, players are already faced with these kinds of variable things WITHIN a single round:

- Wind - Varying wind speeds, gusts, calm periods.
- Moisture/Dryness - Some places are going to be wetter than others based on amount of sun hits, the time of day, or even starting a round in dry conditions and rain falls halfway in.
- Terrain - Making on the fly distance calculations for an uphill shot and then perhaps downhill on the very next one.
- Stance - Even vs downhill vs sidehill variations.
- Lies -  Lies in the fairway, sitting up or down, hardpan, in divots, bunkers, and all manner of lies in the rough or unmaintained areas.

So yes, this variability certainly already exists, doesn't seem a foreign idea at all to have varying green heights as well.

[ward peyronnin]

Variable green speeds are a hypothetical flight of fancy.
I hate when the practice  putting green is significantly different from the playing surface. I also hate it when supers for club events like member guests or club championships present "normal" green speeds for practice rounds and then amp up and roll and cut for the tourney.
But the sheer impracticality motivated the opening statement. How many additional steps,mowers, staff ($$$) would have to be introduced and additional time to prepare the course. And to be fair to the player a practice green should be available to develop judgement on how the ball would roll on that grass for each height and additional grain and more fiddling about with greenkeeping duties.

Maybe you could do a biz plan for a nine hole track and let us know if it supports the concept.

[V. Kmetz]

Variable green speeds are a hypothetical flight of fancy.
I hate when the practice  putting green is significantly different from the playing surface. I also hate it when supers for club events like member guests or club championships present "normal" green speeds for practice rounds and then amp up and roll and cut for the tourney.
But the sheer impracticality motivated the opening statement. How many additional steps,mowers, staff ($$$) would have to be introduced and additional time to prepare the course. And to be fair to the player a practice green should be available to develop judgement on how the ball would roll on that grass for each height and additional grain and more fiddling about with greenkeeping duties.

Maybe you could do a biz plan for a nine hole track and let us know if it supports the concept.

I'm posting to discuss it, but to answer your (rhetorical?) question(s):
Additional steps, mowers? None, but the same "step" (setting the mower height) that is used to set any of the 3-4 green mowers currently in use any morning.


Additional staff? None Now the 3-5 greens mowers any course deploys any morning just go out to their assignments as usual, after the mower has been set.


And yes, referencing an earlier post, you're that guy who causes the stimp to be posted.

[Joe Hancock]

Variable green speeds are a hypothetical flight of fancy.
I hate when the practice  putting green is significantly different from the playing surface. I also hate it when supers for club events like member guests or club championships present "normal" green speeds for practice rounds and then amp up and roll and cut for the tourney.
But the sheer impracticality motivated the opening statement. How many additional steps,mowers, staff ($$$) would have to be introduced and additional time to prepare the course. And to be fair to the player a practice green should be available to develop judgement on how the ball would roll on that grass for each height and additional grain and more fiddling about with greenkeeping duties.

Maybe you could do a biz plan for a nine hole track and let us know if it supports the concept.

I'm posting to discuss it, but to answer your (rhetorical?) question(s):
Additional steps, mowers? None, but the same "step" (setting the mower height) that is used to set any of the 3-4 green mowers currently in use any morning.


Additional staff? None Now the 3-5 greens mowers any course deploys any morning just go out to their assignments as usual, after the mower has been set.


And yes, referencing an earlier post, you're that guy who causes the stimp to be posted.

In the real world of golf course set up, there are far more courses (I would assume) that utilize one, maybe two triplex greens mowers to mow all 18 (or 19) greens than there is courses that have the luxury of sending 3-5 different mower setups out each day.


If less uniformity, more variability is the goal, just do less grooming. Each greensite will have its own circumstance (shade, sun, breeze, humidity, etc.) that will affect growth habits.

[ward peyronnin]

vk,


And now for the final piece I've been thinking about:4. Non uniform green speeds throughout the 18 holes...instead, three or four different speeds matched to the design of particular contours, the nature of the hole, topographical/agronomical green site conditions...And so on... whereby the player will have to exercise increased judgment, more feel, more awareness of what approaches, chips, pitches, putts and bunker blasts are correct for what they are trying to achieve.As mentioned, for many places, its a bit of a struggle to try to maintain consistency, and probably just as much to maintain inconsistency, LOL.  My biggest problem with the idea is that if every green is different, how can they judge or feel what they need to do?  At least, consistent greens allow some sort of strategic thinking on the shot before, which is higher level thinking than reacting to a shot right in front of you.

Rarely pay attention to stimp posted or otherwise. Been playing for 60 years and am much more a feel player. Never use a range finder either. We had to play relying on judgement as pointed out above to refute your uninformed assessment of my game.Instead of forcing everyone else to play your concept and increase maintenance I have a suggestion. Just take a few tokes off a fast eddie and voila baked in variability cause if you havent tried that shit lately you wouldnt believe it

[Edward Glidewell]

I'd be concerned that variable green speeds would have a tremendous detrimental effect on pace of play. Some people already take forever on the greens -- I can't imagine how much longer they'd take if they were trying to figure out the speed of each individual green.

[Mark Kiely]

Are we talking a private course?


Seems to me the only way this could really be enjoyed is by people who play that course repeatedly, at which point it really just becomes another aspect of local/course knowledge.


For first timers or people who don't play the course on a regular basis, it would likely just be interpreted as poor maintenance.

[V. Kmetz]

Are we talking a private course?
I think at first, yes, such a pursuit would more readily be deployed by 1) private clubs as part of renovation and 2) new-builds.     Public O-Os and munis, in my experience, truly seek only to maintain/slightly enhance fair playing conditions; they don't have access/encounter barriers to the smoother channels of innovation that the relative wealth of private clubs do.

And another matter is that the most humble of golf operations already have greens in a lower-register (a few local haunts are about 6.0 - 7) and may have just 1 or 2 people, so great variance exists.

Seems to me the only way this could really be enjoyed is by people who play that course repeatedly, at which point it really just becomes another aspect of local/course knowledge.


You may be right; however, we vary on the word/phrase "just becomes"... I think the adorning of unique, local knowledge in/for a course is a good thing, especially FOR the people who patronize it frequently.


For first timers or people who don't play the course on a regular basis, it would likely just be interpreted as poor maintenance.
If so, then it represents an adjunct I wouldn't mind discussing... the difference between the speed of greens and their "quality"... there is quite a difference between a public course green that runs at a beautiful, smooth 7 and a private club green running at a choppy, swirly 10.5. I think I could name a dozen well known Westchester courses of fair or better reputation who have elicited all the maintenance honorifics of "country club greens," while slower, but smoother and more fun greens down the street are called shit by the same reviewer... my point, to yours, is that the "interpretations" of the golfer can vary to start with; therefore I wouldn't be concerned with how the speed varies, but how the actual specific maintenance of that green for fair rolling conditions, at any of the speeds, really is.

[Tim Martin]

Vin-Though I haven’t played in a long time I always thought Stanwich was crazy with their green speeds. I reference it because it’s one in your area and that you are familiar with. Finally you have been producing some thought provoking threads. Well played!

[V. Kmetz]

Vin-Though I haven’t played in a long time I always thought Stanwich was crazy with their green speeds. I reference it because it’s one in your area and that you are familiar with. Finally you have been producing some thought provoking threads. Well played!

Tim, you "get" me, as Stanwich was, between 1990 - 2005, one of my most frequent haunts as a local tourney caddie and recreational player...to me they are an original paradigm of the GCA dysfunction regarding green speeds... they undertook (in the early 00s) an entire regrassing/USGA-ifying of all 18 surfaces...


They knew they had a speed problem, many of those deliciously contoured, varied green sites could not countenance the speeds (everyday 11.5 + and higher for tournaments) and things could indeed get like DJ's vexations at Oakmont (#5?)... But the path they followed (whether to acquire the MidAm and take a greater place in USGA's D-league lineup) was in my express judgement, wrong... destructive of the quality of those greens...


In essence, they softened many many contours...just so they could maintain the high speeds, when all they had to do was allow the mower heights to come up a 1/16th or 3/32nds....


I'm not saying it does not remain a fine, testing, course with a great deal of green site interest (one of the more enjoyable yet "challenging" "hard" courses I've ever played), it's just that they (imo) spent a lot of loot to keep faster greens at the expense of their + interest....the course was out of commission for a time and the inchoate polling of the many I know who play and work there is that the course is less than it was

[Sean_A]

I am not keen on the idea beyond what is dictated by weather and seasons. I don't like the idea of playing a hole one day and it's the fastest on the course when the next day its the slowest, then the next day its in the middle of the pack. Seems like crazy golf to me. Its especially a disheartening idea when what I want is close to maximum firmness reasonable for the climate and location. Firmness does provide a path to speed to a certain degree. Seems a shame to waste the good work of a super and archie who design and present a course which can roll at 9 to provide fun and challenge without placing undue or expensive strain on the grass only to cut them all over the park. Which presumably also means the runups will be variable. You want to eliminate the last vestige of the ground game? This is a great way to do it.

Ciao