Is the Pursuit of Faster Greens a Problem in Golf?

[MattM]

So you're telling me that they've already lost greens, or what? I apologize, but I'm finding it hard to follow what you last post was saying. Do you think they specifically withhold water from the greens to keep them firm? You had mentioned that the fringe was overwatered and often soggy (the reason you couldn't land it short and bounce on) so maybe the course is trying to soften them already and not succeeding?

As to hard greens discouraging beginners, I still would have to disagree. Fast greens, maybe, but hard greens make no difference to a true beginner who may only be able to get the ball 20 feet into the air on a decent shot. Having played with my cousins frequently, who are just learning golf, I can say with certainty that most approach shots hit by a beginner end up rolling onto the green rather than landing or bouncing there. That's just because they don't tend to make perfect contact to send the ball soaring, instead hitting lower trajectory shots. Hard greens only really start to have an impact when you hit the ball in a higher trajectory and have the opportunity for your ball to bounce off. Fast greens would, in my opinion, affect new players more than a firm green just because their shots would roll further on the green, possibly going off into the back fringe where they might be inclined to chip instead of putt.

As just a final aside before I leave the discussion (I apologize for taking it off track), you cannot be certain of the course's goals unless you work there and know what the course wants. For example, the course I work at puts an emphasis on customer service. If you're out and someone's hitting from a trap, you go over and offer to rake it for them. Little things like that, but it makes it feel friendly there at least to me.

Anyways, I'll stay out of this one now so we can get back on topic.

Ok, so in fact you are agreeing with me and you don't know it.  If you have a fast green that is SOFT when you hit the green with any sort of decent short it will hit and check then stop anywhere within 15 feet.  If you have a fast AND hard green and you hit it with a decent shot it cannot check and thus will keep rolling to the back.  A fast green that is soft will stop MANY shots.  A HARD green even if its slow can't stop a shot because it won't allow it to check.

You are saying that a hard green will ONLY cause the ball to bounce.  That is not true it will not allow it to check AND MAKE IT ROLL OFF OF THE BACK.  You just explained by a ball rolling to the back of a green or off the back of the green that would discourage a newer golfer.  This is exactly what I was saying.

Also, again Hershey links had 12 stimp greens.  These are fast greens.  I've seen a low shot with spin stop or a high shot stop or a nutted shot stop on those greens.  The reason is because they are soft enough to let the ball bite into them.  If the ball bites into them then they are more likely to stop.  If a green doesn't even make a mark when you hit it from 180 our with a high shot then nothing will stop on it....That's the whole point.

So again I think you are actually agreeing with me but don't know it....

BTW this guy who is a superintendant disagrees with what you are saying as well....In that yes for the most part to try to make them faster  you also make them harder.  My point is and has always been that if this is the case they should worry more about making them playable and not trying to make them lightning quick....The other thing that he says makes perfect sense.  If you DON'T water them you kill the grass and make the greens harder...

Just a little fyi from a stupid Superintendent. More often than not fast greens are firm greens unless they have alot of thatch. You  water a green to keep it alive not to soften them up. And stop calling Superintendents stupid. these men and women have college degrees and dedication to there jobs.

[wils5150]

Guys what it comes down to is people see the pros playing fast greens and they think they should too. but unlike the pros they can not hit the shot require to hold those type of greens so they say they are hard. I am saying this as a superintendent and a avid golfer so I see both sides of it. To me and many others it the SMOOTHNESS of the greens that really matter. The whole green speed debate has been nothing but a thorn in superintendents side. I said it before in this thread and I will say it again it all comes down to money.

[MattM]

Guys what it comes down to is people see the pros playing fast greens and they think they should too. but unlike the pros they can not hit the shot require to hold those type of greens so they say they are hard. I am saying this as a superintendent and a avid golfer so I see both sides of it. To me and many others it the SMOOTHNESS of the greens that really matter. The whole green speed debate has been nothing but a thorn in superintendents side. I said it before in this thread and I will say it again it all comes down to money.

So, what you are saying is that 1. people tell you that they want fast hard greens to be pros and 2. those people suck and bitch about the greens being hard then?

Let me ask a different question....My swing thread is on here.  Are you saying that me being a 12 handicap with a swing that you can see in my thread; I suck so bad I can hit a ball from the fairway and light fringe with a shorter club and not hold the green?

Clearly, you are listening to the wrong people if you make your greens like the PGA tour just to suit them.  Newer golfers aren't coming up to you saying they want lightning quick concrete hard greens man, let's be honest.

[wils5150]

I am done with this. oh and if you are a 12 handicap you clearly do not strike the ball like a tour pro. have a nice night.

[MattM]

I am done with this. oh and if you are a 12 handicap you clearly do not strike the ball like a tour pro. have a nice night.

AND!!!!! I shouldn't have to!!!!!!  That's the point!!!!!!!!

They should not be set up that way!  In any event I do hold the greens about 7ish times a round, so I'm not that bad but thanks....

[iacas]

Let's stick to the topic please. And stop yelling at each other, hmmmm?

[Spitfisher]

I play on very fast greens, 10-11 average during the week, with 13s on tourney days. I enjoy golf and play early so that I can play in 2-3:00 hrs  time. There is nothing more painful to watch and aspiring  mid handicapper 4 putt a green because they are not used to fast undulating greens- that can't be fun right? it slows up the game...etc. If that same player played from a forward set of tees they would be hitting a wedge into the green rather than a 7 iron. Todays golf courses are too tough for a majority of players out there and discouraging for new golfers.

The same goes for fairways, let it grow a little more ensuring better ball contact for amateurs, mid handicappers alike.

[wils5150]

Let's stick to the topic please. And stop yelling at each other, hmmmm?

ok........

[Lihu]

I play on very fast greens, 10-11 average during the week, with 13s on tourney days. I enjoy golf and play early so that I can play in 2-3:00 hrs  time. There is nothing more painful to watch and aspiring  mid handicapper 4 putt a green because they are not used to fast undulating greens- that can't be fun right? it slows up the game...etc. If that same player played from a forward set of tees they would be hitting a wedge into the green rather than a 7 iron. Todays golf courses are too tough for a majority of players out there and discouraging for new golfers.

The same goes for fairways, let it grow a little more ensuring better ball contact for amateurs, mid handicappers alike.

What are the main differences between today's courses and yesterday's courses?

[mdl]

I'm against slow greens because it's so frustrating to hit a good putt and miss it because of inconsistency in the green.  I see this more often on slow greens.  Just the other day I missed two 4 footers on fairly recently aerated greens rolling slow and wobbly that I thought were perfect and then suddenly turned 45˚ right in front of the hole and lipped out.  Very annoying.  Though I admit green speed, in my experience, is highly confounded with general green/course quality, or recency of aeration/maintenance, so the slowest greens I've played have generally been on worse or recently aerated courses, and the fastest on better courses with greens in top condition.

Maintenance-wise, is it possible to have greens stimping in the 6-8 range instead of the 9+ range that roll close to as true?  I know Erik jests putting on a tight fairway, but those haven't been rolled or maintained for maximum putting performance.  Can you not sufficiently roll a slow green or something?  Or is it just that longer grass that slows the ball down will always create more inconsistency no matter how even the dirt is?  Is that less true on grasses with more distinct and uniform grain, where at least in not too large areas the grass is all pointing in the same direction?

[MS256]

I'm against slow greens because it's so frustrating to hit a good putt and miss it because of inconsistency in the green.  I see this more often on slow greens.  Just the other day I missed two 4 footers on fairly recently aerated greens rolling slow and wobbly that I thought were perfect and then suddenly turned 45˚ right in front of the hole and lipped out.  Very annoying.  Though I admit green speed, in my experience, is highly confounded with general green/course quality, or recency of aeration/maintenance, so the slowest greens I've played have generally been on worse or recently aerated courses, and the fastest on better courses with greens in top condition.

Maintenance-wise, is it possible to have greens stimping in the 6-8 range instead of the 9+ range that roll close to as true?  I know Erik jests putting on a tight fairway, but those haven't been rolled or maintained for maximum putting performance.  Can you not sufficiently roll a slow green or something?  Or is it just that longer grass that slows the ball down will always create more inconsistency no matter how even the dirt is?  Is that less true on grasses with more distinct and uniform grain, where at least in not too large areas the grass is all pointing in the same direction?

I've seen fast greens that putted like crap, slow greens that putted like crap, fast greens that putted great and slow greens that putted great.

Assuming the grass is uniform the biggest factors are smoothness of the surface and grain. Grain is much less a factor on fast greens, because obviously the grass is shorter, but either can be bumpy.

Any comparisons after aeration would obviously be skewed and are really a non-factor in a fast vs. slow discussion.

Obviously most of the golfing public will struggle both on lightning fast greens (especially with much slope) and annoyingly slow greens with grain.

From what I see most courses get it about right.

[wils5150]

What are the main differences between today's courses and yesterday's courses?

quality of land to build on. courses from the early days had to be built on a site that didnt require a bunch of earth moving. also not as much permitting was required so you could pretty much do what you wanted. The old native soil construction and old types of grass are no where near as good as modern methods.

I've seen fast greens that putted like crap, slow greens that putted like crap, fast greens that putted great and slow greens that putted great.

Assuming the grass is uniform the biggest factors are smoothness of the surface and grain. Grain is much less a factor on fast greens, because obviously the grass is shorter, but either can be bumpy.

Any comparisons after aeration would obviously be skewed and are really a non-factor in a fast vs. slow discussion.

Obviously most of the golfing public will struggle both on lightning fast greens (especially with much slope) and annoyingly slow greens with grain.

From what I see most courses get it about right.

^^^this is very true

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

What are the main differences between today's courses and yesterday's courses?

quality of land to build on. courses from the early days had to be built on a site that didnt require a bunch of earth moving. also not as much permitting was required so you could pretty much do what you wanted. The old native soil construction and old types of grass are no where near as good as modern methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

I've seen fast greens that putted like crap, slow greens that putted like crap, fast greens that putted great and slow greens that putted great.

Assuming the grass is uniform the biggest factors are smoothness of the surface and grain. Grain is much less a factor on fast greens, because obviously the grass is shorter, but either can be bumpy.

Any comparisons after aeration would obviously be skewed and are really a non-factor in a fast vs. slow discussion.

Obviously most of the golfing public will struggle both on lightning fast greens (especially with much slope) and annoyingly slow greens with grain.

From what I see most courses get it about right.

^^^this is very true

Unfortunately, this thread was timed just when many of the local courses in So. Cal. were aerating their greens. Which really putt like crap.

The main reason is that I think the faster greens are kept up better than the slow ones. More care is required to maintain them, so it is only natural that they are almost all in better condition.

[Spitfisher]

quality of land to build on. courses from the early days had to be built on a site that didnt require a bunch of earth moving. also not as much permitting was required so you could pretty much do what you wanted. The old native soil construction and old types of grass are no where near as good as modern methods.

^^^this is very true

Modern day machinery, uniform cutting methods, water and irrigation, drainage and of course timely fertilization also play a role on modern courses. as far as greens and fairways go, one only has to  look at some of the older footage on the golf channel to see the difference.  some of the old SHELL match play films shows the ball bouncing along and hitting the breaks on a 20 foot putt.

[wils5150]

Modern day machinery, uniform cutting methods, water and irrigation, drainage and of course timely fertilization also play a role on modern courses. as far as greens and fairways go, one only has to  look at some of the older footage on the golf channel to see the difference.  some of the old SHELL match play films shows the ball bouncing along and hitting the breaks on a 20 foot putt.

while this is also true. Many courses simply do not have the budget to do these thing and/or do not have the grasses to support ultra low mowing heights as well as the topography of the greens complex to support fast greens.

[arturo28mx]

There's a course I sometimes play that has hard, fast, ondulating greens. But that's not the problem, the problem is that the greens have NO FRINGE, meaning that if you miss the putt the ball will roll out of the green and down the hill. To me, that's an even worse problem.

I don't care if greens are fast or slow, as long as they are smooth and the ball rolls true.

[wils5150]

There's a course I sometimes play that has hard, fast, ondulating greens. But that's not the problem, the problem is that the greens have NO FRINGE, meaning that if you miss the putt the ball will roll out of the green and down the hill. To me, that's an even worse problem.

I don't care if greens are fast or slow, as long as they are smooth and the ball rolls true.

ya I had a couple of greens where the front rolled down into the approach.. I ended up growing them in to approach height after watching balls roll 30-40 feet of the front of the green

[Lihu]

ya I had a couple of greens where the front rolled down into the approach.. I ended up growing them in to approach height after watching balls roll 30-40 feet of the front of the green

How many players did you watch before making the change?