Are super-fast greens detrimental to golf?

[No Mulligans]

The gradual and long term change of increasing  the speed of greens can leave some courses greens a bit ridiculous to the average golfer. 

Torrey Pines North is an example. Of course they want the greens fast there but the greens where designed for much slower speeds. There were holes, like 2, 3 and 9 for example, you couldn't stop the ball within 8 feet if you miss a three footer from above the hole. On 2 sometimes you couldn't even get that type of putt to stop on the green at all. 

They're now spending millions to redo the greens. They use to have front to back general slope up to a 4% grade. Remodeled the highest general slope of any greens will be 1.5%.

I think the old greens would have been fine if they didn't run the greens so fast. 

[iacas]

10 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

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!

The green speeds have remained about the same during those times. The Masters did have a spell of slightly more "boring" back nines on Sunday, but they didn't change the green speeds.

10 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

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!

It wasn't the player's "fault" nor was he assessed a penalty for making his ball move or anything of that sort. He was assessed a penalty for removing his ball from where it ended up - in the water hazard - just as if he'd come up short to the 15th green where there's a steep slope and his ball had rolled back in. That's all that happened… his ball rolled back down the steep slope (nudged by wind, surely).

Had it rolled into the hole, he'd have been deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke.

If you want to change the front slope of the 15th green to be less severe, you don't need to use that example. Balls have been failing to get far enough up the slope to stay dry for decades…

[natureboy]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

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

 

17 hours ago, saevel25 said:

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. 

Green and healthy is a cosmetic quality. Stimp is not apparent visually even if you are present. They didn't invite either of you in to play the greens did they?

Even without being present, the occurrence of three ball at rest moved situations (all on the drier weekend) seemed to be an unusual amount. Can you name other tournaments where they had as many in the space of two days when there was little to no wind?

[saevel25]

Just now, natureboy said:

Green and healthy is a cosmetic quality. Stimp is not apparent visually even if you are present. They didn't invite either of you in to play the greens did they?

Did they invite you? Hypocrite much? 

[natureboy]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Did they invite you? Hypocrite much? 

No, I'm just saying your being there doesn't make my point invalid as you seem to think it should.

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, natureboy said:

No, I'm just saying your being there doesn't make my point invalid as you seem to think it should.

You not being there doesn't validate your point. 

[natureboy]

16 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

They're now spending millions to redo the greens. They use to have front to back general slope up to a 4% grade. Remodeled the highest general slope of any greens will be 1.5%.

I think the old greens would have been fine if they didn't run the greens so fast. 

And the cost is passed on to the player. When the drop in golf participation seems most closely related to post-financial crisis drop in incomes / purchasing power, how will increased costs help 'grow the game'?

Why couldn't they have maintained or just slightly reduced the slopes so the greens were tricky at a very reasonable tour average stimp of 11.5? It's the combination of slope and speed that makes greens tough. Reducing slope while increasing speeds is likely a wash in terms of adding difficulty and might even be making it easier.

13 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You not being there doesn't validate your point.

Not saying it does.

If I had only read about it in a newspaper or magazine, the occurrence of three ball at rest moved incidents on the greens within two days on a tournament with little to no wind would have stood out. Can you name another tournament in recent memory or historically where this occurred?

[iacas]

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

Green and healthy is a cosmetic quality. Stimp is not apparent visually even if you are present. They didn't invite either of you in to play the greens did they?

Did I hit putts on the greens during the tournament days (Thu-Sun)? Yes. Multiple. On multiple greens.

They were fine.

[natureboy]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Did I hit putts on the greens during the tournament days (Thu-Sun)? Yes. Multiple. On multiple greens.

They were fine.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought any play of the course except by competitors or those setting it up would be disallowed during the tournament.

Your experience still doesn't change the fact that an unusual number of ball at rest moved incidents happened despite little to no wind.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought any play of the course except by competitors or those setting it up would be disallowed during the tournament.

Your experience still doesn't change the fact that an unusual number of ball at rest moved incidents happened despite little to no wind.

Okay dude. Cool.

I was in a position to know better than you - as was even @saevel25 - and we disagree with your assessment through your TV screen.

Had DJ's ball not moved in the final round, you might not have heard about the other two. So you don't even know that "an unusual number" occurred.

Anyway, as is typical of discussions with you, enough of this tangent, please, and back to the actual topic.

[Buckeyebowman]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

 

If you want to change the front slope of the 15th green to be less severe, you don't need to use that example. Balls have been failing to get far enough up the slope to stay dry for decades…

But the ball got far enough up the slope to be dry, at least for a while. Long enough for the player to walk to the green, mark his ball, have his caddie clean it, replace the ball and remove the marker.  Then the slope and speed of the green, coupled with the force of the wind, caused it to get wet. The Open Championship has been making these adjustments for decades because they know how the wind can blow there. What? Augusta couldn't dial up AccuWeather or Wunderground?

Don't get me wrong, in most cases I'd much rather putt fast greens than slow. But then, there are the times that try men's souls! Many times these occur on older courses which were designed and built before the advent of modern green mowers. One of the ways they provided "resistance to scoring", was putting some fairly severe slopes and contours into the greens. With modern maintenance things can sometimes get out of hand.

Case in point. There was an old course nearby, now closed, where the opening hole of the back nine was a 190 yard par 3. I hit to the front fringe, about 20 feet directly below the hole on a severely sloping back to front green. I putted the ball up the slope to about 6 inches and it rolled back to my feet. OK, I'm not amused. I putt it again, hole high but 2 inches left and again it rolls back to me. Now I'm pissed! That's when the owner of the course decided to roar up in his cart and loudly berate me for holding up play!

That's when I blew my stack! I told him to sit right there and watch. I rapped the ball up the slope, a good foot past the hole, and it rolled back to my feet! I told him that if anyone was holding up play, it was him and his ridiculous greens! I picked up and told my buddy to give me a triple.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Buckeyebowman

[Rainmaker]

I was actually thinking the other week - they should just go ahead and pave the greens for 1 tournament, lol.  Personally, I like seeing the really fast greens on tv - not so much in real life.  It seems like this is the year of fast greens . .or else I just haven't been paying close enough attention in the past . .but several times this year, I've said to the tv, "holy crap those greens are fast"  .. or something to that effect. 

Personally, I think the biggest issue with really fast greens for us regular folks is adjusting.  If all the greens were fast - we'd do better than we do when we run into the occasional fast green.  I played at a course several years back in Monterey, CA .. the guy in the pro-shop actually warned us that the greens were ridiculous because of a recent tournament and we might even not want to play.  We were like - whatever! . we totally want to play . .and sillyness ensued.  Like 4 putting from 10 feet and feeling pretty damn good about it, lol. 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

But the ball got far enough up the slope to be dry, at least for a while. Long enough for the player to walk to the green, mark his ball, have his caddie clean it, replace the ball and remove the marker.

Actually I think his marker was still there.

8 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Then the slope and speed of the green, coupled with the force of the wind, caused it to get wet.

Yep. He should have hit it farther up the slope. Or not replaced it until he was ready to putt.

8 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

What? Augusta couldn't dial up AccuWeather or Wunderground?

It was one ball.

8 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

That's when I blew my stack! I told him to sit right there and watch. I rapped the ball up the slope, a good foot past the hole, and it rolled back to my feet! I told him that if anyone was holding up play, it was him and his ridiculous greens! I picked up and told my buddy to give me a triple.

Okay, but even on sloped greens, there are often pin positions that won't roll off.

[Strandly]

On 7/23/2016 at 1:28 AM, 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 game has always been that way, you don't see any guys driving the ball 230 yards winning majors.

[natureboy]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Okay dude. Cool.

I was in a position to know better than you - as was even @saevel25 - and we disagree with your assessment through your TV screen.

Had DJ's ball not moved in the final round, you might not have heard about the other two. So you don't even know that "an unusual number" occurred.

Anyway, as is typical of discussions with you, enough of this tangent, please, and back to the actual topic.

How is a discussion of Oakmont not relevant to this topic? This is @Piz OP:

Quote

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.

Many were still discussing Oakmont's green speeds at the Open Championship by way of contrast. Clearly the experience left an impression with many regular followers of golf. In addition, many more casual followers of golf, less familiar with the rules as written, may have come away with a negative impression of what's 'important' in golf, which has bearing on whether 'excessive' green speeds may be detrimental to the game. For many (regular and casual followers), penalties arising from seemingly innocuous actions on the greens were a distraction from the competition.

Those three balls did move, though. That's a fact vs. a subjective evaluation. I'd expect that others who considered those greens 'fine' diligently pored through the records to find similar instances of multiple ball at rest - moved penalties (when there was little to no wind)...and have apparently come up wanting.

Edited July 25, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

How is a discussion of Oakmont not relevant to this topic? This is @Piz OP:

Because you're not discussing "Oakmont." You're discussing the balls moving.

He didn't mention that at all in the OP, and we've had golf balls moving on the greens at… the British Open, the Masters, the PGA, and the U.S. Open.

So it's about "fast greens," not the ball moving.

I realize (or assume) that in your mind you won't see the distinction, but from my perspective, and the perspective of other mods, you get "stuck" on things and then pollute thread after thread trying to bring up the same old stuff. You've done it with several topics.

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

Those three balls did move, though. That's a fact vs. a subjective evaluation. I'd expect that others who considered those greens 'fine' diligently pored through the records to find similar instances of multiple ball at rest - moved penalties (when there was little to no wind)...and have apparently come up wanting.

Ha ha ha ha. Okay, dude. Please continue to tell yourself that you "won" something.  Enjoy!

And, way to miss the point. Had DJ's ball not moved you'd have not heard about or said anything about the other two.

[natureboy]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

So it's about "fast greens," not the ball moving.

The ball moving from minute disturbance of a player's proximity on the green is a consequence of 'fast greens' that potentially impacts the perception of the game.

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The ball moving from minute disturbance of a player's proximity on the green is a consequence of 'fast greens' that potentially impacts the perception of the game.

Okay. Cool. The ball moving aspect has been hashed out, IMO, plenty (and was ultimately only 3 of a few hundred or even thousand putts?). I don't think the OP was talking about that, but rather, its affect on putting skill and making putts.