Is the Pursuit of Faster Greens a Problem in Golf?

[Golfingdad]

I asked the starter the other day, not realizing the effect of what you are saying, and he told me 9 or 10.

Maybe he thought I was a complete novice anyway, so it wouldn't hurt to tell me.

I just mean that I think everybody overestimated stimp speed.  I was watching a women's event on TV and they said that the greens were 13's, and I saw girls take some pretty reasonable swings at a medium length, relatively flat putts, and it made me very skeptical of that number.

13 is very, very, very fast.  It is, quite LITERALLY, off the [Aimpoint] charts fast, and is something I've never even seen.  But I have seen people take putter strokes of that length all the time, which is why I am skeptical that people like to inflate those numbers.

[saevel25]

I personally like fast greens, 9's I can tolerate. I prefer greens that are above 10's.

I voted no.

[RH31]

I make a lot more putts on fast greens than I do on slow ones.

I once belonged to a club that had super slow greens all year until October. You literally had to slam 3+ footers or they weren't holding the line or getting there. It was awful!!!

[Lihu]

I make a lot more putts on fast greens than I do on slow ones.

I once belonged to a club that had super slow greens all year until October. You literally had to slam 3+ footers or they weren't holding the line or getting there. It was awful!!!

Unfortunately, I don't have to imagine this one. Been there and done with that course until the greens run faster again.

[imsys0042]

My home course won't make their greens run faster than 11 because they have a lot of undulation. Any more, they say, and it's unfair. I doubt they get to 11 a lot too, but they are generally around 10. Of course the way that the greens are there, it's more strategic to play for certain areas and green speed is only an issue if you are in the wrong area. I did play a couple of years ago at a very high end place around where I live and they said weather and conditions allowed them to really make them fast. They claimed it was 14. I believe them. They also said they just went with what they could do since it was fall and they usually wouldn't do that.

[Ernest Jones]

I did play a couple of years ago at a very high end place around where I live and they said weather and conditions allowed them to really make them fast. They claimed it was 14.

That is insanely fast!!!

[imsys0042]

That is insanely fast!!!

All four of us had three putted by gh fourth hole, maybe the third. They were pristine though.

[PA Golf Info]

9 all the way.  Not too Hot and Not to Cold....

[ghalfaire]

I voted no.  The courses I play have green speeds that can vary a lot from one course to the other but doubt any have a speed over 10.  I have never noticed any significant difference in time to complete a round because the green were fast.   Slow players are slow and IMHO would be slow if the greens were at 5 and holes were 24" diameter.  The would still take 15 practice swings, change club at least twice, throw grass in air 4 times and never walk more than 5 feet from their cart to their ball while their cart partner hits his/hers.  Certainly you would never see them play ready golf by hitting out of turn but rather they will wait until the guy with the honors get out of the can so he can go in "proper" order.

[David in FL]

No. If the general consensus is that players of all skill levels tend to putt better on faster (within reason) greens, how can slowing down the greens possibly do anything but slow down play?

[JetFan1983]

Wow. I voted before reading any of the responses and was shocked to see I was one of only two total "yes" votes!

OK, so hear me out, guys. I agree with all of your points that argue the "no" side of it. I love fast greens too after all

But the reason I voted "yes" is because of a conversation I had with a former mini-tour pro (now in his 50s) about a nice course that was near us. I asked him what he thought about it and he said, "hate the greens. They're too fast for their design. They were designed in the 1930s, so there's a ton of undulations, but the speeds back then were much slower. Now, they've mown them so fast, that they should have redesigned the green complexes too, but they didn't. So I hate that course. Putting is a joke there." I'm paraphrasing.

He could be totally full of it, but what he said kind of made sense. What do you guys think of what he said? That's why I hip-fire voted "yes." I'm more than willing to change my tune in light of new evidence as golf course architecture and maintenance is not my area of expertise

But if that guy was right, then it is a problem, but only a very rare one. However, if you're a member at a course like this, then yea, I guess it could be a real problem for you.

[MS256]

Voted no.

I've been on a course or two that was a little too fast or a little too slow for optimum putting but most are about right.

Would be nice if they all were perfectly smooth, the grass was perfectly even, and all of the greens were relatively the same speed and condition, but...easier said than done.

[Fourputt]

I've known a lot of experienced players who struggle on greens faster than about 10 on the stimp.  For beginners they can be a nightmare.  If TM really wants to make it better for beginners without changing how the game is played, then they should encourage courses to keep greens at no more than 9 or 10 max.  I like fast greens, but I'm an experienced player who is also a fairly good putter.   My brother struggles a lot on faster greens, yet he isn't exactly a novice player.  The greens on his home courses just happen to play a bit slower than many of the courses we play when we get together for our annual golf vacations.  I can usually adjust while he really has trouble with it, yet we are pretty even as far as scoring is concerned.

[Aguirre]

I think it is a bit.  I live in Pittsburgh and have played all the top courses in this region.  I can handle Oakmont being itself but way too many private clubs around here tend to be on the very fast side of fast greens.  And it's prevalent when you talk to members.

"Oh, you have to try the greens at my club.  They are fast!"  They take pride in such things, as if the worth of yourself or club is measured by how many three putts your 18-handicap game can get in a single round.

Save for events (USGA qualifiers, local pro events, etc) the greens should only be as fast as it's (a) reasonable to maintain due to cost and (b) for them roll generally true.  After that, you're just slowing down play catering to the member's weirdo obsession with bragging about how fast their greens are when they come with you to a public course.

[imsys0042]

I think it is a bit.  I live in Pittsburgh and have played all the top courses in this region.  I can handle Oakmont being itself but way too many private clubs around here tend to be on the very fast side of fast greens.  And it's prevalent when you talk to members. "Oh, you have to try the greens at my club.  They are fast!"  They take pride in such things, as if the worth of yourself or club is measured by how many three putts your 18-handicap game can get in a single round. Save for events (USGA qualifiers, local pro events, etc) the greens should only be as fast as it's (a) reasonable to maintain due to cost and (b) for them roll generally true.  After that, you're just slowing down play catering to the member's weirdo obsession with bragging about how fast their greens are when they come with you to a public course.

I live in pittsburgh as well. All I can say is "Yins is correct ". It's an obsession all over the place though, when I think the focus should be on the overall layout. I can see running the greens faster for an event. I can't see why people would want them super fast all the time. Little variety is nice.

[David in FL]

I think it is a bit.  I live in Pittsburgh and have played all the top courses in this region.  I can handle Oakmont being itself but way too many private clubs around here tend to be on the very fast side of fast greens.  And it's prevalent when you talk to members.

"Oh, you have to try the greens at my club.  They are fast!"  They take pride in such things, as if the worth of yourself or club is measured by how many three putts your 18-handicap game can get in a single round.

Save for events (USGA qualifiers, local pro events, etc) the greens should only be as fast as it's (a) reasonable to maintain due to cost and (b) for them roll generally true.  After that, you're just slowing down play catering to the member's weirdo obsession with bragging about how fast their greens are when they come with you to a public course.

If that's what the members want, that's what they should get.  Why would anyone not a member of a particular club care about how that private course is set up?

I live in pittsburgh as well. All I can say is "Yins is correct ". It's an obsession all over the place though, when I think the focus should be on the overall layout. I can see running the greens faster for an event. I can't see why people would want them super fast all the time. Little variety is nice.

Because people, especially better players, tend to putt better on faster greens.  The very first criteria I judge a golf course on is the quality of their greens.....

As to variety, I prefer that my variety doesn't take the form of sub-standard conditions.  I realize that "slow" doesn't always equate to sub-standard, but many times the two go hand-in-hand.

[imsys0042]

Because people, especially better players, tend to putt better on faster greens.  The very first criteria I judge a golf course on is the quality of their greens.....

As to variety, I prefer that my variety doesn't take the form of sub-standard conditions.  I realize that "slow" doesn't always equate to sub-standard, but many times the two go hand-in-hand.

But surely sub-standard doesn't have to mean slow.   I'd prefer to not play "slow", although that is going to mean different things to different people.   My greens have a lot of slope on them.   If they ran them as fast as they could, they'd be unplayable.   I'd prefer to have some variance in them so that it forces me to adapt my putting.

[David in FL]

But surely sub-standard doesn't have to mean slow.   I'd prefer to not play "slow", although that is going to mean different things to different people.   My greens have a lot of slope on them.   If they ran them as fast as they could, they'd be unplayable.   I'd prefer to have some variance in them so that it forces me to adapt my putting.

Really?!

Not me.  I expect the greens to be absolutely consistent from one hole to another on any given course.  If they aren't, then they definitely qualify as sub-standard, regardless of speed.