Fast greens equals slow play

[Niall C]

100 years ago putting was not nearly as an important aspect of the game as compared to what it is today.

Mark


I'm not sure that Willie Park would agree if he were still alive. Or indeed Ben Hogan who wanted larger holes to reduce the importance of putting. I'd be interested to hear your take why putting is much more important now.


Niall


edit: just read bottom of first page which makes me wonder even more why you think putting is much more important now.

[Mark_Fine]

Niall,
As I said in a later post, I misspoke and should have said, 100 years ago, some architects felt putting should not be as important an aspect of the game compared to other strokes. 


My personal feeling is that putting has become even more important than it once was because there is sooooo much emphasis today on the quality (condition/perfection,speed,…) of the greens.  Golfers like Tiger for example didn’t want to play at courses like Pebble Beach because of the “bumpy” greens.  If putting wasn’t so important today, why would he care?  The best players like him should be able to overcome it, right? 

[Adrian_Stiff]

YES. Anything that makes it easier to take multiple putts will add time, so slopes would be another.


It becomes a balance of playing in a flat field versus interest versus time.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He and others also wanted larger holes and pins located in less demanding locations on greens so putting would be less important.

It's already the least important.

We can agree to disagree about how important putting is today.

No, we can't, because you're close to arguing that 2+2=5. You're "disagreeing" not with an opinion here…

Quoting Ben Hogan doesn't do anything when we have much more of an understanding of how and why golfers score than he did.

A lot of fuzzy math in this thread.

Not really, no. There's the quotes from old golfers and architects, and then there's the modern understanding and knowledge of the actual math behind scoring.

Putting doesn't matter... Pay no attention to Scottie Scheffler continuing to not win. He's just gotta work a little harder on those approaches from 175-225 yards I guess.

Nobody's said that. You will note, however, that Scottie remains the #2 player in the DataGolf rankings and the #1 player in the OWGR despite being 150th in SG:P this year.




This doesn't really appear to be on topic, though, so the above replies are short, and there are probably other better topics where some of y'all can "disagree" with factual matters. 

[Charlie Goerges]

Least important doesn't mean not important.


Also, thank goodness Hogan wasn't the Tzar of golf, that game (where greens were funnels) would be a much worse game.




On-topic, I'd rather a happy medium for speed but more interesting greens. I'm quasi-ashamed to admit that pace of play doesn't bother me much. I'm way more affected by perceived pace as was mentioned by Matt.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Least important doesn't mean not important.

Nobody's saying it's not important. But it's tough for it to be "too important" when it's the least important of the four categories. And not by only a little.

On-topic, I'd rather a happy medium for speed but more interesting greens. I'm quasi-ashamed to admit that pace of play doesn't bother me much. I'm way more affected by perceived pace as was mentioned by Matt.

I play in the northeast, and we have a lot of greens that were built in the 20s to the 60s, when greens stamped at what I imagine is like 7, so they had to build contours. These days a lot of greens get softened a bit, if they haven't already through topdressing… Kahkwa here in Erie just had to soften the contours on 17 and 18 because they had only one or two hole locations (I haven't been out to look at those yet, but I hear they've got four to six now).

[Charlie Goerges]

Least important doesn't mean not important.

Nobody's saying it's not important. But it's tough for it to be "too important" when it's the least important of the four categories. And not by only a little. Yeah, that comment was more meant to simply say that something can be both the least important and still be important.

On-topic, I'd rather a happy medium for speed but more interesting greens. I'm quasi-ashamed to admit that pace of play doesn't bother me much. I'm way more affected by perceived pace as was mentioned by Matt.

I play in the northeast, and we have a lot of greens that were built in the 20s to the 60s, when greens stamped at what I imagine is like 7, so they had to build contours. These days a lot of greens get softened a bit, if they haven't already through topdressing… Kahkwa here in Erie just had to soften the contours on 17 and 18 because they had only one or two hole locations (I haven't been out to look at those yet, but I hear they've got four to six now).

In those situations I tend to think it would be better to slow the greens down rather than flatten them out. I could be wrong about that, but it's my gut instinct.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Least important doesn't mean not important.

Nobody's saying it's not important. But it's tough for it to be "too important" when it's the least important of the four categories. And not by only a little.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.


I agree that you have to strike at a level of proficiency to arrive on the green to make putting matter. However, once accomplished, it is ridiculous to say putting is the least important aspect of the game. I understand Mark Broadie, I understand shot link, I understand. The first question I ask someone who is putting poorly is where are you putting from? Real life experience tells us putting is where the game begins. Like of all of golf, it comes down to an individual basis. The statement that putting is the least important area of golf tells me you are speaking to a very small portion of players- and specifically those that are severely limited in their ability to strike a ball.


To diminish putting is to diminish scoring. To the individual, that might be the case; go ahead- go out: swing away, walk, be with friends, be alone, smell the roses; whatever you please.


If you wish to score, to play a complete game, you must putt well. You mentioned Scottie, who didn't hoist a major this year, and lost the Match Play in Texas because of his troubles on the green (despite hitting it like a God). He fiddled around with new putters, and practiced is tail off to be better on the greens. I doubt he would agree, for him personally, that putting is less important than driving the ball. If you are top 100 in the world, you are a very good putter- to use professionals as examples to defend an argument at large is not fair, for a variety of reasons.


What's more is putting is something most golfers can actually improve- and I assume that is what you teach with AimPoint, and why you likely believe in AimPoint. It is very, very hard to make adjustments in full swing technique after playing golf for an amount of time, especially in adult age. It is not very, very hard to make adjustments in speed control, and putting mechanics. 


What Every Shot Counts shows us or the apps that help understand better shot selection, is how you make putting matter. Sometimes it means being aggressive, sometimes it means being more conservative. For the challenged ball striker, for example, it may mean you find a way to keep the ball in play as you move down the fairway using more loft and less speed, and choose a shot closer to the green with a more predictable pattern, giving you your best chance to two putt. It may mean you push the ball as close to the green as possible to give yourself the chance to approach the green with a land angle and spin rate that gives you the greatest chance of achieving a proximity to the hole allowing for a one putt.


Jackie Burke reminds us they give the trophy on the green, not the tee box. But in the end putting is not more important than any other play, it's just not least important- it is equal, like all parts of golf.



To the original question-
When we play tournaments in the MET Section- when the greens are lightening and tons of slope with hard hole locations, almost always there is trouble with pace of play. If you are playing stroke play, I bet an expensive dinner that there is a direct relationship in green speeds and pace of play.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm also struggling with "putting is the least important thing", when the putter is the most used club in the bag for any given round whether it be pro or amateur. 

P.S.  If we're cherry picking players, I will counter Scottie S with Jordan Spieth who is mediocre tee to green, but already has a HOF career based on his top notch putting ability. 

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm also struggling with "putting is the least important thing", when the putter is the most used club in the bag for any given round whether it be pro or amateur. 

I don't completely understand it either, but I kind of figured that if one divided golf, like Hogan did, into putting and everything else, technically usually less than half of your shots will probably be putts. I don't know. Or maybe it's the fact that a terrible putt will generally never result in penalty shots, but full swings can?


I don't practice anything anymore, so it doesn't really affect me at this point.

[Jim Sherma]

When greens get real fast I wonder how many rounds get played where every putt is holed out. I know that a lot of groups don't putt out anyway and I've seen gimme lengths get longer and longer after a few early round three putts on real fast greens. I don't think anyone thinks a bunch of 40 putt rounds in a group is fun.

[Joe Zucker]

Joe, you obviously don't believe that those slopey greens from 100 years ago, built to roll at 8-9 and now rolling at 12, were ever meant to roll that fast?  Does that bother you? What do you think the original designer would say?

Jim, I agree many classic greens were never intended to roll so fast.  I wouldn't say it bothers me and at times I think the faster greens make the course more interesting.  Obviously, there are times where faster speeds make greens unplayable as well.  It's hard to imagine a green rolling at 8 ever scaring a good player in the modern age.  I'm not sure original designers could imagine how good modern short games are.  I have no idea if this is "better" as the discussion has now turned to the importance of putting, but it certainly is a different game now to a degree.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In those situations I tend to think it would be better to slow the greens down rather than flatten them out. I could be wrong about that, but it's my gut instinct.

Members don't want to have greens that stimp at 8 or 9.

I understand Mark Broadie, I understand shot link, I understand.

I don't think you do.  The rest of your post illustrates that.

I'm also struggling with "putting is the least important thing", when the putter is the most used club in the bag for any given round whether it be pro or amateur.

Pros average about nine tap-ins per round. Does that make those the most important shots they take? No. There's no "separation." They all make all of them (except Hale Irwin that one time).

P.S.  If we're cherry picking players, I will counter Scottie S with Jordan Spieth who is mediocre tee to green, but already has a HOF career based on his top notch putting ability.

Jordan Spieth:

• 33rd overall in SG:Total (0.710)

• 58th SG:OTT (0.197) - 28%

• 66th in SG:App (0.169) - 24%

• 24th in SG:ATG (0.258) - 36%

• 80th in SG:P (0.086) - 12%

It remains off-topic, so that's all I've got on this.

[Mark_Fine]

One of the reasons putting is so important is that there is NO way to recover from a bad putt.  A missed putt is a stroke lost.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One of the reasons putting is so important is that there is NO way to recover from a bad putt.  A missed putt is a stroke lost.

How do you recover from hitting a tee shot OB, exactly?

Gee whiz.

[Mark_Fine]

And how often do you hit it OB vs miss a putt?? 

Gee whiz 


You can hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway while I hit mine in the rough.  You hit a perfect second shot on to the green 10 feet from the hole and I hit my approach into a bunker.  I hit my bunker shot 20 feet from the hole and make the putt for a four.  You three putt and make five. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And how often do you hit it OB vs miss a putt??

You said "you can't recover from a bad putt" but now you seem to think every putt that misses is a "bad putt"? You are aware that PGA Tour average from 8' is ~50%, right? Are they all hitting "bad putts" and then putting themselves into "no recovery" positions? Or are they putting to the average when they make one 8' putt and miss the next one before tapping in?

You can hit a perfect drive down the middle of the fairway while I hit mine in the rough. You hit a perfect second shot on to the green 10 feet from the hole and I hit my approach into a bunker.  I hit my bunker shot 20 feet from the hole and make the putt for a four.  You three putt and make five.

And how often is that going to happen? If you repeat the shots until each player gets on the green, the first player (fairway, green to 10 feet) is going to wipe the floor with the other guy, on average. A match between those two players would be over, on average, by the 11th or 12th hole.

Putting has the least "Separation Value®" of the four categories. One-off made-up examples don't matter - the first guy mops the floor with the second guy over any reasonable number of holes and rounds. Like… he never loses over an 18-hole round.

If you have to play a round of 18 holes against a PGA Tour player, Mark, are you going to hit approach shots from 175 yards or are you going to putt against them? Those are your options. Average PGA Tour player… and you. You stand a chance putting. You stand no chance hitting 175-yard approach shots.


Here's an oldie but a goodie:

The PGA Tour announces that starting in 2025, due to space concerns in the world, it is becoming an all-putting tour. This means that every 72-hole event will take place on only putting greens and the only skill necessary to succeed is putting. Nothing else. There will be Q School, etc. to start it off (no status for anyone initially) and then the top 125 players will retain cards each year, etc. Just like they could for the current PGA Tour, the entire population of the world can practice and prepare and has the opportunity to make this new All Putting Tour.

The question is... how many current PGA Tour players will be on that new tour in 2025?

[Colin Sheehan]

Years of my life was spent watching threesomes of college golfers take forever to putt out. Slow play is a scourge in college golf, but they typically play at normal pace, if not fast, when they got to the tee or when they played approach shots or short game bunker shots, chips, pitches, etc. Occasionally they have some complicated shot that made them take time to scrutinize the options. But none of that compared with them lagging their first putts to NOT tap in range.

When greens get very fast, putts from a certain length (about 15 feet or more) rarely finish stone dead in medal play which requires the ball being marked and then closely reviewed for any perceptible break---extra tricky when greens are that fast. You can't just "bang it in" when, if you miss, it goes five feet past. Regular club golfers playing match play on the weekends don't worry about everything being holed out.

Not sure if I saw this earlier in the thread but when greens get really fast, they get flatter and at a certain point it's nearly impossible to the naked eye to see the break. You are looking at such subtle breaks it requires the extra time to get right.

[Mark_Fine]

Most better putters favor faster greens because it gives them an advantage.  Also ask any golfer who can’t putt what is the most important aspect of golf and see what they tell you.  If you can’t get the ball in the hole and three putt or more constantly the game is no fun.  Which club is used the most (probably at least twice as much if not much more) during a round of golf?  Which club is the one that is used almost 100% of the time to get the ball in the hole? 

Also what is deemed almost universally as the most important aspect of a good golf course - the greens!  Golfers don’t say, “Let’s go play XYZ Golf Club because they like the routing or because the rough is uniform or because the bunkers drain well or the rye grass fairways are nice,…  Golfers talk about the greens because that is where scoring takes place and if the greens are poor and they can’t putt well on them, they aren’t happy.  As such, like it or not, greens and putting are without question the most important aspects of golf these days. 

[Rob Marshall]

Most better putters favor faster greens because it gives them an advantage.  Also ask any golfer who can’t putt what is the most important aspect of golf and see what they tell you.  If you can’t get the ball in the hole and three putt or more constantly the game is no fun.  Which club is used the most (probably at least twice as much if not much more) during a round of golf?  Which club is the one that is used almost 100% of the time to get the ball in the hole? 

Also what is deemed almost universally as the most important aspect of a good golf course - the greens!  Golfers don’t say, “Let’s go play XYZ Golf Club because they like the routing or because the rough is uniform or because the bunkers drain well or the rye grass fairways are nice,…  Golfers talk about the greens because that is where scoring takes place and if the greens are poor and they can’t putt well on them, they aren’t happy.  As such, like it or not, greens and putting are without question the most important aspects of golf these days. 

The greens are probably the most important component of a course. Who wants to play a course with poor greens? If a course has great greens you can put up with a lot of other aspects of the course.


Funny how when you watch a tournament on Sat and Sunday the leaders all look to be pouring it in from everywhere.

[jeffwarne]

A lot of fuzzy math in this thread.


Putting doesn't matter... Pay no attention to Scottie Scheffler continuing to not win. He's just gotta work a little harder on those approaches from 175-225 yards I guess.


Also, any fool who seeks tee times on the courses with the slowest greens in my town, thinking fast greens=slow play, is gonna be real disappointed when he gets home in 8 hours.

Pure gold-I just spit out my coffee

[jeffwarne]

In those situations I tend to think it would be better to slow the greens down rather than flatten them out. I could be wrong about that, but it's my gut instinct.

Members don't want to have greens that stimp at 8 or 9.

Anecdotally often true(amongst those who voice their opinion), given the average golf intelligence of club golfers in general.
They see the better players comment, whine etc, about fast greens and feel they'll be labeled a hack unless they sign off on ever faster greens and ALL that that entails
Higher dues, slower play, more benign pins, flatter greens/renovations, higher costs, more playdisruptive maintenance.
But few are smart enough to tie the above together.


Expose them to interesting greens AND interesting pins running at 8-9 and they may surprise you if you ask those who HAVEN'T previously shared their opinion.


Beware "the tyrany of the minority".
The real scourge of golf.

[Jim Hoak]

Rob, you probably know this, but the pros are not making putts with the frequency you may think from the TV coverage.  A very large percent of the shots you see in a telecast are coming from a taped shot--often only a few seconds behind the actual shot, but still selected for the viewer.  They do not select missed 20-footers very often, but a made one makes the cut.  So you can be misled by the percent of made long putts you see.

[jeffwarne]

Rob, you probably know this, but the pros are not making putts with the frequency you may think from the TV coverage.  A very large percent of the shots you see in a telecast are coming from a taped shot--often only a few seconds behind the actual shot, but still selected for the viewer.  They do not select missed 20-footers very often, but a made one makes the cut.  So you can be misled by the percent of made long putts you see.

Exactly, you will never see someone 5 shots or more off the lead not named Tiger or Rory putt from 20 feet......and miss.
They used to use the words..."moments ago" now they just pass it off as live as you watch someone 8 shots back get cut to and pour in a 30 footer.
What sux is 2 things
1.You know the outcome
2. I hate watching ONLY putting, whuch you're stuck with because networks think we need a binary outcome on every shot(eitehr made or missed)

[Rob Marshall]

Rob, you probably know this, but the pros are not making putts with the frequency you may think from the TV coverage.  A very large percent of the shots you see in a telecast are coming from a taped shot--often only a few seconds behind the actual shot, but still selected for the viewer.  They do not select missed 20-footers very often, but a made one makes the cut.  So you can be misled by the percent of made long putts you see.

Correct, I was referring to recent wins by Glover and Hovland. They won and seemingly made everything down the stretch. Look at the bogie putt Glover made. I’d like to know how many feet of putts Hovland made in the last round of the tour championship. He made two or three longer putts on the back nine. My point was putting is pretty important to winning. How many guys win and were 75th in putting for the week.