Are super-fast greens detrimental to golf?

[Pretzel]

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.

I prefer to watch, and to putt, on greens that are fairly fast. My reasoning behind this actually has the green speed as more of a side-effect to a root cause though:

- Fast greens, in my experience, are better maintained and have fewer pitch/spike marks all over them

- As a result of the better maintenance that is required to keep greens alive and fast, putts roll true as compared to slower greens.

The fast greens, in my opinion, highlight players with exceptional putting skills far more than average or slow greens. Distance control and line are more important on fast greens since they will roll true and it becomes harder to control the distance of your putts. This is the opposite of the crap-shoot that you suggest. Fast greens allow great putting golfers to excel on the greens and separate themselves from the mediocre just because they will have better control of their distance and direction. Slow greens disadvantage good putters because distance control becomes easier (and thus, less important) and bumps are more prevalent which can discount the better green-reading and directional control of the better putters by allowing bad putts to "get lucky" and good putts to unluckily bounce off line.

[natureboy]

20 hours ago, Rainmaker said:

I was actually thinking the other week - they should just go ahead and pave the greens for 1 tournament, lol.

Heck the PGA and USGA have tons of cash, they could pump some liquid hydrogen into the ground and replace the grass with an ice surface.

It would make for really compelling TV too with the mist lifting off the surface and the players stumbling and slipping.

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I prefer to watch, and to putt, on greens that are fairly fast. My reasoning behind this actually has the green speed as more of a side-effect to a root cause though:

- Fast greens, in my experience, are better maintained and have fewer pitch/spike marks all over them

- As a result of the better maintenance that is required to keep greens alive and fast, putts roll true as compared to slower greens.

The fast greens, in my opinion, highlight players with exceptional putting skills far more than average or slow greens. Distance control and line are more important on fast greens since they will roll true and it becomes harder to control the distance of your putts. This is the opposite of the crap-shoot that you suggest. Fast greens allow great putting golfers to excel on the greens and separate themselves from the mediocre just because they will have better control of their distance and direction. Slow greens disadvantage good putters because distance control becomes easier (and thus, less important) and bumps are more prevalent which can discount the better green-reading and directional control of the better putters by allowing bad putts to "get lucky" and good putts to unluckily bounce off line.

I don't disagree with what you wrote but in my experience, slow greens make distance control easier but make reading break harder, especially if you're used to faster greens.  This could be a limitation of my higher handicap as well.  

[natureboy]

5 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

- Fast greens, in my experience, are better maintained and have fewer pitch/spike marks all over them

In your experience, is that because faster greens tend to be at private clubs or courses that are more exclusive / expensive and therefore have less total traffic and shots being hit to the greens or does good (expensive) maintenance get rid of or 'heal' equal levels of play wear?

Edited July 26, 2016 by natureboy

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, natureboy said:

In your experience, is that because faster greens tend to be at private clubs or courses that are more exclusive / expensive and therefore have less total traffic and shots being hit to the greens or does good (expensive) maintenance get rid of or 'heal' equal levels of play wear?

 

I would say nicer golf courses tend to have better greens because of the money it takes to maintain them. 

I would say that greens that can routinely hold up to being cut short probably have a healthier denser grass with stronger root systems that allow it to resist damage from pitch marks. I've played on course in Dayton where a pitch mark will just tear up the green versus another course where it just leaves a slight indentation. 

[Pretzel]

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

In your experience, is that because faster greens tend to be at private clubs or courses that are more exclusive / expensive and therefore have less total traffic and shots being hit to the greens or does good (expensive) maintenance get rid of or 'heal' equal levels of play wear?

The course with my absolute favorite greens is Eaton Country Club which, despite the name, is far cheaper golf than most courses. A membership is something around $100 a month with no initiation fee or food requirement if I remember correctly. Play golf once a week and you're paying only $25 a round with cart for 18 holes, which is a far better deal than any other course in the area (the 9 hole course I work at is the cheapest in my city at $25 for 9 holes with cart). The greens at this course stimp between 11 and 12 on a daily basis and are the smoothest that I've ever set foot on. Their maintenance crew is fantastic about fixing every little imperfection in the greens. They go over them with a fine-toothed comb every evening to fix anything on the green. 

I know there must be some kind of limit to how much play a green like this could sustain, but the course has looked this way every time I've played it (including weekends, weekdays, and such). It's not an enormously busy golf course though, and I don't think it would work on the courses that regularly see 200 or more golfers.

I would be willing to bet good money though that, given equal traffic, good maintenance will definitely produce a much higher quality putting surface. The course I used to work for had two people assigned to fix ball marks on the course once a week, both of which had issues with their backs that made bending over for any extended period of time uncomfortable. The greens at that course clearly showed it, with unfixed or only partially fixed ball marks marring every putting surface. The course I currently work at has a maintenance crew that fixes marks whenever they're out to water as well as marshalls that are assigned a couple of holes to maintain during their shifts and I notice that the greens here have many fewer ball marks across the greens. The maintenance crew is also diligent when it comes to regularly verticutting, needle-tining, etc. all of the greens to ensure that they're in top shape. They water the greens up to four times a day depending on the weather conditions as compared to the old course only watering in the evenings and sometimes mornings to save money. As a result the greens at my current course are much more lush and smooth than those at the course I used to work and play at, and I know the difference is the care and attention to the maintenance of the greens (they have similar player traffic).

[iacas]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I don't disagree with what you wrote but in my experience, slow greens make distance control easier but make reading break harder, especially if you're used to faster greens.  This could be a limitation of my higher handicap as well.  

That doesn't really make sense. Slow greens break less. There's less variance in break (whether you're talking about angle to the slope, or amount of slope, or anything else).

A 10-footer on Stimp 8 breaks 8" on 2% and 16" on 3.5%. On Stimp 12 those numbers on 2% and 3.5% are 15" and 30".

Faster greens favor better putters. That said, everyone putts better on faster greens if given a chance to adjust… but better putts putt a bit better than worse putters putt better.

[Buckeyebowman]

A buddy of mine got a chance to play Oakmont quite a few years ago. I had been there for a couple of Opens, and told him to spend a substantial amount of time on and around the practice green chipping and putting, since neither he nor I had ever played on greens like those. He called me when he got home and thanked me for the advice. He claimed to have had only two 3 putt greens when he left his approach too far from the hole.

As far as "better" courses having nicer greens, I guess it's where you are and what kind of players you have. There's a local course called Kennsington that I absolutely love! The greens are huge, undulating, and quite fast. However, it's a public, daily fee course. I could spend all day fixing ball marks! I do what I can without holding up play.

I appreciate Pretzel's comment about the course that hires someone to go around and do nothing but fix ball marks. Sounds like a great job for a motivated kid. Teach him how, give him or her a repair tool, cart, and turn them loose.

However, I am reminded of the quote from the 18th and 19th Century German writer and poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who wrote, "Let every man sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean!"

[natureboy]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

That doesn't really make sense. Slow greens break less. There's less variance in break (whether you're talking about angle to the slope, or amount of slope, or anything else).

Maybe @newtogolf is conflating his experience of those greens as a whole with just the stimp. A slower green breaks less if the slope is the same. Quite often slower greens have more slope.

You've asserted that slower stimps tend to be bumpy and that's likely true for most high-traffic public courses. But I would bet that the recent Open Champ greens weren't very bumpy, just slower than typical for the other Majors. That's obviously not a typical case, but just a point that it's possible to have a smooth, slower green if the maintenance / grooming investment is high and/or rounds traffic is lower. The 'bumpy' factor for slow greens may be a separate issue from the stimp in terms of people tending to putt better on fast greens. Fast greens tend to be much better maintained and that could be a significant factor why people putt better on them once the adjustment is made rather than the stimp itself.

I would argue that it's the combination of speed and slope that creates the challenge favoring better putters. For equally well manicured greens, it would seem quite possible that a relatively flat stimp 12 may putt as difficult as a much more contoured 9 stimp (depending on the relative difference of slope & slope changes across the green).

This could be where the rub happens with the chase for higher stimp 'bragging rights'. To maintain sufficient options for pin placements on a course that expects a decent amount of traffic for non-tournament play, course architects like Dye and Shackelford have been saying they have had to gradually lower the average slope or total contour on the greens in their designs. That makes for less challenging putting, despite the green speed increase. So you may end up with a bit of a wash, or potentially a decrease in overall putting challenge.

12 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

However, I am reminded of the quote from the 18th and 19th Century German writer and poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who wrote, "Let every man sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean!"

Great quote.

[iacas]

OT stuff…

Spoiler

On July 26, 2016 at 11:19 AM, natureboy said:

You've asserted that slower stimps tend to be bumpy and that's likely true for most high-traffic public courses. But I would bet that the recent Open Champ greens weren't very bumpy, just slower than typical for the other Majors. That's obviously not a typical case, but just a point that it's possible to have a smooth, slower green if the maintenance / grooming investment is high and/or rounds traffic is lower.

That's why I often say something like "tend to be." I don't often say "always." But I appreciate the attempt to imply otherwise with the word "assert."

On July 26, 2016 at 11:19 AM, natureboy said:

The 'bumpy' factor for slow greens may be a separate issue from the stimp in terms of people tending to putt better on fast greens.

I don't think so. Not generally. And I think people putt better on faster greens for two reasons:

• They tend to be smoother.
• They require less force and thus smaller strokes, and smaller strokes can be more accurate.

And the fact that people, given a bit of time to adapt, putt better on faster greens is not something I've asserted, but something that's been tested time and time again, and I've seen studies (can't cite any, because honestly it's something I've accepted as fact at this point), and folks like my friend John Graham have taken it to be fact (and if you know John and I, we're the skeptics' skeptics, him perhaps even more so).

On July 26, 2016 at 11:19 AM, natureboy said:

For equally well manicured greens, it would seem quite possible that a relatively flat stimp 12 may putt as difficult as a much more contoured 9 stimp (depending on the relative difference of slope & slope changes across the green).

Okay. I think that you're likely wrong in most cases, but… what's this to do with the topic exactly?

On July 26, 2016 at 11:19 AM, natureboy said:

This could be where the rub happens with the chase for higher stimp 'bragging rights'. To maintain sufficient options for pin placements on a course that expects a decent amount of traffic for non-tournament play, course architects like Dye and Shackelford have been saying they have had to gradually lower the average slope or total contour on the greens in their designs. That makes for less challenging putting, despite the green speed increase. So you may end up with a bit of a wash, or potentially a decrease in overall putting challenge.

Courses built in the 1950s when the greens stimped at like 6 had to be reduced in the severity of their contours if they want to play those greens at stimp 12, yes, that's pretty easy to understand.

Beyond that… let's just stick to the topic, please.

---

I don't think fast greens are detrimental to golf. That said, I think that any maintenance practice that unnecessarily raises costs, or pushes a course beyond what is sensible, is bad for golf. But "fast greens" alone don't necessarily qualify.

[Groucho Valentine]

I think theres a happy spot for green speeds on the professional level (like 11-12 stimp) Any more than that gets into clown golf territory, IMO. 

[Piz]

That was the point of the OP; that beyond enough is too much.

[DaveP043]

On 7/23/2016 at 3:28 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.

 

3 minutes ago, Piz said:

That was the point of the OP; that beyond enough is too much.

I understand your viewpoint, but I don't agree with the conclusion.  In the case of most US Opens, its the deep rough that is routinely cultivated that discourages players from taking on challenges.  At Troon, with "slow" greens, many players still avoided taking on some of the challenges, because hitting out of 2-foot high wispy fescue is a crap-shoot.  At Augusta, it was the introduction of the "light rough" a number of years ago that pulled players back a bit, not specifically because the greens were really fast, but because the player's lost a measure of control when hitting from even the light rough (which many of us would be happy to have as fairways).  It may be more accurate to say that difficult rough can make even the best golfers defensive and "boring".  In my opinion, really fast greens are an appropriate defense against scoring by the very best players at many courses.  At courses where everyday amateurs play, I think an emphasis on super-fast greens have the potential to slow down play, increase maintenance expenses, and increase wear on the more limited "cup-able" locations.

[iacas]

Fast greens, like those at Augusta National and Oakmont this last year (and in 2007) put more of a premium on ballstriking to leave yourself more makable putts.

That's one of the reasons greens are a bit faster at majors. That, and they have the resources to essentially shut the course down, push the greens pretty far, etc. that they don't have at regular PGA Tour stops. Plus, fans expect it at majors, but not at the Fry's Open or whatever.

[Piz]

Augusta pairs fast, undulating, and immaculately cared for greens with "rough" that few of us would recognize as such.  The U.S. Open prides itself on pushing the boundaries: tight fairways, quick greens, and punitive rough.  The British Open venues are typically wild, wind-blown, and somewhat moderate by comparison.  I prefer the latter.  That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the other stops.  I do believe, however, that the tournament at Oakmont would not have suffered, and may have been a better test, had the greens been running no more than 12.  

[natureboy]

46 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

In my opinion, really fast greens are an appropriate defense against scoring by the very best players at many courses.

I would have thought that too, but it seems that all else being equal slower greens are harder for everyone to putt on, so they would be more appropriate as the defense against scoring by the very best, yes?

Edited July 27, 2016 by natureboy

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

But it seems that slower greens are harder for everyone to putt on, so they would be more appropriate as the defense against scoring by the very best, yes?

Nah, the very best can adjust to pretty much any speed, and probably much better than we can.  And they'll score even better if  the slower greens also hold shots better, like they always do when greens get soft after rain.  

 

[natureboy]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Nah, the very best can adjust to pretty much any speed, and probably much better than we can.  And they'll score even better if  the slower greens also hold shots better, like they always do when greens get soft after rain. 

But in looking at this thread topic of is 'super fast' good or detrimental and the apparent 'competition' for faster green speeds among some clubs, @iacas referenced studies that show everyone putts better on faster greens, therefore everyone will putt worse on slower greens (by being forced to make a longer stroke which requires a steadier hand at each distance). That's a better measure of putting skill and would apparently be a better focus for bragging rights, no?

Edited July 27, 2016 by natureboy