A couple of days ago, I played a course with a sign near the clubhouse announcing the conditions of the day: cart policies, hole location, etc. The sign also announced that the greens were running 10 on the Stimpmeter.
Now, there are a lot of great things about golf on television. For example, it allows the viewer to easily follow a golf tournament's drama, which can takes place on multiple fronts. (Television directors hate it for the same reason.)
But there are also plenty of negatives. A big minus is that tournament layouts, which have been prepped specifically for the best players in the world, have become models for courses for everyday golfers. And for some reason, fast greens are one aspect of course setup that has really caught on among owners and greens committees around the country. It's easy to understand why: The Stimpmeter reading is an easily quantifiable way to judge greens. And so courses love to boast that their course has greens with Stimpemeter readings of 10 to 11, which are tour speeds. (The U.S. Open reaches 12 and sometimes 13.)
Never mind that a green speed of 10 is pretty fast and plenty tough for most players, leading to more three-putts and longer rounds (just what we all need). A trickier issue is this particular course, the greens were nowhere near the advertised 10 on the Stimpmeter. (They were probably more like 8, which is perfect for most golfers; the speed allows greens to have moderate undulations and still allows players to make a fair number of putts.)
Would it have been so horrible to just list the green speed as 8? I mean, is perception really that important? Is somebody really going to see that the green speed is 8 then turn around and get back in the car? Courses obviously think so, or they wouldn't advertise green speeds that are much higher than reality.
Plus, I think this misleading information is a huge disservice to golfers, who may now think that a green speed of 10 is no big deal. What are they to think when they play a course with green speeds that are actually running 10 and hit some putts off the green?
Golfers are mentally fragile creatures, and it is easy to mess with their heads, especially when it comes to green speed. (I'm sure it's never happened to you, but how many times have you seen a somebody misjudge the speed on the first green, overcompensate on the second then be useless as a partner lost for the rest of the round?) Even the most mentally tough golfer of our time, Tiger Woods, isn't immune, as evidenced by his switch at this week's British Open from the winningest putter ever to a new model, as a way to adjust to the slower speeds of St. Andrews' greens.
And make no mistake, dialing in the right speed is crucial at the Old Course, whose putting surfaces comprise 6.1 acres, the second-largest total in the world. (Old Macdonald's greens cover 6.5 acres). And the importance of the putter extends beyond the greens—the tightly mown turf is just as fast as the putting surfaces, so players can—and will—putt from well off the greens.
At St. Andrews, the rub of the greens is that nobody really cares about the speed of the putting surfaces, even for the British Open. The R&A won't announce the green speeds. But I imagine that this year, given the soggy conditions, they will be at about 10. (If they're much faster and it's windy, balls won't stay on the greens.) But nobody cares. Players will just hit putts a little more firmly or (like Tiger) change their equipment to suit the conditions.
The slower greens don't make the tournament any less enjoyable to play or watch. Perhaps more everyday courses could appreciate that lesson during this week of televised golf unlike any other.
Comments