Is 14 at Pebble among the elite par-5's in the world?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pine Valley's par fives are rather hard to beat.....

MWP,

There are only two of them.

I think it's a lot easier to craft two good par 5's than it is to craft four good par 5's.

[JMEvensky]

Pine Valley's par fives are rather hard to beat.....

MWP,

There are only two of them.

I think it's a lot easier to craft two good par 5's than it is to craft four good par 5's.

About twice as easy?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

It might be exponential rather than arithmatic.

[Michael Moore]

If' you'd played Oakmont, surely you would have seen the fallacy in Mr Hyer's [sic] statement

Pat -

Would you call Jim Hyler a liar to his face?

Why would he endanger his credibility over something as objective as green speeds?

How are we ever going to find an answer to your question if the USGA Competition Committee is not to be believed on the matter of green speeds?

[JMEvensky]

JME,

It might be exponential rather than arithmatic.

Just wanted to see if you were still paying attention.

What are the 5-pars like at NGLA?I only ask because I've never played there and was hoping someone would get past the 7th hole on their Magical Mystery Tour.

[JC Jones]

If' you'd played Oakmont, surely you would have seen the fallacy in Mr Hyer's [sic] statement

Pat -

Would you call Jim Hyler a liar to his face?

Why would he endanger his credibility over something as objective as green speeds?

How are we ever going to find an answer to your question if the USGA Competition Committee is not to be believed on the matter of green
speeds?

moreover, if pat won't tell us whether he played in the us open and whether he did a stimp test on those greens, why would we even consider whether he thinks the USGA CC is right or not?

[Kevin Pallier]

I know this to be a great hole, but do you guys think it merits being one of the elite par-5's in the world?

Jordan

Each to their own but I wouldn't classify it in the "elite" range though as a collection I though PB's were mighty fine and a real strength of the course.

BTW - I find it hard to fault those on offer at The Lakes in Australia. They may not have the Pacific Ocean as a backdrop but they have water as integral parts of the design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If' you'd played Oakmont, surely you would have seen the fallacy in Mr Hyer's [sic] statement

Pat -

Would you call Jim Hyler a liar to his face?

I'd tell him, that like you, he has his facts wrong.

Scientific studies, sanctioned by the USGA, demonstrate that on greens with 3 degrees of slope, stimp speeds of 15 will prevent a ball from stopping.

The Laws of Physics, not hearsay and myths prevail on this subject

Why would he endanger his credibility over something as objective as green speeds?

You'll have to ask him.
Perhaps someone said that a reading of 15 had been recorded, and he merely repeated it.  But, as I'm sure you know, stimp readings are taken in at least two directions in order to establish THE stimp reading.  It's not unusual to have one high speed and one lower speed, which get averaged out in determining the overall stimp speed.  The USGA publishes that formula, perhaps you and JC should look it up.


How are we ever going to find an answer to your question if the USGA Competition Committee is not to be believed on the matter of green speeds?

You'll have to figure that out on your own.

Could you cite where the USGA Competition Committee released an official statement, along with the details substantiating the location and speed of the readings.

The simpler question is:  DO YOU BELIEVE in the LAWS OF PHSYICS ?

If so, then you know that the Laws of Physics are irrefutable, whereas, Mr Hyler and the USGA Competition Committee are not

[jeffwarne]

#14 played far too large a role in determining the champion.  Two players on the first page of the leaderboard made 9, and were eliminated from contention.  One hole shouldn't make such a large difference.

John:

From left of the green, both players hit shots that went long (with Mr. Molder's actually running off the front of the green).  Both shots might have held with old grooves.  I think we saw a combination of poor decision making and failure to adapt to new equipment.

I have two questions for you:

If two players late in the day eagled a hole to jump up the leaderboard, would you say it shouldn't make such a difference?

Do you believe either of the players who made a 9 hit shots deserving of a better score?

WW

Goydos hit the ground, then the ball on that shot.
Do you really think square grooves would've made ANY difference bouncing into the ball on a 40 yard shot?
Actually they would've-if they'd been on the flange

On #12 when Johnsn went long, I was sure someone would blame it on the grooves, like they do every time a player hits it long.
Players misclubbed 50 years ago, 20 years ago, one year ago, and still can today.

Glad I slept though the spin milled era...

Does anyone know if the right side and front of #14 were ever pinnable?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC.

Are you that obtuse that you would deny the laws of physics, choosing instead to rely on third party hearsay ?

You needn't answer the question as you've done so with your previous posts.

I don't need to measure Stimp speeds, I didn't declare them to be 15, others did.
At a 3 degree slope, a ball will NOT stop rolling at a stimp speed of 15.  And, that's without any wind.
If you were anywhere near familiar with Oakmont's greens, you would be able to connect the dots and come to a prudent man conclusion, something you seem perpetually incapable of doing.

You must have missed a lot of classes at MSU, like Logic and Physics

[JC Jones]

Pat, Pat, Pat,

are you really going to try that sophomoric game that you play, again on this thread?

I ask you questions to help you legitimize your position and you choose to interpret them as me advocating the opposite point as yourself.
 
Whether I've played Oakmont's greens or not is irrelevent because I've not made a statement on the issue either way.

Do you find it interesting that when faced with the same questions you ask of others you do every thing possible to weasel, dodge and obfuscate?

Speaking of logic, did you ever answer my questions on the logical fallacy of presumption?  I didn't think so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, Pat, Pat,

are you really going to try that sophomoric game that you play, again on this thread?

You can categorize Logic and Physics as sophomoric, I don't

I ask you questions to help you legitimize your position and you choose to interpret them as me advocating the opposite point as yourself.
1.   I don't need your help in legitimizing my positon.
2.   I doubt you were attempting to legitimize my position.

I offer this statement from you as Exhibit "A" with respect to your alleged motives of trying to help me:

moreover, if pat won't tell us whether he played in the us open and whether he did a stimp test on those greens, why would we even consider whether he thinks the USGA CC is right or not?

Did you playin the US Open at Oakmont?  Were you there?  Did you perform a stimp test on the greens?  Do the greens have a consistent 3% slope or arey just 3% in places?

Whether I've played Oakmont's greens or not is irrelevent because I've not made a statement on the issue either way.

It is relevant because if you had any remote degree of familiarity you wouldn't have had the need to ask any questions on the subject,

Do you find it interesting that when faced with the same questions you ask of others you do every thing possible to weasel, dodge and obfuscate?
To the contrary, my answers have been timely, candid and concise.

You're the dolt who doesn't understand the Laws of Physics, not me.

Speaking of logic, did you ever answer my questions on the logical fallacy of presumption?  I didn't think so.

It's one thing to have people think you're inane or obtuse, but, you keep proving it every time you try to refute my position.
Until you appeared on GCA.com, I've never met anyone who's unfamiliar with the facts AND the Laws of Physics, yet willing to argue against both.

Try to Learn about the subject at hand before typing, it will help elevate your credibility above zero.

[Adam Clayman]

Does anyone know if the right side and front of #14 were ever pinnable?

Yes, it is/was.

The right middle pin is the best pin on that green. When putting from below, it requires an accurate stroke when the green speed is too fast, or it might roll back to your feet. From above the hole creativity rules as the slope is not as straight forward as one might think.

[JC Jones]

Pat,

Does the word strawman mean anything to you?

I actually agree with you, which was why I was continually giving you the opportunity to put together a coherent argument.  Yet you failed again and went into attack mode.  

How about this scenario?  Perhaps the greens were only running at a 9 but, when stimped on a 3 degree downslope, that 9 translates into a 15.(which I'm sure you know being the green speed physicist that you are)  And, since Oakmont is notorious for wanting to have the wildest/fastest greens on the planet, perhaps that is where the number comes from.

I look forward to the day we have that beer, in fact, I can't wait to buy it for you after you admit you were wrong

[Sean_A]

Pine Valley's par fives are rather hard to beat.....

MWP,

There are only two of them.

I think it's a lot easier to craft two good par 5's than it is to craft four good par 5's.

That is why there should be clear par 5s on offer for an archie to build them.  Most of the time, I would think trying to squeeze four par 5s on a course is just not on, but we see four on courses again and again.  Perhaps long holes wouldn't have the rep as weak if they weren't so many of them.

Ciao 

[Carl Nichols]

It doesn't get much love here, but Congressional Blue has four good (and varied) par 5's -- the pros just happen to play only two of them as par 5's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Does the word strawman mean anything to you?

I actually agree with you, which was why I was continually giving you the opportunity to put together a coherent argument.  Yet you failed again and went into attack mode.  

Sorry, I didn't gleen that from your reply.

How about this scenario?  Perhaps the greens were only running at a 9 but, when stimped on a 3 degree downslope, that 9 translates into a 15.(which I'm sure you know being the green speed physicist that you are)

Jason, the USGA's published formula for determining stimp speeds takes that into account. 

And, since Oakmont is notorious for wanting to have the wildest/fastest greens on the planet, perhaps that is where the number comes from.
The USGA considers a 2 to 1 directional differential to be a moderate slope with a 3 to 1 directional differential to be a steep slope.
Some of Oakmont's greens are very sloped.  # 2 comes to mind.
Remember, at a 3 degree or more slope, with a stimp of 15, balls would NOT COME TO REST on the putting surface from approaches and recoveries.
The golf course would be unplayable.
Yet, Michael Moore wants to grant Mr Hyler Papal infallibility on matters concerning green speeds, when the Laws of Physics clearly contradict him.

I look forward to the day we have that beer, in fact, I can't wait to buy it for you after you admit you were wrong

I know I won't live that long, so I don't have to worry about it.
But, I will buy you a beer after a round together.

P.S.  Let me know if you and Pat want to obtain the history of Seminole, I may have an extra or two lying around.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Why are you arguing against a stimpmeter reading of 15 at Oakmont?

This speed was never put forth by anyone. Except yourself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

A lot may be terrain dependent.

Look at ANGC.

Two of the par 5's are reachable by decent amateurs.
The other two might be reachable by long amateurs, but, the strategy involved in all four par 5's is quite diverse.

Some might call shorter par 5's "weak", like many call # 2 at PBGC.

I think it's a neat hole with a very unique feature guarding the green, yet tempting the better golfer to gamble at flying.

If shorter par 5's have temptation as a quality/component, how bad can they be.

When Tiger hits # 14 in two, that shouldn't taint or prejudice our evaluation of the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

Why are you arguing against a stimpmeter reading of 15 at Oakmont?

This speed was never put forth by anyone. Except yourself.

Not true.

Go back and reread all the threads.

You yourself cited speeds of 14.5, which I take exception to as well.

[Michael Moore]

Go back and reread all the threads.

Pat -

I went back and reread this thread.

Nowhere did anyone claim that the greens at Oakmont stimped at 15 for the 2007 United States Open.

Why do you make things up?

[Bill Rocco]

I am sure Pat will answer you himself but I think he was rounding the 14.5 to 15 when looking back at the sequence of posts. He is right to do so because 14.5 or 15 isn't much of a difference not to mention from what I learned about golf course contruction you can't stop a ball with a stimp over 11 with over 3 degree slope...maybe I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

If you're still on this thread consider the following. Re your point on the laws of physics, I doubt anybody disagrees with your point.  To quote from an article by Jerry Lemons published on the USGA web site on the subject of Putting Green Speeds, Slopes, and “Non-Conforming” Hole Locations


"Remember your high school
physics: a moving ball tends to stay in
motion with the same speed and in the
same direction unless acted upon by an
unbalanced force. Gravity (of steep
slope) and friction (of the putting surface)
are unbalanced forces on a golf
ball."


Further on he provides a graphic that talks to the point where gravity overcomes friction based on various green speeds.  At a Stimp of 14, the break point is 2.4 degrees (or, 4.2%).  On a slope greater than 2.4 degrees, a ball would not stop on the slope, no matter how long the slope.


Do you agree with that?


Also published on the USGA web site is the Stimpmeter Instruction Booklet which describes the first step in stimpimg a green:


"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). "


I've highlighted the part about selecting a flat part of the green to do the stimp test.


Do you agree that that is  the way stimp tests are done?


As Michael Moore quoted, and other news reports also quote, Mr Hyler says that Oakmont's greens stimped around 14 in 2007.


Do you believe these quotes are accurate?


Reuters reported, including  quotes from  Mr Hyler, that:


"Hyler said crews have been scrutinizing 90 different pin placements on the greens every day since last Friday, including positions for a possible 18-hole playoff on Monday.

"We are looking at every one of them every day to make sure that we are giving the players fair hole locations," he said. "We are using a Stimpmeter to review the speeds on these greens several times a day."

Speeds are running between 13.5 and 14.5 on the Stimpmeter -- very fast considering the tilt and undulations.

"We also used a digital level in our review of the hole locations," Hyler said. "We are reviewing the slopes, the grade of the slopes all around the holes and then the run-offs.

"We are approaching these greens this week very carefully...to make sure that we don't get over the edge."


 Do you believe that they were able to map out 90 pin positions where the slope was not over 2.4 degrees?


Do you agree that it is possible that the greens stimped 14 (based on a flat area measurement),

and, that there were pin positions on all greens where the slope was less than 2.4 degrees,

and, that on areas of the green that were greater than 2.4 degrees of slope that the ball would not stop on those slopes at that stimp?

Just wondering?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Go back and reread all the threads.

Pat -

I went back and reread this thread.

Nowhere did anyone claim that the greens at Oakmont stimped at 15 for the 2007 United States Open.

Why do you make things up?

I didn't reference or limit my remarks to "Oakmont".

Why do you distort and misrepresent ?

[Michael Moore]

At 15 on the stimp, a ball will NOT stop rolling when the slope of a green is 3+/- degrees, and the greens at Oakmont have 3 degrees or more of slope in them.

Some of Oakmont's greens are very sloped.  # 2 comes to mind.
Remember, at a 3 degree or more slope, with a stimp of 15, balls would NOT COME TO REST on the putting surface from approaches and recoveries.
The golf course would be unplayable.
Yet, Michael Moore wants to  . . .

Pat -

In these instances you did limit your remarks to Oakmont ("Oakmont", "the golf course"), and you are clearly misrepresenting the USGA's statement that they wanted the greens between 13.5  and 14.5.

More to the point, and to once again answer your question, the USGA seems to have been cranking the greens to at least 13 in the past few years. You have to believe them. Do you think Pebble Beach can sustain this level of green speed?