What is the right speed?

[Mark_Fine]

We may not want to admit it but
many putting greens don’t come alive until they roll at a certain speed!


Let’s face it, contour in early putting greens was primarily “found or added” for drainage purposes. You didn’t build or locate a green in a hollow especially on marginally draining soils for just this reason. No one wanted water puddling up on greens so they had to build or find locations so it would move it off the edges. A side benefit of the contour was more interesting putting surfaces and hole locations. 


But many greens really don’t show their interest or the subtleties of their design until they get to a certain speed.  A green rolling at 7 or 8, even one with some contour, might be relatively boring, but when it gets to 10 or 11 all of a sudden those five to ten footers that were relatively straight now have some interest and break to them. 


No question green speeds can get over the top but there is a number for many greens where a smooth and fast rolling green really starts to accentuate the contours and interest that the architect found or designed into the putting surface.


Comments?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Actually Mark, the earliest putting greens were indeed built in hollows for irrigation reasons rather than drainage reasons (none on marginal soil right enough). The Golden Age designers started moving them on to high points.


To answer your question though, every design has an optimal speed for which to bring the contours and borrows alive. I agree with that. However, it could be anywhere between about 7 and 12 on the stimp depending on the course or even the individual hole. The design comes first. The speed of the putting green should be a reaction to the design.

[Ken Moum]

You are correct, of course.  And you've alluded to the problem...finding that speed in today's green speed arms race. Also, there's the issue of who is playing the course.


I have actually been think about this in the last couple of weeks because I played St. Andrews Balgove and Strathtyrum, Leven Links, Anstruther, Nairn Dunbar and Duff House Royal.  I can't imagine courses with more widely varied greens than Balgove and Duff House.


One aimed at serving less-skilled or weaker players, the other being a supposedly unaltered set of MacKenzie greens.


Duff House ain't Sitwell Park but I glad my wife and I made the trek from Nairn over there because the greens are very cool.  At wild green speeds they'd be no fun for most players, to be honest, they could have been a touch faster the day we were there, but not much, especially for daily member play.


At the other end, Balgove greens are VERY flat.  And they aren't all that fast.  Again consider the audience.


So, the question is, "Who decides, and on what basis?"

[Craig Sweet]

deciding how fast a green is going to roll is not a simple process based on any one factor.   Weather, time of year, amount of play, fertility, pace of play....and many other factors...

[Mark_Fine]

Good comments everyone. 


Ally,
How early are you talking about when you say “the earliest putting greens”? We both know the concept of “putting greens” evolved as there were none to start, just a hole in the ground which golfers used to extract sand and dirt to build a tee right next to the hole for their next shot. Also I don’t recall the greens at The Old Course being located in hollows.  Didn’t some of the early putting greens originate there?  Maybe I am mistaken.


I do know that contour in putting greens was added or found for drainage reasons (one of the big reasons you see for example back to front slope in old greens), not only for visibility but mainly for drainage.  Ross was one of the first to putt drainage tile in some of his more difficult greens (difficult from an agronomy standpoint). 


But anyway, getting the right speed is a very subjective exercise both from a playability and interest perspective as well as from a maintenance one.  We often talk about older classic greens, many which have severe contours, getting too fast.  But in the same breath we also talk about how these same older courses are now defended by their greens.  It is those contours and the new higher green speeds that accentuate them that are a big part of that defense. 

[jeffwarne]

Unless every green is designed with exactly the same contours and exact same pins chosen, there is no one "correct" speed.


In my experience, greens that can shine at a lower stimp number require far more various skills than greens that need 13-14 to shine.(of course a classic unaltered Golden Age contoured green running at 14 gets crazy and the good pins are unavailable)


Example, a green with tons of slope that is low stimp enough that there is risk of leaving a downhill putt short,leaving another terrifying putt, is far more challenging than a green so fast one must merely set it in motion , knowing that the green design and pin location have been selected so that it is possible to stop it near the hole, but virtually impossible to leave it short(i.e. one that the super and architect know they won't get yelled at about)


Turn around and putt the same putt back up the hill on that same low stimp and more solid contact and more judgement/skill are required.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Four Streams' greens do not come alive until they run about 12. At slower speeds, they just do not break much. At 12, they become more interesting.


Ballyhack, on the other hand, needs greens that run below 12. There is so much slope that I like them about 10.


I played a course on Long Island that ran at 14. They might have been the quickest greens I ever played. At that speed, they become exciting.

[Jim Hoak]

Miniature golf greens are often "alive" and "interesting."  But they aren't real golf!
Too many modern greens approach the "cute" and "fun" nature of miniature golf.  I think they have often gone too far.

[Mark_Fine]

Totally agree about no “correct” speed. Every green is different.  What is interesting (someone tell me otherwise) is most architects generally have a good idea at what speed they would like to see on their greens.  Classic course architects were likely the same knowing and expecting their greens would be rolling at 5 or 6 or 7, yet now these same greens really seem to come alive (this is subjective) at 10 or 11 or even 12.  Not sure they could have envisioned that doubling of speed??  And yes, green speeds can get over the top to where too many good hole locations are lost due to excessive speeds. 

Also some speeds are unsustainable from a cost/maintenance standpoint.  It is a tough question - what is the right or ideal speed for a set of greens?  Maybe that is why so many clubs struggle with it.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I’ve always seen green speeds as a function of personality and slope (one-directional contour). I agree that speed brings some greens to life, but there are also benefits to much slower greens, like the lost art of reading the grain.


I also think the main beneficiary of fast greens is the advanced player, but I certainly understand that most folks in this forum tend to prefer, for good reason, architectural features that asymmetrically reward the skilled player over the higher handicapper.


I always prefer features that leave more optionality, so faster greens aren’t high on my priority list, as they tend to leave only one route to the hole.

[Peter Flory]

One consequence of more subtle greens at faster speeds is that it makes reads much less obvious.  Slow greens with more extreme slopes (think Travis greens) were pretty easy to read in terms of which way the putt would break.  It was just a matter of matching the speed and break, which doesn't require a ton of analysis. 


I wonder if tournament play would move along faster if the greens weren't so subtle. 


Another thing that I notice when I watch old footage is how much easier the chipping used to be.  Players could drive shots in with lower loft and the ball would decelerate quickly. 


Probably the best example of the old style is on some par 3 courses when they leave the greens a bit long (Sand Box, etc).  As long as the greens are smooth and firm, it is really a fun style.


Spring Valley in WI is a good example too.  They are incredibly slopey and probably average an 8 on the stimp throughout a lot of the season. 

[Thomas Dai]

Speed for who?
Elite players, very good players, good players or others even hackers and beginners and those in between?
The average hcp for a males is circa 15 and for women it’s circa 30 or thereabouts.
Are players of this calibre let alone those who aren’t so proficient genuinely capable of putting on quick or quickish greens?
Based on how many 3 and 4 putts I see average and above handicappers take I’d suggest that if anything green speeds are excessive and should be less.
Better players can putt and putt well on slow greens. So can lessor players. But lessor players generally can’t putt well or even half-decently on faster greens. The more so if there’s a decent wind blowing.
And then there’s the expense of maintaining greens at quicker speeds and expense means higher greenfees and subscriptions.
Plus the more 3 and 4 putts there are the slower the pace of play gets and it’s already too damn slow most of the time.
And as to break and contour, it’s often the most subtle, flat looking greens where discerning the break (if any) is most difficult.
Trueness of roll is more important than speed.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
Good points.  The right speed can depend on who is playing.  It is just another complication to deal with and not an easy one as who do you set it up for?  Many clubs (mine included) set up their big tournaments such as our member guest to roll at “tournament speeds”.  The variation in handicap of the players in that tournament is probably 40 strokes!!  Same goes for our member member events. 


As far as trueness of roll, practice putting 10 foot putts on a shag carpet. How true is the roll?  Furthermore, even if you can get a green that is stimping at 7 to roll true, as I said earlier, a ten foot putt at that speed can be very different in break from a ten foot putt when that green is rolling at 10 or 11. 


I am NOT an advocate for overly fast greens.  The game is hard enough.  However, I am just making a point (probably obvious to most) that greens can and do play very differently as the speed of the greens changes. 


My general advice when consulting with a club is to error on the side of slower vs faster and it is usually justified based on hole locations and internal contour, etc.  It is always a controversial subject with golfers/members. 

[Craig Sweet]

I always find discussions of green speed to be good comedy.  Mostly, when green speeds are being tossed around, someone is lying. It might be an arrogant member bragging about his course, or the Super lying to appease their greens committee...


The right speed is easy...whatever makes it fun, but not mind numbing ridiculous. When it's that bad, when it's over the top, someone screwed up.

[cary lichtenstein]

When the old classic architects designed courses for 7 or 8, they did not mean them to be 11 or 12. Maybe they thought that was not intented?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I always think and design for 10 on the stimp but with elastic that they can go to 12.


If you are designing greens (and complexes) then they dont really need much thought if the club wants greens faster, they just need to be flat.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Stimpmeter readings are adjustable in most cases with height of cut, dependent on the grass type.


Micah Woods has some interesting research and graphs comparing grass types and their stimpmeter readings.
He also makes comparisons of the grass types and the amount of work compared to maintain them.


Not surprisingly the high stimpmeter grass types also required a lot more work to maintain.

[Mark_Fine]

Craig,
Not sure I could give your answer “whatever makes them fun” to a golf club asking me this question    What is fun is very very subjective.  Many of the members at Oakmont for example think 15 on the stimp is fun (some think it is too slow as they can get them faster than that).  Many golfers at public courses want the greens as fast as possible even though they really can’t handle much above 8 without routine 3 and 4 putting. But they think fast and smooth greens are fun. 


I know there is no right answer, but I do feel that the interest and design aspects of greens can vary dramatically sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse depending on their speed.  Are the golden age architects smiling or cringing as they look down and see their old greens rolling at 13 

[Carl Rogers]

What greens speed should Sweeten's Cove be?

[Mark_Fine]

Carl,
Whatever speed makes it fun 

[Craig Sweet]

Mark, "whatever makes them fun" is no more subjective than anything posted here.  Most public course players have no idea how fast the greens are.  They can guess all they want.  Most private course players that like fast greens, think the greens are faster than they actually are.


I played in the State Am at Old Works with an Old Works regular....He rolled a putt on #1 about 8ft past the hole and said "wow! these greens are FAST! " and then he said "wow...they are usually about 12-12 1/2".    LOL....typical green speed at OW is 9.5-10.5  Old Works mows with a tri plex and then rolls...

[Tom_Doak]

The problem with designing a flatter green for higher speeds is that you are then required to always have higher speeds or it's boring.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I believe it was Steve Curry who long ago posted an inciteful example of green speed management, and i think it was something like identifying the greens with the most pitch and mowing them as low as possible without reaching a level of stupidity, or a level that adds $$$ to the maintenance budget.

I think we reached this sweet spot over the past two seasons. We are public, and our new super has ours as fast as is feasible (up about 3' from years past), based on those that are the most wicked. Folks love that, but they are just as  pleased with the smoothness of the surface, and the realization that these new elements require that they be more aware of the hole location on their approach shots.   

[Mark_Fine]

I agree about building flatter greens requires higher speeds or it can be boring.  Part of this discussion around speed comes back to how important a role should the greens/putting be in the game of golf?  Obviously greens and putting have evolved to be one of if not the most important aspect of the game.  Not sure if that is good or bad 


I played a Ross course yesterday where I helped prepare a Master Plan several years ago.  I love the greens and they are now all restored back to the edges of their fillpads.  They look great.  They rolled true and were much faster than Ross would have ever dreamed they could be.  However, had they been a couple feet faster, they would have displayed a whole nother level of complexity.  Some golfers, regardless of skill level, would love this and some would not.  Goes back to one’s definition of fun. 

[David Wuthrich]

Each course is different and therefore the green speeds should be different from course to course to make them fun and interesting.  There is no one set speed that is the correct speed.  The speed should be left up to the super instead of the greens committee.  They know best what speed to have the greens in order for it to play the way the architect designed it, or at least they better!!!