|
It's Time We Put the Green Back in Green
Speed
By DAVID A. OATIS
Director, Northeastern Region, USGA Green Section
Reprinted from the USGA Green Section Record
1990 November/December Vol 28(6): 1-6
Few golf course management topics attract greater attention
or controversy than speed of greens. It is a constant source of
debate, and Green Section agronomists are regularly bombarded with
comments and questions about this volatile subject. Though some
may feel the topic has been beaten to death, a good argument could
be made that green speed is beating the game of golf to death. Too
much emphasis is being placed on the importance of having ultra-fast
greens, and many golfers fail to realize just how much green speed
is related to subjectivity, perception, relativity, and reality.
Thirteen years have passed since the stimpmeter was made available
to golf course superintendents. The intentions behind its introduction
were wonderful: essentially, the USGA wanted to have the ability
to quantify green speed for the sake of consistency. There was a
great demand among all interests in golf to know the relative speed
of greens. To that end, the stimpmeter was used during 1976 and
1977 by USGA agronomists to gauge the relative speed of thousands
of greens across the country. Data from this work formed the basis
for the green speed charts found in the stimpmeter
instruction manual. There has always been plenty of controversy
about green speeds, but the introduction of the stimpmeter and the
publication of quantitative data stimulated a new round of debate
that has not subsided.
For anyone taking up golf, a great deal can be learned about the
game just by asking questions, listening, and observing. It's a
wonderful way to observe the interaction of golf with human nature.
People who follow golf long enough usually come to the same conclusion:
Golfers who are playing well tend to be happy and are generally
complimentary of course conditioning. On the other hand, golfers
who are playing poorly tend to be unhappy and are often critical
of course conditioning. Tired or nervous golfers leave putts short
or blast them by the hole, and green speed is often blamed for their
poor performance. In general, golfers who negotiate the course with
fewer than 25 putts love the greens, while those with putt totals
over 34 feel the greens are inferior.
The condition of the golf course, in the subjective view
of the golfer, is directly related to how well that golfer plays.
This conclusion is further supported by my own golf career, when
at age 17 I won a local junior golf tournament. The tournament was
played in August on Poa annua greens that were 30-40% dead. (This
happened every year.) After shooting a career round and winning
the tournament, I deliberately sought out the superintendent and
complimented him on the excellent condition of the course. "The
golf course is in wonderful shape," I proclaimed.
The point is, course condition and green speed are very subjective
in the mind's eye, and the stimpmeter was introduced to eliminate
this subjectivity. The speed charts which were produced gave an
accurate picture of relative green speeds at that time, but they
did not (nor were they intended to) account for the many subtleties
that should be considered when determining a green speed for a particular
course.
There is a remarkably direct relationship between fast greens and
dead grass, and most of the practices currently used to increase
putting green speed are detrimental to the health of the turf if
practiced to an extreme. The question is, how fast is fast, and
how do we determine what is appropriate? Should we simply refer
to the chart and pick a number for everyone to follow? "We want
fast greens, so set them at 9' 6"." No, this is absolutely the wrong
way to look at the problem!
It is fascinating to consider just how often golfers playing the
same course will have completely different views concerning the
speed of the greens. A visit made several years ago to a course
renowned for its fast greens provides a case in point. At the time,
the membership was very unhappy about what they considered inferior
green speed, even though the superintendent reported that it was
11' 6". After much discussion, a stimpmeter was produced and the
whole group of committee people marched out to a putting green to
measure its speed. The speed indeed measured at 11' 6", yet the
committee was not impressed.
During the proceedings, a golfer who had played in the U.S. Open
at a different site the previous week arrived to give his thoughts
on the subject. "I don't care what that thing says," he said. "I
just played in the U.S. Open and the greens were faster there than
they are here." As a matter of record, the green speeds during that
particular Open had been about 10' 6" throughout the championship.
Maybe it was the pressure or the status of playing in an Open that
made the player think the greens were faster. After all, Open courses
are well known for their firm, fast putting surfaces. Then again,
it may have been the contours of the Open greens that made them
seem so fast. In any event, the fact remains that the player was
absolutely incorrect in his assessment of the green speed, and this
is one of the reasons the stimpmeter was introduced.
The point is this: The best players in the world cannot determine
green speed with a putter because touch and feel, no matter how
finely tuned, are nothing more than senses. Though it is a simple
instrument, the stimpmeter is very accurate and does not lie.
Using the USGA green speed chart, whether for Regular or Championship
play, does not always do justice to selecting a green speed range
for a particular course. Severely contoured greens should not be
maintained at very fast speeds because the skill factor is removed
and is replaced with a luck factor. Severely contoured greens combined
with even reasonably fast green speeds (7' 6" to 8' 6" on the stimpmeter)
give the golfer the perception that speeds are very fast. A good
argument could be made that those stimpmeter readings are more than
adequate for those particular greens, but the same stimpmeter readings
on greens with less contour would be perceived by the same golfer
as being quite slow.
Along the same lines, golfers playing in tournaments at other courses
often return home with stories of "lightning fast" greens, and respond
by putting even more pressure on their own superintendent to do
the same. What the golfers fail to realize is that the tournament
greens were more than likely peaked for that special event and were
not kept that way for long. Carrying this one step further, visiting
players are usually not as familiar with the greens as they are
with their own, and this lack of local knowledge makes the greens
seem faster.
Weekly televised golf tournaments fuel the demand for fast greens,
yet golfers fail to take into account that these events are prepared
for weeks, months, or even years in advance. The U.S. Open Championship
provides a classic example of selective viewing. Spectators and
viewers do not see the course the week following the event, when
the greens are usually fertilized, the cutting heights raised, and
mowing postponed for a few days.
It should be noted that in 1976 and 1977, the years during which
the stimpmeter was tested, the average speed across the country
was 6' 6". Furthermore, anything over 7' 6" was considered excitingly
fast by the Green Section agronomists doing the testing. These same
speeds today would be considered very slow by some, and courses
remaining at the same level occupied 13 years ago would have lost
ground relative to most other courses.
Green speed is much like playing golf: The worse (slower) you are,
the easier it is to improve (faster). It is also true that it is
tougher for a good player to improve. Increasing the speed of greens
from 7' to 8' is relatively easy, but taking it from 9' to 10' and
beyond is progressively more difficult.
Essentially, some of the elite clubs that were once recognized for
their fast greens have been caught or passed. But who says faster
is better? The fastest three-lap average speed wins the pole position
at the Indy 500, but consistently good speed, without mechanical
failure, wins the race.
Many of the great old golf courses have a green or two which is
so severely contoured that it has little usable cupping area, especially
at faster green speeds. Some greens have mounds or ridges which
cannot be mowed without scalping, and the comments and questions
from the green committee in both scenarios are often the same: "What
can we do? Should we rebuild the green? Can we raise the front or
lower the back? Why don't we remove the mound?" The list goes on
and on. Wonderful old courses by the late, great architects such
as MacKenzie, Ross, Tillinghast, Banks, Flynn, and others have been
completely changed or modified over the years for the sake of "modernization,"
and now they are being changed for the sake of green speed. Does
this make sense? Is it right? Many would argue that it is not!
The value of fast green speeds is being greatly overemphasized.
It should not be the only factor in determining changes in architecture.
Within reason, architectural style should be an important consideration
in determining green speed ranges on these courses. Having one or
more severely contoured greens should be a factor in setting green
speeds for the entire golf course, and a green should not necessarily
be rebuilt or recontoured just to facilitate faster speeds. There
are exceptions to every rule, and some of these severe greens may
not be fair or reasonable even at relatively slow speeds. These
greens may need adjustments, but great care should be taken not
to confuse reasonable contours with excessive ones.
Maintaining very fast green speeds for a prolonged period of time
can be detrimental to the health of the turf, and it greatly affects
natural selection. Practices involving very close mowing, excessive
verticutting, frequent grooming, low fertility, etc., leave the
turf weak and subject to weed grass infestation. This effect is
compounded by heavy play.
Weed grass invasion may come in the form of crabgrass and goosegrass,
but their encroachment can usually be controlled with applications
of preemergent herbicides. Unfortunately, these herbicides have
their own detrimental side effects. The other weed grass which presents
a problem is Poa annua, and this one is more difficult to control.
The drawback to having Poa annua as a main constituent of greens
is that it is an inconsistent grass when subjected to weather extremes.
It is no secret that moss and algae can be major problems at courses
with fast greens. Low cutting heights and low fertility practices
reduce the recuperative ability of the turf as well as its competitiveness.
We've all heard that the best defense against weed grass invasion
is to grow a healthy stand of turf; and this is true. The most effective
way to control moss and keep it controlled is to increase fertility
and raise cutting heights. In short, increase the vigor of the turf.
Weather has not yet been mentioned, yet this is surely the most
significant variable superintendents must deal with. When rigorous
cultural practices for improving speed are combined with extended
periods of stressful weather, it can have a detrimental effect on
the turf. The result can be loss of density, increased disease activity,
or outright loss of turf.
Wet weather can completely change the character of a golf course
by softening green surfaces and reducing green speed. When an extended
period of wet weather occurs in an area, golf course superintendents
have to be concerned about the health of the turf as well as the
speed of the greens. Saturated soils and heavy play can cause root
dieback and enhance disease activity, and the last thing the superintendent
wants to hear is the members' requests for faster greens.
The geographic location of the golf course has much to do with how
easy it is to develop fast green speeds. Maintenance practices which
produce smooth, fast greens in cooler climates will likely produce
dead turf in hotter, more humid areas. What can be done at one latitude
or elevation cannot necessarily be done in another. How long is
the stress period at your location? Is August normally the only
bad weather month, or does your course experience three months or
more of stress? How does your course come out of the winter? Is
it healthy, or is winterkill a real problem? Sometimes we should
just be thankful to have decent turf, let alone fast greens.
Turfgrass root systems play an important role in the turf's ability
to withstand stress. Healthier, deeper roots translate to better
stress tolerance. We have become more aware of the value of healthy
roots in recent years, partly because unhealthy, weak-rooted turf
is so often observed. The response has included innovations in aeration
equipment and an increasing variety of fertilizers and growth-related
products introduced to improve rooting and stress tolerance.
All of this is in direct response to a persistent trend in putting
green management: The amount of stress being placed on putting greens
increases every year. The stress comes in the form of heavier play
and increased demand for faster green speeds. It is no wonder that
two of the most commonly observed diseases on greens in many parts
of the country in recent years have been anthracnose and summer
patch, both stress-related diseases.
It is not hard to find fairway turf that measures more than 4' 6"
on the stimpmeter today. Keep in mind that such speeds were not
uncommon on some greens just a dozen years ago. Fairways have improved
immeasurably because we have finally discovered how to reduce the
amount of stress they receive. The trick has involved changing to
lightweight mowers.
Why haven't we seen a similar response on the putting greens, where
many clubs have gone back to using lighter, walk-behind mowers?
The answer lies in the height of cut. There is little doubt the
bentgrass existing in our greens would become more competitive if
cutting heights were raised back to 3/16" or 1/4"! Speed would suffer,
but the bentgrasses would begin crowding out the Poa annua. Wouldn't
that be something!
Realistically, we all know this will not happen until tighter water
restrictions or the loss of pesticides forces the issue. Nonetheless,
proceeding with moderation as far as green speed is concerned will
yield healthier turf.
There is a wonderful new trend in golf course architecture, especially
with respect to some of our classic golf courses. That trend, or
theme, is preservation. A new level of appreciation has emerged,
and golfers are finally beginning to realize what some have known
for a long time: The older courses are some of our best. Aided by
computers and laser measuring devices, the contours of older courses
are being measured and mapped with incredible accuracy. Our older
courses are a part of the history and evolution of the game of golf
in this country. As such, they should be treated with respect and
they should be preserved. Changing anything but the most unreasonable
contours for the sake of a few inches on a stimpmeter is a mistake.
Ultimately, each club must decide what green speed is reasonable
and appropriate for its golf course. When warning signs appear (loss
of density, shortened root systems, appearance of moss, scalped
knolls, etc.), action should be taken. Increase fertility, raise
the cutting height, eliminate verticutting and grooming, and switch
to solid rollers. Some of the symptoms can be relieved through sound
cultural practices such as proper fertility, aerification, etc.,
but sometimes the towel should be thrown in as far as green speed
is concerned. Agronomics and architecture must take precedence over
green speed.
In short, too much emphasis is being placed on the value of extremely
fast green speeds. The health of the turf is being compromised all
too often, and this leads to turf failure or the risk of failure.
Heavily contoured greens maintained at too great a speed reduce
the amount of usable cupping area and leave some greens unplayable.
Use the stimpmeter as it was intended: to measure speed and improve
consistency between greens. Put the emphasis on consistency and
smoothness, where it belongs. It's time we put the green back in
green speed.
GREEN
SPEED CHART
Championship Play |
| Fast |
10' 6" |
| Medium Fast |
9' 6" |
| Medium |
8' 6" |
| Medium Slow |
7' 6" |
| Slow |
6' 6" |
GREEN
SPEED CHART
Regular Membership Play |
| Fast |
8' 6" |
| Medium Fast |
7' 6" |
| Medium |
6' 6" |
| Medium Slow |
5' 6" |
| Slow |
4' 6" |
|
|
|
|
