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.


Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #100 on: December 02, 2012, 03:36:08 PM »

Steve:

If the greens at Winged Foot were Stimping over 12 feet, you would just putt off most of them, because of the back-to-front tilt which is 3 to 4 % in many areas.  

Wouldn't the same be true of many, if not most golf courses? I hear people on this site throwing around speeds like 14' and 15' and I don't believe that would be playable for about 95% of courses. It certainly can't be sustainable for any length of time. At 15', what degree of slope could you have and still expect the ball to stop? (Assuming the air is perfectly still, of course.)

15' would be off the USGA chart, but the chart would seem to suggest that you could have marginal pin positions up to around 2.5* of slope.



Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #101 on: December 02, 2012, 04:50:00 PM »
Bryan,

Nice find. That graph illustrates the point perfectly. 14' - 15' greens speeds must be exceedingly rare, if they happen at all.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #102 on: December 02, 2012, 05:56:24 PM »
Can I ask what I believe to be a question which relates to the issue at hand: Do they intentionally alter green speeds during major championships based upon weather conditions?  Will they change them from day to day and try to increase or decrease speeds based upon factors such as wind and rain? 

Sean Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #103 on: December 02, 2012, 09:01:58 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 09:12:35 PM by Sean Walsh »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #104 on: December 02, 2012, 09:44:18 PM »
Bryan,

Nice find. That graph illustrates the point perfectly. 14' - 15' greens speeds must be exceedingly rare, if they happen at all.

Which is why I'm so stunned EVERY time I see Mike Davis quoted as having those as target speeds for US Open courses. (at least twice)

Although lately you set the target speed, THEN modify the course.
That's at best backwards.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #105 on: December 02, 2012, 10:48:51 PM »
It appears from the chart that as long as you keep the slope to less than 1.5* you can run the green speeds up to 15 or 16 or even higher and still have a recommended pin position.  Seems hard to believe.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #106 on: December 03, 2012, 01:37:20 AM »
Can I ask what I believe to be a question which relates to the issue at hand: Do they intentionally alter green speeds during major championships based upon weather conditions?  Will they change them from day to day and try to increase or decrease speeds based upon factors such as wind and rain? 

In my experience prepping courses for Tour events, the pros value uniformity and consistency above all else, and for the average Tour event the players have quite a lot of influence over the set-up. They expect the green speeds to remain consistent from day to day and green to green throughout the week, from the practice rounds through Sunday, as much as possible given the weather. The European Tour, at least, insists on speeds from 9'6" to 10'6", no more, no less.

I never did a major, though, and those may be managed differently.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #107 on: December 03, 2012, 07:46:01 AM »
I'm not really sure I understand the chart.  It says specifically "slope in degrees", when we always measure things in terms of % ... 2.5% equals 2.5 feet of rise in 100 feet of length.  100 in 100 would be a 45 degree angle.







Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #108 on: December 03, 2012, 07:58:29 AM »
 the pros value uniformity and consistency above all else

 :'(

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42672.0.html
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

John Chilver-Stainer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #109 on: December 03, 2012, 12:17:49 PM »
Tom,

A good observation,
a conversion Table would give

1.0 degree   =  1.7 %
1.5 degrees  =  2.6 %
2.0  degrees =  3.5 %
2.5  degrees =  4.4 %
3.0  degrees =  5.2 %
3.5  degrees =  6.1 %
4.0  degrees =  5.2 %
4.5  degrees =  7.9 %
5.0  degrees =  8.8 %

This make more sense to me, as I thought a ball doesn't roll out on a 4.5% green with a Stimp of 7 feet.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #110 on: December 03, 2012, 12:21:31 PM »
Tom,

Inclines can be expressed as a % or in degrees.  I'd imagine that all inclinometers provide output in either unit.  You can derive the % slope from the degrees of slope by the following formula:  % slope = tan (n*) x 100.  A 2.5* slope would be a 4.37% slope, or 4.37 feet rise in a hundred run.  The USGA chart appears to be in degrees, so if you were using it as guidance you could have a higher % slope using your measure and still be within their recommended or marginal slope.  

I don't recall now whether the discussion on the Eden green was in degrees or percentage, but it does make a difference.



I'm not really sure I understand the chart.  It says specifically "slope in degrees", when we always measure things in terms of % ... 2.5% equals 2.5 feet of rise in 100 feet of length.  100 in 100 would be a 45 degree angle.








Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #111 on: December 03, 2012, 01:24:29 PM »
Did Dawson claim the left side of 11th slope was 5%  (or 3degrees from tan calculation)?   

So at 10.5 stimp for an Open, it was in the yellow area but close to red.

Everyday play should have been at say 8-9 in stimp?  In the middle of the yellow.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #112 on: December 03, 2012, 07:55:47 PM »
Regardless of what the bottom says (degrees) its a percentage of slope on the bottom of the page.
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #113 on: December 04, 2012, 04:43:44 AM »
Regardless of what the bottom says (degrees) its a percentage of slope on the bottom of the page.

Ian

I think it is degrees along the bottom, but that John has got his maths a bit wrong.

If a vertical slope can be expressed as either 90 degrees or 100 percent, there is only an 11% difference between the figures.

So 1 degree = 1.11%; 2 degrees = 2.22%, 3 degrees = 3.33% and so on until 90 degrees which = 99.99%.

This makes the chart seem much more logical to me.  I don't think it is any more complicated than this, is it?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 04:52:39 AM by Robin_Hiseman »
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #114 on: December 04, 2012, 05:02:56 AM »
Robin,

100% isn't a vertical slope, it's a 45 degree one (i.e. a rise of 100 feet in 100 feet).  A vertical slope would be expressed as an infinite percentage, since it doesn't have any horizontal component.

If the angle is a, then the slope as a percentage equals tan(a).
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #115 on: December 04, 2012, 06:31:20 AM »
Mark

Happy to be corrected, in which case I apologise to John.

Regards

Robin
'O' Level Maths Grade B.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 06:32:56 AM by Robin_Hiseman »
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #116 on: December 04, 2012, 06:38:10 AM »
Regardless of what the bottom says (degrees) its a percentage of slope on the bottom of the page.

Agree that it must be a typo...

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #117 on: December 04, 2012, 07:04:31 AM »
I hope so Ally. 

It's actually a significant error if that table is wrong, which the author needs to clarify before someone builds something in error.  Either that, or we're all able to put much more slope into the hole locations than we believe...which I don't think is the case.
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #118 on: December 04, 2012, 07:29:41 AM »
Robin,

Actually, I missed out a multiple of 100.  Tan (45 degrees) = 1, so Slope (as a percentage) = 100 tan (angle).

A 2 degree slope expressed as a percentage would be 3.49%
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #119 on: December 04, 2012, 07:41:58 AM »
I hope so Ally. 

It's actually a significant error if that table is wrong, which the author needs to clarify before someone builds something in error.  Either that, or we're all able to put much more slope into the hole locations than we believe...which I don't think is the case.

I agree Robin.... Where did it come from - Hurdzan?

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #120 on: December 04, 2012, 07:56:07 AM »
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #121 on: December 04, 2012, 11:42:46 AM »
Yes, the chart I posted was from the USGA article by Jerry Lemons that Robin provided the link to. 

Ian, how do you know that the x-axis label is in error on the chart?

In the rest of the article that goes with the chart Lemons has used both degrees and % slope so he presumably knows the difference.  Some of the conclusions in the text seem to me to indicate that the chart is in degrees.

"Over the years, the Green Section
has suggested:
The slope of a major portion of a
putting green should usually not be
greater than 3 percent (1.7 degrees),
although some areas may exceed this
for special reasons, such as diffi cult
terrain or dramatic architectural
effect.15
Based on current information, any
slope 3% (1.7 degrees) or greater on a
10' Stimpmeter reading is too steep
for hole use.16"

If anyone wants to contact Lemons to see if the chart is in error, he can be contacted through his web site provided at the bottom of the article.

www.lemonsgolfdesign.com

How do you practicing architects measure slope in the field?  Are you guided by the USGA article or do you have your own rules of thumb?




Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #122 on: December 04, 2012, 11:56:09 AM »
Yes, the chart I posted was from the USGA article by Jerry Lemons that Robin provided the link to. 

Ian, how do you know that the x-axis label is in error on the chart?

In the rest of the article that goes with the chart Lemons has used both degrees and % slope so he presumably knows the difference.  Some of the conclusions in the text seem to me to indicate that the chart is in degrees.

"Over the years, the Green Section
has suggested:
The slope of a major portion of a
putting green should usually not be
greater than 3 percent (1.7 degrees),
although some areas may exceed this
for special reasons, such as diffi cult
terrain or dramatic architectural
effect.15
Based on current information, any
slope 3% (1.7 degrees) or greater on a
10' Stimpmeter reading is too steep
for hole use.16"

If anyone wants to contact Lemons to see if the chart is in error, he can be contacted through his web site provided at the bottom of the article.

www.lemonsgolfdesign.com

How do you practicing architects measure slope in the field?  Are you guided by the USGA article or do you have your own rules of thumb?





Bryan, that little excerpt actually confirms the opposite to me: The x-axis should read %ge slope.

All you need to do is think about the general numbers you see bandied about for quickish greens in that you don't pin anything over 2 to 2.5%.... If it were degrees it would be advocating that we could pin greens stimping 12 at about 4%... We better let Peter Dawson know!

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #123 on: December 04, 2012, 12:46:24 PM »
Ian, how do you know that the x-axis label is in error on the chart?

The percentages exactly match the commonly held belief for percent of slope at each green speed.
Of course we can’t go below a certain grade up here because of ice, so it doesn’t match our circumstance.

How do you practicing architects measure slope in the field?


I use a frickin' laser. (said in Dr. Evil's voice) :)

Since every pin area must sit between 2% - 3.5% IN CANADA due to issues of ICE and OUR tyical grass selections. And because the vast majority of my work is on clay/shale, I need precision in the sub-grade and then again in the final grade of the mix to avoid localized wet or dry spots. The laser is critical.

I also check outlets of bunkers and the swales around the green during shaping to make sure what we are doing is going to work later. I hate area drains and catch basins, so extra laser work during construction eliminates helps eliminate almost all in advance.

Are you guided by the USGA article or do you have your own rules of thumb?

The USGA rules are generalized. Ice and excessive moisture held by native soils are the biggest issues I see regularly. I doubt Phoenix area courses share my list of problems and I would not be familiar with theirs. You need to learn what they are and amend your ideas to suit the environment. 
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture
« Reply #124 on: December 04, 2012, 01:19:14 PM »
What confuses me in reading the chart is the language on the right side.  It discusses proximity to areas of slope (at least for the the red area), not the slope at the pin, and does not seem to be consistent in usage across the color codes.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross