Another look at the stimpmeter

[TEPaul]

Here's another, perhaps interesting way, to look at maximum greenspeed and the use of the stimpmeter.

Most of us on here understand the stimpmeter reading was only intended for greenspeed consistency throughout a golf course and it was never intended to create a speed race.

But it has. Golf courses are chasing higher numbers trying to get their greens up in the 11s and 12s or even higher in some cases. They're forgetting or never understood that their slopes and contours may not be as conducive to that as the modern course across town.

So in the speedrace the first thing they think about is softening their slopes and contours to keep accomodating higher stimp numbers. They seem to neglect the fact they can't change or reinvent physics (the way the ball rolls across various and differing slopes and contours)!

But maybe physics and the stimpmeter can be used to stop this stimpmeter numbers race. How could that be done? Perhaps by also stimping and advertizing the stimp number on any golf course of the maximum usable (in this case perhaps not pinnable but just usable for filtering the ball across slope or contour) greenspace contours and slopes.

That very good superintendent, Rich Spear of Piping Rock may have implied this a number of years ago in an excellent paper he did (that I have around here somewhere). Rich said, that firstly very few who brag about the higher stimpmeter reading of their golf course even understand how that stimp number is arrived at. In brief, the super basically finds two flat spots on perhaps two greens and rolls the ball out off the stimpmeter on that flat spot both ways and the average is the stimp number.

But Rich also said that what would be Piping Rock’s maximum reasonable stimp speed for PINNABLE space of perhaps 10 to 10.5 at Piping Rock those maximum slopes and contours of greenspace (not pinnable but usable for filtering the ball) could be 30 or 40 or even 50 if they were stimped!

So maybe that’s what supers should start doing. Not just stimping the flat spots that the stimpmeter was originally supposed to be used on but also stimp the maximum slopes and contours of the course---and advertize that number too. That might get people’s attention and it might prevent them from this speed race and from softening greens which is essentially the character and in many cases the defense of the golf course.

I think ANGC and the Masters just proved that. Wasn’t it amazing how the green surface firmness and the speed of those ANGC greens on Sunday ratcheted up strategic ramifications huge? What would the maximum usable filtering slopes and contours of ANGC have stimped at last Sunday? God only knows---it could’ve been 100 or more!!    

I like really fast greens--I think they increase the strategies bigtime and they require great thought and imagination. But I only want to see the greens of any course get to that reasonable maximum speed for that particular course and I feel the slopes and contours of any course should never be softened. The only time I think it should happen is if perhaps one green or some part of it is just an out and out anomaly in relation to the rest of the greens on the course. But if that was true that green was probably softened years ago anyway.

So what do you think the effect would be on perception if the stimpmeter was not just used as it was supposed to be used (on flat spots) but if it was now ALSO used to stimp the exact other end of the spectrum (the maximum slope or contour on greenspace)?

[Peter Galea]

So the new measurement would be "yards back into the fairway the ball rolled?"

I can hear it now, "Yeah, well over at _______CC, the ball didn't stop till it hit the native grass!"

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul, I know you're not crazy about the subject BUT, If the justification for the speedrace is ego, as I inferred, and am inclined to believe, posting a new number should massage that nicely.

The realization that EGO, is a destructive and deceptive influence, is a lesson, that courses doing the softening, obviously have'nt learned.

What a waste of a great sport!

[TEPaul]

Pete:

Then perhaps the best thing to do is try to get rid of the regular stimp number altogether and just go with the max stimp number on any particular course. If they then think rolling out 50 yards or more into the native rough is a cool thing to do them let them--but I seriously doubt they'd think that. Hopefully their next thought might be not to roll out into the native area and to accomplish that what would they logically do? I'd say the cheapest and easiest thing to do would be to reduce that maximum slope or contour rollout number of 50 or more yards by reducing their greenspeed.

[Peter Galea]

I like your creative thinking.  However as far as the stimpmeter is concerned, I  appreciate using it for it's intended purpose.
That is, a tool for evaluating and maintaining consistancy from surface to surface. I do not agree with publishing numbers. Golfers should measure their performance, superintendents should measure the effectiveness of their programs. In that light, the stimpmeter is a another tool in the arsenal.
Many times, when golfers, and even my boss, ask me what the speed of the greens are, I tell them medium, medium fast or fast. Usually they are satisfied, and go to the practice green to figure it out for themselves. I would never adjust my thinking or putting stroke because someone gave me a number (greenspeed) before the round. Instead, I would have to hit putts of varying lengths on the practice green, in this way I would gain real experience and feedback of the condition and all the other factors involved, ie: my touch for the day.
It goes back to the adage: Golf is a game of judgement and perception.

[TEPaul]

Pete:

Well, maybe stimping the max slopes and contours of a course's greens wouldn't be an effective way to get clubs to be more reasonable and not chase a number followed by the first thought to soften the slopes and contours when they don't work well and get over the top.

I do know Rich Spear, though, and I do know the man who controlled that course back then and when he heard what the slopes stimped at he said;

"Whoa, man, I never thought of it that way!"

Obviously, Rich wrote that so the speeds wouldn't be pushed to some unreasonable level followed by the request to soften the slopes and contours.

[johnk]

Tom Paul, I think these are great ideas and viewpoints for the architecturally minded, however, I agree with Clayman that any number-based thing falls into the ego trap.  Stimp meter, Course slope / rating, course record, rankings.  They are all basically penis measurement contests for clubs...

GCA is a discussion board with serious architecture geeks, who actually may understand the way the stimpmeter works, and who could make the leap to understand the value of "radically" sloped greens - like those at Augusta or Pasatiempo.

However, for the 95% of the golfing world that has not thought much about architecture, repositioning stimp measurements wouldn't achieve that affect...  It would just get fed into the contest mentality since there is little underlying appreciation for the architectural reasoning.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but a stimpmeter reading can only be taken by measuring two putts in opposite directions and splitting the difference, no? So, I'm wondering...if you rolled a ball off a stimpmeter down a long slope (as at Augusta) for, say, 150 feet in the manner you describe, and then did the same in the opposite direction and saw the ball U-turn and wind up in the same spot where the first ball finished, -140 feet away, wouldn't that portion of green be said to stimp at "5"?



Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

Darren:

That's true but it really doesn't matter because 99% of golfers don't even know a stimp reading is done both ways on a flat spot on a green but 100% of them know the disaster has already basically happened when their ball rolls 60 feet off the green down into the fairway and into the fescue. That should get their attention and make them forget that a stimpmeter reading is both ways on a green on a flat surface--if in fact they ever knew it which they don't!  

[Peter Galea]

Actually there is a way to stimp greens with slope. It was published in GCM several years ago. I'll see if I can find it.
But....if I tell you, I'll have to kill you!

[DMoriarty]

Actually there is a way to stimp greens with slope. It was published in GCM several years ago. I'll see if I can find it.
But....if I tell you, I'll have to kill you!

This is disappointing because it undermines a good response to the speed craze . . . when Rustic's Super is pestered about the stimp speed, he answers "I have no idea.  The greens dont have any flat spots, so there is no way to measure it."  Gets the point across, if they are paying attention.  

[TEPaul]

Pete:

I've seen it done. You just put the stimpmeter on a real green slope, raise it up and watch the ball run and run and run! There's no need to do it both ways as any golfer who wants to keep increasing speed where it shouldn't be done will get the point when he sees his one way putt run and run and run and run! The trick here is to simly explain to him there's a better and cheaper way to prevent that putt from running and running and running than softening the green!