or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Is the Pursuit of Faster Greens a Problem in Golf?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the Pursuit of Faster Greens a Problem in Golf? - Page 8

Poll Results: Are Faster Green Speeds a Problem? Please elaborate below.

 
  • 23% (13)
    Yes
  • 76% (43)
    No
56 Total Votes  
post #127 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

How many players did you watch before making the change? B-)


i dont know. seemed every time I was near those greens somebody was putting it down the approach. lol after watching this side show for a month I asked the gm if I could grow it in,

post #128 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post
 


i dont know. seemed every time I was near those greens somebody was putting it down the approach. lol after watching this side show for a month I asked the gm if I could grow it in,

 

Sound like you were really looking out for the golfers. :-)

 

We have a few holes like this around here. The "front" flag days are pretty miserable, if you care about your score.

post #129 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post


i dont know. seemed every time I was near those greens somebody was putting it down the approach. lol after watching this side show for a month I asked the gm if I could grow it in,
This may be slightly off subject, but do you think the concern about water use, and the brown is the new green movement will lead to higher mowing heights, and slower greens?
post #130 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

Sound like you were really looking out for the golfers. :-)

 

We have a few holes like this around here. The "front" flag days are pretty miserable, if you care about your score.


its a public course thats very hard. those 2 greens are funky still. main reason was pace of play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac6 View Post


This may be slightly off subject, but do you think the concern about water use, and the brown is the new green movement will lead to higher mowing heights, and slower greens?


I am guessing probably not. Usually when a course has some sort of water ban they have a order of what will be reduced. usually rough then fairways then tees then greens. and if it gets that bad i would hand water greens more. I really hope that brown is the new green takes off. the cost of keeping a course green is going through the roof. I also think a dry, off color course plays way better.

post #131 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post
 

 

Sound like you were really looking out for the golfers. :-)

 

We have a few holes like this around here. The "front" flag days are pretty miserable, if you care about your score.


its a public course thats very hard. those 2 greens are funky still. main reason was pace of play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac6 View Post


This may be slightly off subject, but do you think the concern about water use, and the brown is the new green movement will lead to higher mowing heights, and slower greens?


I am guessing probably not. Usually when a course has some sort of water ban they have a order of what will be reduced. usually rough then fairways then tees then greens. and if it gets that bad i would hand water greens more. I really hope that brown is the new green takes off. the cost of keeping a course green is going through the roof. I also think a dry, off color course plays way better.

 

I agree with this.  As one who has played more or less regularly since 1973, I've seen major changes to course maintenance and grooming during that time.  Every time I see someone gripe about having to play a shot from a bare spot, I just have bite my tongue to keep from making a sharp retort.  There are reasons, sometimes good ones, for a course to have some rough edges.  Sometimes it's money, sometimes its environmental, sometimes it's just what it is.  To piss and moan and whine about it is just a symptom of how spoiled so many golfers have become.  Then they rationalize it by saying that the pros wouldn't have to put up with such poor conditions.  

 

Wake up, everyone!  We aren't pros (at least the huge majority of us).  Our courses aren't making everything look perfect for TV.  The courses most of us play are on a tight budget, and they have a lot of things to accomplish while staying within the constraints of that budget.  It's very expensive to keep a green alive and maintain it at 11 or more on the Stimp.  It takes more water, and more one on one TLC during hot summer days.  That means paying someone to spray it down by hand during the middle of the day.  Buying or leasing machinery that does a more precise job of aerating, mowing, and generally more care to ensure the health of the turf.  Either fees go up to cover that, or the fees stay the same and the course is not quite as perfect as the more expensive one down the road.

 

One of the prime principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it.  Nothing is ever mentioned about "fairway" or "perfect" or "pristine".   Ground under repair is a designated condition, not just any rough spot you find your ball in.  Those who want to keep expenses down can look around for a course which doesn't cut the greens quite as close, doesn't water the fairways as heavily, but in the process they keep play more affordable.  And it's still golf.  In my opinion, it's a better, purer form of golf.

post #132 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I agree with this.  As one who has played more or less regularly since 1973, I've seen major changes to course maintenance and grooming during that time.  Every time I see someone gripe about having to play a shot from a bare spot, I just have bite my tongue to keep from making a sharp retort.  There are reasons, sometimes good ones, for a course to have some rough edges.  Sometimes it's money, sometimes its environmental, sometimes it's just what it is.  To piss and moan and whine about it is just a symptom of how spoiled so many golfers have become.  Then they rationalize it by saying that the pros wouldn't have to put up with such poor conditions.  

 

Wake up, everyone!  We aren't pros (at least the huge majority of us).  Our courses aren't making everything look perfect for TV.  The courses most of us play are on a tight budget, and they have a lot of things to accomplish while staying within the constraints of that budget.  It's very expensive to keep a green alive and maintain it at 11 or more on the Stimp.  It takes more water, and more one on one TLC during hot summer days.  That means paying someone to spray it down by hand during the middle of the day.  Buying or leasing machinery that does a more precise job of aerating, mowing, and generally more care to ensure the health of the turf.  Either fees go up to cover that, or the fees stay the same and the course is not quite as perfect as the more expensive one down the road.

 

One of the prime principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it.  Nothing is ever mentioned about "fairway" or "perfect" or "pristine".   Ground under repair is a designated condition, not just any rough spot you find your ball in.  Those who want to keep expenses down can look around for a course which doesn't cut the greens quite as close, doesn't water the fairways as heavily, but in the process they keep play more affordable.  And it's still golf.  In my opinion, it's a better, purer form of golf.


Well said!!

post #133 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

One of the prime principles of golf is that you play the course as you find it.  Nothing is ever mentioned about "fairway" or "perfect" or "pristine".   Ground under repair is a designated condition, not just any rough spot you find your ball in.  Those who want to keep expenses down can look around for a course which doesn't cut the greens quite as close, doesn't water the fairways as heavily, but in the process they keep play more affordable.  And it's still golf.  In my opinion, it's a better, purer form of golf.

 

I agree. Honestly it is nice to play on a pristine course. What I do mind is if greens are in horrible shape. Letting them burn out. Not fixing the ball marks. Just having them all beat to hell. Kittyhawk in Dayton, they will not water the rough. Its pretty much fairway then dry hard wasteland area if it gets dry enough out. You can get more roll in the rough than you do in the fairway. They cut water cost by only watering the fairways and the greens. The course plays great, I like it like that, doesn't bother me at all. As long as I have good greens, I am a happy golfer. 

 

Well except for piss poor bunkers. That drives me crazy. Cheat ass playground sand, then they throw 6 inches of it in the bunker. 

post #134 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

I agree. Honestly it is nice to play on a pristine course. What I do mind is if greens are in horrible shape. Letting them burn out. Not fixing the ball marks. Just having them all beat to hell. Kittyhawk in Dayton, they will not water the rough. Its pretty much fairway then dry hard wasteland area if it gets dry enough out. You can get more roll in the rough than you do in the fairway. They cut water cost by only watering the fairways and the greens. The course plays great, I like it like that, doesn't bother me at all. As long as I have good greens, I am a happy golfer. 

 

Well except for piss poor bunkers. That drives me crazy. Cheat ass playground sand, then they throw 6 inches of it in the bunker. 

Issues with greens due to nature don't bother me that much.  Ball marks on the other hand :pound:.  The rest of the course too.  Nature hands us different challenges.  I'm positive the courses I play are trying their best to keep the course in the best shape they can with the budget they have.

post #135 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

Issues with greens due to nature don't bother me that much.  Ball marks on the other hand :pound:.  The rest of the course too.  Nature hands us different challenges.  I'm positive the courses I play are trying their best to keep the course in the best shape they can with the budget they have.


I see several people commenting on ball marks. If the golfers fixed them it wouldnt be a problem, This is more on the golfer than the grounds staff.

post #136 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post
 


I see several people commenting on ball marks. If the golfers fixed them it wouldnt be a problem, This is more on the golfer than the grounds staff.

Exactly.  I meant that as a slight to the golfers, not the staff.  So did @saevel25 . I fix as many as I can if I have time.  It must make the staff crazy too.

post #137 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wils5150 View Post
 


I see several people commenting on ball marks. If the golfers fixed them it wouldnt be a problem, This is more on the golfer than the grounds staff.

 

I agree, but I've seen this tool before, 

 

GREENSKEEPER BALL MARK REPAIR TOOL

Knowing a lot of rangers don't actually spend time on the course. Might as well spend time fixing ball marks right? When a person goes and changes the hole, have him take out a few ball marks. Is like 90 bucks to but. They don't even have to bend over that much. I think it's a no brainer easy fix. But you can't fix lazy. 

post #138 of 143

I much prefer faster greens. True rolls and more predictable breaks.

 

The only problem I see with fast greens is dependent on the course. I play most of my golf in Philly and I play a lot of golf on old classic courses that were built 100 years ago. The undulations that were built into some of those greens were not built with today's green speeds in mind. There are some really good courses (Merion, Manufacturer's, Huntingdon Valley, Llanerch, Torresdale-Franford, to mention a few) that have limited pin placements now because of the old undulations, but it's not like it stops them from putting pins in impossible places. Llanerch might be the most difficult in that regard, but it still wouldn't stop me from accepting invitations to any of them when given the opportunity.

post #139 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

I agree, but I've seen this tool before, 

 

GREENSKEEPER BALL MARK REPAIR TOOL

Knowing a lot of rangers don't actually spend time on the course. Might as well spend time fixing ball marks right? When a person goes and changes the hole, have him take out a few ball marks. Is like 90 bucks to but. They don't even have to bend over that much. I think it's a no brainer easy fix. But you can't fix lazy. 


have several of them. every greens mower goes out with one. still cant get them all though.

post #140 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

I much prefer faster greens. True rolls and more predictable breaks.

An old greenskeeper told me that slower greens help prevent two things:

  • Three putts.
  • One putts.
post #141 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by WUTiger View Post
 

An old greenskeeper told me that slower greens help prevent two things:

  • Three putts.
  • One putts.

 

Which makes golf boring as hell!!!

post #142 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

My last two rounds were on courses in the middle of their maintenance schedules.  One was going to aerate that day and had not mowed the green, so they were off the charts slow.  I'm going to guess a stimp of 6-ish.  The other had just aerated 2 weeks prior and had a similar length grass, and probably also similar stimp.  I found two commonalities with these greens:

 

  1. Putts that weren't gimmes but makeable - let's say from about 5' to about 12' - were very difficult.  You had to hit it so hard to make sure it got there, and it was slowing down on its own so fast, that the difference in stroke length between a 10 footer that was left 3" short and a power lip out from the same distance was very, very small.
  2. Of course, by the same token, because that difference was so little, getting longer putts to stop close to the hole was ridiculously easy.

 

So, I suppose it's a bit of a 6/half dozen thing:  Slow greens are super easy to avoid 3 putts, yet, IMO, a lot harder to sink mid range putts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WUTiger View Post
 

An old greenskeeper told me that slower greens help prevent two things:

  • Three putts.
  • One putts.

Hey ... that's what I recently discovered too!!  (per the above):beer:

post #143 of 143

I am an 18 HCP and have never complained that the greens are too fast, but have complained about some of the impossible pin placements that others have mentioned where any putt that stays on the green is going to roll off it by 20 - 30 feet downhill.  I have also stopped going to a course because the greens are too slow.  For the most part, I putt better on faster greens, as long as the greens are designed to accomodate the speed.   I have a very difficult time on slow greens and cannot get myself to make such big putts for short distances.   I cannot give an exact stimpmeter rating that I prefer since the couses I play do not post it, but somewhere above moderate to somewhst fast suits me.  Brutally fast I would not like, and I am not sure I have ever played a course that is like Augusta at the Masters or greens set up for the US Open.   But my answer is "no", because most courses have their greens playing at a speed that is well within the subjective definition of "fair".

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Is the Pursuit of Faster Greens a Problem in Golf?