News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Nathaniel Amrine

"Stimping" Greens
« on: July 09, 2007, 01:41:44 PM »
I am curious to know where the process of stimping greens came from.

Do different clubs have different ways to stimp greens or do they all follow the same, relatively unscientific approach of rolling a ball down the 45 degree shoot on a flat landing?

Earlier in the week I overheard a conversation by some of our guests that David Pelz has instituted his own, more advanced, method of stimping greens at several clubs. His method is percieved to be more accurate, although incredibly expensive for the average facility.

Edit: Looks like it's called the PELZmeter. LINK

It seems like most tour players and low handicap golfers say faster greens means lower scores. What is too fast for the average golfer? At Grand Haven our stimpmeter reads nearly 11 at the counter. We place it for our guests to see before their round starts. Several ask what stimp is, others are turned off by it.

Several questions, I know, but your insight is always appreciated.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 02:32:30 PM by Nathaniel Amrine »

Ken Moum

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2007, 02:33:39 PM »
The Pelzmeter is probably a more precise way to measure green speed, but it's other big benefit is that it allows measuring green speed on greens with slopes too steep to use a Stimpmeter.

The Pelzmeter is expensive http://www.pelzgolf.com/ProShop/Equipment/PelzMeter.aspx, but compared to other golf course equipment, it's not that far out of line.


For more on the Stimp, visit http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/management/greens/stimpmeter.html This is an excerpt:

What is a Stimpmeter?

The Stimpmeter is an extruded aluminum bar, 36 inches long, with a V-shaped groove extending along its entire length. It has a precisely milled ball-release notch 30" from the tapered end (the end that rests on the ground). The underside of the tapered end is milled away to reduce bounce as a rolling ball makes contact with the green.

The V-shaped groove has an included angle of 145 degrees, thereby supporting a golf ball at two points ½" apart. A ball rolling down the groove has a slight overspin, which is thoroughly consistent and has no deleterious effect on the ensuing measurments.

The ball-release notch is designed so that a ball will always be released and start to roll when the Stimpmeter is raised to an angle of approximately 20 degrees. This feature ensures that the velocity of the ball will always be the same when it reaches the tapered end.

Although the Stimpmeter is sturdily built, it is a precision instrument and should be protected from damage. When not in use, it should be stored in a plastic tube or case. Even relatively slight damage to the release notch or to the groove may cause errors.

How to Use a Stimpmeter

Equipment Required:

•   Stimpmeter
•   Three golf balls
•   Three tees
•   One 10- or 12-foot measuring tape
•   One Data Sheet

Step 1 Select a level area on the green, approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. (A simple means of checking for a level area is to lay the stimpmeter on the green and place a ball in the V-shaped groove – the movement of the ball will indicate whether or not the area is reasonably level).

Step 2 Insert a tee in the green, near the edge of the area selected, to serve as a starting point. Holding the Stimpmeter by the notched end, rest the tapered end on the ground beside the tee, and aim it in the direction you intend to roll the ball. Put the ball in the notch and slowly raise the end until the ball starts to roll down the groove. Once the ball starts to roll, Hold the Stimpmeter steady until the ball reaches the putting surface.

Repeat the same procedure with two more balls, keeping the tapered end on the same spot.

Step 3 All three balls should come to rest not more than 8 inches apart. (Should they be farther apart than that, the Stimpmeter may have moved too much during the series, the balls may be damaged or of inferior quality, or unusual conditions may exist. In any event, a pattern larger than 8 inches is of dubious accuracy, and the three-roll series should be repeated.)

Assuming the balls stop within the prescribed 8- inch limit, insert a second tee in the green at their average stopping point. The distance between the two tees is the length of the first series of rolls.

Step 4 Repeat Step 2, using the second tee as a starting point and the first tee as an aiming point. (In other words, roll a series of three balls along the same line, but in the opposite direction.)

Step 5 Repeat Step 3, thereby establishing the length of the second series of rolls. Step 6 Measure the two distances – for the first series and the second series – and calculate their average. Record this as the speed of the green.

Note: Should the difference in length between the first and second series be greater than 18 inches, the accuracy of the resulting average may be questionable. The area selected for the test may not have been sufficiently level – or sufficiently representative of the green – in which case it is advisable to select another area and repeat the test. Sometimes a green may be so severely undulating or sloping that a level area is simply not available (which the data record should indicate).
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Jon Wiggett

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2007, 03:39:20 PM »
As interesting as the whole subject is, don't people have better things to do with their money than buy something that expensive to find out something that is of pure statistical value but of no practical use?

Craig Sweet

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2007, 04:54:54 PM »
Right on Jon!  I am always being asked what our greens are "running" and I always say, I have no idea....and I don't because we don't stimp them...the look of surprise that we don't know, and more importantly don't seem to care, blows their mind.

SL_Solow

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2007, 05:08:47 PM »
The stimpmeter is not expensive.  It was created as a means of trying to create consistency of green speeds throughout a golf course which may or may not be a desireable goal depending on one's point of view.  However it has evolved into a tool to create an "arms race " among clubs to create bragging rights regarding which club has faster greens.  Confined to its original purpose it can be quite useful.

Craig Sweet

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2007, 05:19:38 PM »
Consistant green speeds is a myth...

Gerry B

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2007, 09:01:02 PM »
i was told that messr stimp attended the 1927 open at oakmont (the 1st one held there) was  intrigued by the speed of the greens and the rest is history

Jim Johnson

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2007, 12:21:50 AM »
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how can a course have consistent green speeds (i.e. "stimp readings") on all 18 of its greens?

When each green is located in its own unique location, that is, unique from the other 17, and the angle of the sun varies on each green because of the slope of each green being different from the other 17, relative to the sun anyway, airflow or lack thereof, disease or lack thereof, duration of sunshine each day or at different times of day (i.e. the 2nd green has tall trees to the southeast, so gets minimal morning sun but gets blasted by the hot afternoon sun while the 8th green has tall trees to its southwest, therefore allowing plenty of gentle morning sunshine but shaded from the hot afternoon sun), etc.

 ???

JJ

Evan_Smith

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2007, 12:43:53 AM »
Right on Jon!  I am always being asked what our greens are "running" and I always say, I have no idea....and I don't because we don't stimp them...the look of surprise that we don't know, and more importantly don't seem to care, blows their mind.
The Super at the course I worked at for a couple of years said when asked about green speeds "I don't own a Stimpmeter, so I won't have to answer that question".  I thought this was great.  As long as the greens are good, who cares about the speed.  It's all just a pissing match to see who has the fastest greens anyway!
« Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 12:44:50 AM by Evan_Smith »

Ed_Baker

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2007, 09:17:08 AM »
I agree that stimp readings are useless and simply end up being the subject of endless drunken grill room discussion.

I would respectfully submit that any club that has a green chairman that insists on posting stimp readings would better serve the club as house chairman.

SL_Solow

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2007, 09:17:21 AM »
As I have posted before, our long time (46 years) award winning greenkeeper answers the same question by saying "too fast for you" and exiting.

JESII

  • Total Karma: -2
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2007, 09:26:06 AM »
I agree that stimp readings are useless and simply end up being the subject of endless drunken grill room discussion.

I would respectfully submit that any club that has a green chairman that insists on posting stimp readings would better serve the club as house chairman.

How about if the measurements are used as a guide post for the super himself, to guage where the greens are relative to years past?

Does the actual speed not matter in the least?

Should there be any motivation to strive for a fairly consistent speed across the course?

David Ober

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2007, 10:13:58 AM »
I agree that stimp readings are useless and simply end up being the subject of endless drunken grill room discussion.

I would respectfully submit that any club that has a green chairman that insists on posting stimp readings would better serve the club as house chairman.

How about if the measurements are used as a guide post for the super himself, to guage where the greens are relative to years past?

Does the actual speed not matter in the least?

Should there be any motivation to strive for a fairly consistent speed across the course?

Yes, green speed matters. Anyone who says differently is just being obstinate.

How much it matters, is up for debate. In this day and age, though, virtually no one wants to putt on greens rolling anything less than 9 on a consistent basis.

Ed_Baker

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2007, 10:42:36 AM »
Yes, speed matters, but attatching an arbitrary number to it is in my opinion a waste of time especially with severely undulating greens.

As far as history, the long time members are a more accurate barometer of wheather the greens are at appropriate speeds.

The Steve Curry green speed method is still by far the most commonsensical and practical method to employ and the easiest to defend because it's based on results rather than a number.

Steve responded to a thread I posted several years ago, I believe the title was " What's the Speed Limit?" In a nutshell Steve sets his mowing heights,cutting schedule ( to double cut or not) and wheather to roll or not based on how his most severe green putts, for tournaments he gets that green right on the ragged edge of playabilty and cuts and rolls the rest of his greens the same way, after that, it is,what it is. And if the greens seem a little slow on a particular day due to humidity, temperature, whatever, then that's as fast as they can run that day and keep them healthy. Pretty sound paradigm I would opine.

Michael_Stachowicz

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2007, 01:31:43 PM »
I am surprised by the number of Superintendents who do not use a stimpmeter.  I can understand the pitfalls of posting speeds and the arms race that would ensue, but as an internal tool it is essential.  It has been noted that it would be difficult to get all 18 greens to roll the same, and it is.  But that should not stop us from trying to get them within a range.  We aim for a 6" range daily, and that is tough and takes alot of effort.  

That being said, I have found that the more scientific I am about approaching the issue of greenspeeds, the less I am questioned about the consistency from green to green or the variability from day to day.  It is a great tool for a superintendent to use to approach greens management in a logical and scientific manner that is difficult for golfers to disrespect.  If consistency is important to our bosses it should be important to us.

Craig Sweet

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2007, 04:33:12 PM »
I think it's pretty safe to say that green speed will vary by 6" or so per hole....I don't think you need to do anything special to achieve that other than using consistant maintenance practices...

As for "no one wants to putt on greens running less than 9"....I find that statement to be the single biggest problem there is....high speeds have removed most of the interesting pinning locations on old courses, and has led to larger and flatter greens in general....there was a time when putting was something less than boring.

Troy Alderson

Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2007, 01:14:59 AM »
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how can a course have consistent green speeds (i.e. "stimp readings") on all 18 of its greens?

When each green is located in its own unique location, that is, unique from the other 17, and the angle of the sun varies on each green because of the slope of each green being different from the other 17, relative to the sun anyway, airflow or lack thereof, disease or lack thereof, duration of sunshine each day or at different times of day (i.e. the 2nd green has tall trees to the southeast, so gets minimal morning sun but gets blasted by the hot afternoon sun while the 8th green has tall trees to its southwest, therefore allowing plenty of gentle morning sunshine but shaded from the hot afternoon sun), etc.

 ???

JJ

JJ,

Sweet is right, if the greens average 10 on the stimpmeter, then the speed range should be 9.5 to 10.5.  Golfers cannot tell the difference between 1 foot on the stimpmeter.  So 18 consistent greens really means the greens differing no more than 1 foot on the stimpmeter.  Shaded greens will run slower and sun lite greens will run faster and so on.

Troy

Jon Wiggett

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2007, 02:05:14 AM »
It seems to me that a good Super can judge how good his greens are through other means than by stimping. Indeed if speed is = to quality then bald patches on the greens must be the best type of green surface (scalp em down and dry them ut boys). Surely the main quality that a green should provide is trueness of roll.

As already mentioned in previous posts green speed is relivant to the type of green. I would have thought that ANGC would be more fun to play for the average player at stimping at 5ft than at 13ft as I would imagine TOC stimping at 13ft would render the course unplayable in a stiff breeze.

How can you get a 70 year old green in the shade, with no wind movement, Pushup build, anual medow grass/fescue/browntop swardgrass types next to a river and a poor irrigation system at the same speed as a green on top of a hill, on an open site, USGA build, modern irrigation, pure L93 sward and only 2 years old?

Surely part of the game is being able to look at a green and decide if it is fast or slow?


Craig Sweet

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:"Stimping" Greens
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2007, 06:57:25 AM »
We do a few things different in advance of the Montana Open to get our green speeds up....we want things a bit lean...we roll a few times the week before and during...and we double cut....our everyday green speed typically is around 9.5 and MT Open speed will be anywhere from 10.5 to 11.5....weather being the deciding factor there....two years ago, if I recall they were running 10.5 on Thurday..11 on Friday...11.5 on Saturday and 10.9 on Sunday (rainy and cool)...we did nothing different from day to day.