How many strokes do you lose playing aerated greens?

[iacas]

[Strandly]

I hate putting on aerated greens.  I voted several shots higher but probably should have picked much higher.

[Yukari]

Ugh.  Just played aerated greens last week.

My putting averages about 30 per 18.  But I had 37 putts.  So I am guessing about 7 or more strokes per 18.

Putts were wayyyy too slow due to sand, and I could not adjust to it fast enough.  Some of the putts were bumpy and went off line due to heavy sand gravels, and some of the breaks were not there, etc.

I hope it didn't screw up my putting for next week.

[Lihu]

I voted "much higher", but several is extremely high for me.

The problem is not just the hardness or the bumps or the sand itself. The real problem is when they grow out the grass and there are non-uniform tufts of it everywhere. The other thing is some approaches and pitches don't hold as well either.

It just grabs the ball and sometimes re-directs it.

[Dave2512]

Depends on how well it's done. Here it ranges from terrible to barely notice it. The terrible places are just as bad to hold a wedge as to putt. I've seen balls skip on the sand like it's water. My problem with putts is the inconsistent speed, sand could be heavier in some areas etc. I suppose if I have an issue with it is it usually happens during the handicap season here. I posted a picture last year of a course I played that had inch diameter holes in the greens. Some filled with sand others not enough to keep the ball from bouncing around. It was stupid.

[David in FL]

Although I hate 'em as much as the next guy, probably not that far from normal, if at all.  I voted "about the same".

I'd be very surprised if anyone is really all that different though I suspect a lot of people will say otherwise.....

[iacas]

Although I hate 'em as much as the next guy, probably not that far from normal, if at all.  I voted "about the same".

Ditto.

A putt I might have missed might go in and vice versa.

And long putting (lag putting) is much easier because they're slower.

I too suspect a lot of people will say otherwise.

[davechen]

I voted no difference. I think I might actually do a bit better with the slower greens. You can bang them and you don't have to worry as much about break.

[imsys0042]

I voted few strokes higher.   I find it helps on shorter putts because you can be firmer and not worry as much.   However like most people I have plenty of 20+ putts, and it's hard to hit it hard enough or adjust to take advantage.   Greens with a lot of break too will mess you up since you have to hit it harder, but you should play less break if you do so.   So it's more an adjustment thing for me, and not doing it well.

[Jeremie Boop]

I think it depends on how well they do with filling the holes with sand. At Homestead they did a really good job and putting was pretty much the same as normal, if a bit slower. At another course that I played most of the holes weren't even close to being filled so putts would bounce up off the ground a lot and either move off line or lose speed extremely fast.

So, if they did a good job I expect there is very little in the way of an impact on my score. However, on the greens where they did a very bad job I saw a significant impact on my score putt wise *probably 6 putts or more extra on the round*...

[iacas]

I think it depends on how well they do with filling the holes with sand. At Homestead they did a really good job and putting was pretty much the same as normal, if a bit slower. At another course they had holes that I played most of the holes weren't even close to being filled so putts would bounce up off the ground a lot and either move off line or lose speed extremely fast.

The idea is that they filled them the picture in the first post. :)

That way, for once, we're all talking about roughly the same thing. It hopefully avoids a situation where one guy's course uses small tines while another just takes huge plugs out and leaves half of them on the green. :D

[Jeremie Boop]

The idea is that they filled them the picture in the first post. :)

That way, for once, we're all talking about roughly the same thing. It hopefully avoids a situation where one guy's course uses small tines while another just takes huge plugs out and leaves half of them on the green. :D

Hmm... did you have that little tag at the end when I posted?

But yeah, if it's like that picture where they are filled pretty well there's very little difference.

[iacas]

Hmm... did you have that little tag at the end when I posted?

But yeah, if it's like that picture where they are filled pretty well there's very little difference.

Always. Can't edit a poll here without deleting it and re-creating it.

[dkolo]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy disclaimer applies, but I just had my best round of putting in a long time yesterday, and it was on a green that had recently been aerated. I think my lowered expectations let me putt more relaxed and, consequently, better. Or it was just random variance.

[Lihu]

Although I hate 'em as much as the next guy, probably not that far from normal, if at all.  I voted "about the same".

I'd be very surprised if anyone is really all that different though I suspect a lot of people will say otherwise.....

Ditto.

A putt I might have missed might go in and vice versa.

And long putting (lag putting) is much easier because they're slower.

I too suspect a lot of people will say otherwise.

If you say just aerated with sand on it, I would say almost no difference as well.

If there are tufts of grass growing about 1/8" to 1/2" out of the sand. that's where I can see a huge difference. That stuff grabs the ball. The velocity of the ball drops to half or less in about a foot to a yard or so.

[Patch]

Aerated or not I probably lose 3-4 strokes a round right now.

Now I am not above using the grooves on an aerated green for help. Sometime a groove will guide the ball into the hole. Other times those same grooves will show the borrows a little clearer for future reference.  I have also found that when there are aerated greens, the fairways will be a little firmer too, which allows for more run after the carry. Around here they aerate the greens, and reseed the fairways at the same time.

A while back I was playing up in Mesquite, NV and I was getting an extra 20-30 yards out my drives because the fairways were scalped, and dry. Of course since the greens were dryer, it was hard to get approach shots stick.

[boogielicious]

I am between the same and a few higher.  Only because it take a hole or two to figure out the speed.  The courses I play usually don't aerate the practice green, so the first test is on the first green.

[mvmac]

Although I hate 'em as much as the next guy, probably not that far from normal, if at all.  I voted "about the same".

I'd be very surprised if anyone is really all that different though I suspect a lot of people will say otherwise.....

Same here, I voted for "about the same". They look bad but at the end of the day it won't make that much of a difference. You're going to get some bad bounces and you'll get some good ones. The green speeds being slower also helps.

If golfers do feel like they shoot higher on aerated greens, it's probably because they have a negative outlook on it, like playing in bad weather. Some guys let it bring them down, some guys do just fine.