Jump to content
IGNORED

Are super-fast greens detrimental to golf?


Piz
Note: This thread is 2791 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Looking back I'd say the greens at Oakmont made for a less entertaining tournament.  Golf is most compelling when the players take on, rather than avoid, the challenges before them.  Super-fast greens turn a golf tournament into a driving contest...with a crap shoot on the side.

In der bag:
Cleveland Hi-Bore driver, Maltby 5 wood, Maltby hybrid, Maltby irons and wedges (23 to 50) Vokey 59/07, Cleveland Niblick (LH-42), and a Maltby mallet putter.                                                                                                                                                 "When the going gets tough...it's tough to get going."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Piz said:

Looking back I'd say the greens at Oakmont made for a less entertaining tournament.  Golf is most compelling when the players take on, rather than avoid, the challenges before them.  Super-fast greens turn a golf tournament into a driving contest...with a crap shoot on the side.

I think it depends on whether they can also hold the green with long approach shots. DJ won the US Open on very fast greens. But he also put a 195 yard shot to 4 feet on the last hole. The Canadian Open this week is kind of the opposite. The greens aren't as fast as Oakmont, but hard as a rock. The real difference in US Open set ups are the rough and off fairway areas. Usually they are far more penal.

Augusta is fast, but players can hold the green on 15 with a long shot. Hard and fast would change that course.

I've played greens that are very fast for amateurs. Once I got use to them, it wasn't any different. Very slow greens can also create issues with putting.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think its just another playing condition like tight, narrow fairways or tall rough. The best players can adjust their game to fit the condition. I get some people like a 2-1 pitchers duel in baseball and others want a 9-7 slugfest. I'm not a big hitter, I score with wedges and the putter so I like to watch a round that accentuates that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's been my expirience that faster greens tend to allow the ball to run truer. The bad part is you can't putt the ball faster to take the break out of some putts for fear of missing. Faster greens require a more precise read, and focus on the speed of the putt. 

I remember some years ago that an up and coming PGA player said he would prepare for faster greens by practicing his putting on hardwood floors. Tiger Woods was his name. He had a pretty decent career as I recall. 

Me personally, I like it when the pros play on tough greens. I have always thought the pros preferred playing in easier, "birdy fest" conditions, and that winning a tournament in over par was an embarrassment. This, even though that over par win made them work a little harder. The idea that a course was set up to hard has become a convienient excuse for not winning for some of those players who are expected to play well everytime out. 

In My Bag:
A whole bunch of Tour Edge golf stuff...... :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Whether the average golf can deal with fast greens depends on the green contours. Relatively flat green sure they/we can adapt. Rolling greens, turtle backs, etc it would probably be frustrating . 

 From a maintenance standpoint it's more difficult. The shorter the cut, the more it's rolled ( compaction) it opens the green up to more disease, weeds and pests and requires more frequent watering/ monitoring. The average course barely has the maintenance staff to get by week to week. They don't have the staffs    that oakmont and others have let alone the depth of experience beyond the super and maybe the asst super

Edited by chilepepper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, Piz said:

Looking back I'd say the greens at Oakmont made for a less entertaining tournament.  Golf is most compelling when the players take on, rather than avoid, the challenges before them.  Super-fast greens turn a golf tournament into a driving contest...with a crap shoot on the side.

The ball rolls better on fast greens, so you get more true roll on them. Faster greens separate better putters from poorer ones.

I'm not really sure what there is to complain about, honestly. Oakmont is fast, but so is Augusta. I've never heard anyone say the green speed at Augusta is ruining golf.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

50 minutes ago, billchao said:

The ball rolls better on fast greens, so you get more true roll on them. Faster greens separate better putters from poorer ones. ...

Wisdom shared by elder golf pro: Fast greens increase both one-putts and three-putts.

Problem can arise in spring if you have fast greens, but the turf is thin and the ball wobbles. Played one area course last year in early May, greens were slick and ball went whereever in last 6 inches. Played same course this June: greens were very fast, but turf was denser and ball rolled true.

Related issue: IF the greens are cut so short it starts to kill the grass, you're ruining the course. Also, I suspect that greens with finer-bladed turf grass will run faster than those with coarser turf. 

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:image.png.b6c3447dddf0df25e482bf21abf775ae.pngInertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  image.png.f0ca9194546a61407ba38502672e5ecf.png QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

I think really fast greens for the top golfers in the world are just fine.  For some courses, like Oakmont and Augusta, really fast greens are one of the defenses the course has.  And the top-level players have the skills to putt these greens.

On the other hand, I believe super-fast greens are not really a great idea for most golf courses.  In my experience, fast greens tend to produce slower play for most players.  They're more expensive to maintain.  As greens get faster, the number of reasonable hole positions decreases substantially, which increases wear on the flatter parts of the greens.  For me, I prefer a nice pace to the greens, something around 10 or 11 on the Stimp.  Much faster than that things can get unreasonably difficult.  And for anyone who suggests that greens at that speed aren't good enough, go watch archival video of Arnold Palmer at the Masters in the 60s.  I bet those greens weren't much faster than 10 or 11.  Look at footage from Troon last weekend, those greens were 10 to 11.  

Fast greens aren't bad for golf, as long as the green speed is reasonable for the contours of the greens and the players playing there.  But I do think that there's probably too much emphasis on green speed at many courses, and that comes from the desires of the players and/or members to play "pro-quality" greens, even though the players are nowhere near "pro-quality".

  • Upvote 3

Dave

:callaway: Rogue SubZero Driver

:titleist: 915F 15 Fairway, 816 H1 19 Hybrid, AP2 4 iron to PW, Vokey 52, 56, and 60 wedges, ProV1 balls 
:ping: G5i putter, B60 version
 :ping:Hoofer Bag, complete with Newport Cup logo
:footjoy::true_linkswear:, and Ashworth shoes

the only thing wrong with this car is the nut behind the wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I was just going to post a similar response. Clubs and players WANT the Augusta experience and wind up killing their greens. Greens at places like Bethpage Black NEED to be fast because there isn't really defense built into them. Mostly flat and subtle breaks. But therein lies the trade off for the public. Getting a good experience versus being able to keep giving that experience on a daily basis. If you bake off and kill your greens by mid-June, you get no business for the rest of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I enjoy playing fast greens, although for me, that's probably only around 10-11.  12 probably too fast for me.  Pro's should be playing 12-13.  14 and higher is stupid, imo.

In my Bag: Driver: Titelist 913 D3 9.5 deg. 3W: TaylorMade RBZ 14.5 3H: TaylorMade RBZ 18.5 4I - SW: TaylorMade R7 TP LW: Titelist Vokey 60 Putter: Odyssey 2-Ball

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think @DaveP043's post is spot on.

The issue seems to be arising because a lot of historic courses that had less room to expand to fit the new club/ball technology defended by increasing speeds. But they also typically have a lot of contour relative to a lot of the newer courses played on tour.

At some point I think you reach a 'silly factor' where combination of slope and speed (plus any wind) make the greens marginal for play and a distraction. If Oakmont hadn't gotten the rain it did, the greens might have played both hard and fast and it may have ended up like Shinnecock.

The competition for 'bragging rights' of our greens are faster between developers / clubs mean that architects are tending to design flatter and flatter greens to keep enough viable pin positions. I think less contour is less interesting. If the greens are stressed due to tight mowing, they require more maintenance staff time or chemicals, both of which increase cost.

Edited by natureboy

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
27 minutes ago, natureboy said:

If Oakmont hadn't gotten the rain it did, the greens might have played both hard and fast and it may have ended up like Shinnecock.

If Oakmont hadn't gotten the rain they did… they'd have followed a different maintenance process for watering, mowing, rolling… etc.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

If Oakmont hadn't gotten the rain they did… they'd have followed a different maintenance process for watering, mowing, rolling… etc.

You'd hope.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
Just now, natureboy said:

You'd hope.

One doesn't have to hope. They change the maintenance processes all the time. There's literally decades of evidence to support this.

They goofed once in recent memory, or twice if you count Olympic way back with Payne, and have learned from those.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just now, iacas said:

One doesn't have to hope. They change the maintenance processes all the time. There's literally decades of evidence to support this.

They goofed once in recent memory, or twice if you count Olympic way back with Payne, and have learned from those.

Yet (and I know you will disagree) they missed the smart adjustment to the changing conditions impact on the green speed at Oakmont as the course dried out.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
5 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Yet (and I know you will disagree) they missed the smart adjustment to the changing conditions impact on the green speed at Oakmont as the course dried out.

Yep, I disagree. They didn't miss anything. The greens were fine. Maybe you couldn't tell through your TV screen?

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

13 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Yet (and I know you will disagree) they missed the smart adjustment to the changing conditions impact on the green speed at Oakmont as the course dried out.

The greens looked in fantastic shape when I was there. Even some of the more tough pin placements, like back on #2 were fair. When they changed pin placements on Saturday they spend a good hour doing so. They had a team of personnel on the greens making sure they were how they wanted them. Believe me, the USGA didn't overlook anything when it came to those greens. 

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 hours ago, billchao said:

The ball rolls better on fast greens, so you get more true roll on them. Faster greens separate better putters from poorer ones.

I'm not really sure what there is to complain about, honestly. Oakmont is fast, but so is Augusta. I've never heard anyone say the green speed at Augusta is ruining golf.

It's not ruining golf, but it has it's effect. About 15-20 years ago, Augusta seemed to be fixated on making their greens putt like glass. OK, except nobody could score on the back 9 on Sunday, where people are supposed to! The Masters lost those roars, those shootouts that made for memorable tournaments. Golf writers began commenting about how "boring" the Masters was becoming!

So, Augusta throttled back. Except for this year when the greens got away from them a little bit. To the point that a player's ball was blown off the green by the wind, into a water hazard. On the 15th, I believe. Of course, by the Rules of Golf, it was all the player's fault and he was assessed a penalty, while the Master's Tournament Committee was completely blameless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 2791 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Day 76 - Pretty sore today, so I opted for putting over my Stack session. Primary focus was on starting line, as my putting has been pretty poor this year. 
    • Been a bit of delay in updates but I needed to come back east as my mom's health has taken a serious turn for the worse. In a 3 day span we learned she had a tumor to she has stage 4 cancer and stopped eating and drinking for the most part. She has had a rough 3 months but certainly didn't think we'd be at the point of setting up hospice for her. My mom was never into any sports really other than following the Red Sox because my dad was a big fan. She always cared about what we were involved in including asking about how golf went.  I have kept up with my 5 minutes of daily practice and will go to the gym here in NH tomorrow morning. Despite the somber nature of this trip my family has commented more than a few times about my weight loss so it's important to me to keep it up. I know my mom always wanted us happy in whatever we did so I'll continue with my fitness journey keeping that in mind. 
    • Day 109- Putting drills on a putting green for 20 minutes. 
    • Day 252: did a stack session. Did some slow rehearsal swings during breaks. 
    • Day 82: 3/18/24 Tried a Stack session but could not certify my warmup. Finished with indoor chips and putting. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...