The Preservation of Golf Course Architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Bryan,

I had previously referenced Arthur P. Weber's stimp/slope study in other threads.

Does the graph you posted differ from his, and if so, where and by how much.

I don't know how to post it, but, I can email it to you and you can post it.

Send me your email address

[Davis Wildman]

http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1990s/1997/970312.pdf

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

No need to e-mail it.  Davis has supplied the link.

The graph that I posted is presented differently than that presented by Weber.  Weber does not prescribe marginal and critical pinning areas.  His is more oriented to how much a ball will roll out on a given upslope or downslope based on  Stimp readings and when the ball will not stop rolling at all.

Interestingly, even though it was done in 1997 he used a small ball in his calculations.

His conclusion was:

"Generalizing, slow-to-medium speed greens, say
Stimpmeter reading 5 to 8 on a level green, although they
may be undulated upward of 5 to 6 degrees remain reasonably
manageable by the golfer. Medium-to-fast greens, say 8 to 12
Stimpmeter reading on a level green, start destabilizing the
nerves of golfers when angled upwards of 3 to 4 degrees.
Otherwise stated, markedly undulated golf greens, typical of
most time-honored courses, would be better maintained
with medium-to-slow speed greens, as they had been
architecturally conceived to challenge golfers by their contours,
not their slickness. To cope with fast greens, surface
angularities need be attenuated in fairness to playability by
the golfer and, lest we forget, maintenance by the superintendent"

His graphic was expressed in degrees, not percentage slope, for Ian's benefit.

Here's his graphic and the Lemons' one that I posted.  See if you think they are saying the same thing.







To tie this back to this thread, Weber's chart seems to indicate that on a green sloped at 5* that a ball is on the precipice of not stopping if the green is Stimping at 10.5'.  I'm pretty sure he's using degrees and not percentage slope.  The reports about the 11th hole at TOC seem to say it had a slope of 5 (but, not clear if that is % slope or degrees).  If it was degrees then they would have been living on the edge if there was any wind at a Stimp of 10.5.  If it was a 5% slope then there was some margin for pins there - absent any wind.  I presume that they measured the slope accurately by whatever measure before they erased it, although we probably won't know what it was given what seems to be the R&A's communication approach.   

[Robin_Hiseman]

Bryan

Scott Macpherson's survey of Green 11 is expressed in percentage terms. 

It's kind of unfortunate that these charts are expressed in degrees when so many architects tend to use percentage.  Back when I started in 1991 we were using 1 in 30 (or just over 3%) as our safe hole location gradient.  Nowadays, for bent or Bermuda greens I'd be thinking in the margin of 2 to 2.5% (1 in 40 to 1 in 50), as the maximum slope I'd be relaxed about. 

[Paul_Turner]

I think Scotts Macpherson's survey showed a max of 5% in the area that's just been altered.  So from the charts that would imply that there was some margin at 10.5 (in the yellow).

Mike Young quoted an insider who stated that the 11th green was pinnable at 12 stimp on a still day.

[Bryan Izatt]

Ian,

If you are still looking in on this thread, I took the liberty of writing Jerry Lemons about whether the chart was in degrees or % slope.  Jerry confirmed that it was in degrees and also supplied the companion chart expressed in % slope that they had at the time but wasn't included in the USGA article.  The two charts are below.

Robin, Ian, Ally et al,

Since Scott Macpherson's survey was expressed in % slope and the slope of the back left of the green was 5% if I recall correctly, then the USGA chart suggests that that part of the green was very marginally pinable at 10.5', absent any wind.  Of course for 4 years and 51 weeks in the 5 year cycle that area could have been used with Stimps in the range of 8' or 9'.

Robin,

If you're using 2 to 2.5% that looks pretty safe according to the charts.

Ian,

Even 3.5% to accommodate ice issues up here works out according to the chart.

[Jerry Lemons]

When the hole location article was written, our office did extensive testing on the slopes and green speeds. The chart was published to help anyone setting up the golf course to understand the relationship of slope of putting surface with green speeds. I tried to make it very clear that a slope (evaluated either by degrees or in percentage of slope) read by a digital tool, could assist in making good decisions on hole locations. This was to be a companion to the stimpmeter.

I had found some errors in Mr. Webers' article while doing the research on the article and talked with him. I found that a ball would keep rolling infinitely on speeds his article said a ball would stop.

The article was also an attempt to get clubs/courses with classic old greens with exciting (fun) contours to understand the limitation on green speeds for their greens. Much of what has happen in my short time on this ball of mud is that green speed has gotten far out of hand and made the game more difficult and this requires more time to play and driven some away. With that said, as with the TOC, IMHO, if you do not want to change a putting surface for any sake of change, then slow the greens back down so "old" hole locations can be used fairly.

I am one who does believe a putt that cannot be stopped near the hole by anyone with a degree of skill is unfair.

Jerry

[Robin_Hiseman]

Thank you Brian and thank you Jerry!  It is really useful to finally see your chart expressed in % terms.  Both it and your accompanying article are very informative and I've kept both close to hand for some time.   

I must express my amazement at the supposed limits to which it is suggested that hole locations can be cut.  I've done a few greens in recent years that had hole locations in the 3 to 3.5% range and they are absolutely lethal from above the hole.  And this on greens below 10 on the stimp.  It depends to a large degree on the severity of the slope leading into the hole location area, especially from above, but I think I'm likely to keep to the 2.5% limit on bent greens.  It works for me and allows me to throw the separating slopes around a bit.

Threads like this keep me tuned to GCA.  Thanks for your input.

[Ian Andrew]

Bryan,

The lower chart is a little too steep for me to be comfotable with the numbers.
Interestingly the upper chart matches what I generally work within.

But I think we all have to work within our experiences, turf types and with our superintendents situation.

[Don_Mahaffey]

While I concede it is very important for a green designer/builder to understand the slope/speed relationship, I hate these types of charts because they don't take into account how a clever designer can use slope to make a green work. You end up with clients, and their advisors, telling you things like, "it can't be more than 2.5% or keep it all under 2%. You can have greens with 4-5% slopes as long as you have a few speed bumps here and there. Just because a green might have some 4% doesn't mean every putt is going to run off the green. How that 4% ties in and works with the other slopes is what makes great greens. These guidelines don't measure talent.

[Jerry Lemons]

Ian, the numbers are the same. Just %slope VS degrees is all.

Robin, you made me chuckle about "your bent green" being what to watch. It matters not the type of surface. In fact a stimpmeter could be called a friction coefficient  measuring tool. You could use the same charts on ANY green, or material such as linoleum, glass, sandpaper, concrete etc.
A bentgrass green that has a 12' stimp reading is not any faster than a bermudagrass green with a 12' reading.

I do know that once you get above 13.5 on a stimp, you had better have very flat greens to play the game.
Jerry

[Jerry Lemons]

While I concede it is very important for a green designer/builder to understand the slope/speed relationship, I hate these types of charts because they don't take into account how a clever designer can use slope to make a green work. You end up with clients, and their advisors, telling you things like, "it can't be more than 2.5% or keep it all under 2%. You can have greens with 4-5% slopes as long as you have a few speed bumps here and there. Just because a green might have some 4% doesn't mean every putt is going to run off the green. How that 4% ties in and works with the other slopes is what makes great greens. These guidelines don't measure talent.

I agree totally. The charts were not for designers. They were created simply because some people think you can put a hole on any green on any slope at any speed and the hole is "legal" by the rules or fair. Not so true on the fair part.

[Ian Andrew]

Ian, the numbers are the same. Just %slope VS degrees is all.

Not well explained on my part.
If the bottom chart was "percent" instead of "degrees" - I would be comfortable.

[Bill_McBride]

Thank you Brian and thank you Jerry!  It is really useful to finally see your chart expressed in % terms.  Both it and your accompanying article are very informative and I've kept both close to hand for some time.   

I must express my amazement at the supposed limits to which it is suggested that hole locations can be cut.  I've done a few greens in recent years that had hole locations in the 3 to 3.5% range and they are absolutely lethal from above the hole.  And this on greens below 10 on the stimp.  It depends to a large degree on the severity of the slope leading into the hole location area, especially from above, but I think I'm likely to keep to the 2.5% limit on bent greens.  It works for me and allows me to throw the separating slopes around a bit.

Threads like this keep me tuned to GCA.  Thanks for your input.

Robin, good planning on your part, but what you do about the never ending search for ever higher stimpmeter readings?

A 2.5% slope with 12 Stimp can be a lot more dicey than a 3.5% with a 9 Stimp.  What can the architect do?

[Bill_McBride]

Whether this has anything to do with this topic or not, I'd like to think that there's no way Martin Hawtree (who I don't know, at all) came up with these ideas for the Old Course without being provoked to do so. Not a chance.

Jeff

Given Martin Hawtree's track record of altering historic courses, I think there's every chance that these ideas originated from him. ( as suggested by Dawson in his quotes on the changes)

On another matter from another thread on page 1.... flattening of the 15th green at Pine Valley just went ahead along the same lines of argument as the 12th at Merion and now perhaps the 11th on The Old Course.

Isn't flattening of classic greens simply a result of ever faster green speeds?

There are two assaults on Classic Age Courses, the stimpmeter and the ball and equipment. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

While I concede it is very important for a green designer/builder to understand the slope/speed relationship, I hate these types of charts because they don't take into account how a clever designer can use slope to make a green work. You end up with clients, and their advisors, telling you things like, "it can't be more than 2.5% or keep it all under 2%. You can have greens with 4-5% slopes as long as you have a few speed bumps here and there. Just because a green might have some 4% doesn't mean every putt is going to run off the green. How that 4% ties in and works with the other slopes is what makes great greens. These guidelines don't measure talent.

This to me makes perfect sense. However, what would interest me most is seeing how far balls roll out on the flat after coming down steeper slopes e.g. 20% three foot drops etc... Then how far they would roll out on a 2% downslope coming off the same drop etc... A lot of variables and options though... Too many to make up a graph that's for sure... But speed bumps - yes I agree...

[Robin_Hiseman]

Ian, the numbers are the same. Just %slope VS degrees is all.

Robin, you made me chuckle about "your bent green" being what to watch. It matters not the type of surface. In fact a stimpmeter could be called a friction coefficient  measuring tool. You could use the same charts on ANY green, or material such as linoleum, glass, sandpaper, concrete etc.
A bentgrass green that has a 12' stimp reading is not any faster than a bermudagrass green with a 12' reading.

I do know that once you get above 13.5 on a stimp, you had better have very flat greens to play the game.
Jerry

Jerry

I'm well aware of what the stimpmeter does.  Generally, I don't have the occasion the work with Bermuda, so it's either Bent greens, or fescue/bents in the UK, which tend to be slower and maybe paspalum in hotter climes, which were also a touch slower due to the leaf friction.  I look forward to building Bermuda greens one day. Hence my reference to the slope of a bent green.q

Given the way things are going I think there's a potentially short shelf life for a green with hole location areas at the margins of acceptable slope.  Good on anyone for taking a stand and forcing the maintenance staff to raise the cut height, but you're always on a knife edge with that kind of philosophy. 

By the way, I adore greens with strong contour, but one has to have an appreciation for the boundaries of responsible design, given the circumstances of your given project. 

Ally, Jerry's original chart gives reference to how far from the bottom of a strong slope one should locate a hole.  Depends on the height and length of the slope of course.

[Tom_Doak]

Given the way things are going I think there's a potentially short shelf life for a green with hole location areas at the margins of acceptable slope.  Good on anyone for taking a stand and forcing the maintenance staff to raise the cut height, but you're always on a knife edge with that kind of philosophy. 

By the way, I adore greens with strong contour, but one has to have an appreciation for the boundaries of responsible design, given the circumstances of your given project. 

Robin:

I've been disappointed in your stands on a couple of topics this week and last.  It seems as though you are looking to become one of those guys who always wants to play it safe, even in the one location where 12 on the Stimpmeter is NOT becoming a common occurrence.  The decision is yours, of course, but if you adore greens with strong contour, maybe you should figure out how to build some greens that others will adore.

Jerry:

Thanks for posting your chart with the labels we are more used to working with.  I guess I read the results differently than Robin ... they say that a 3% slope is still just fine up to 13 on the Stimpmeter, and then it gets marginal.  That's what I have generally observed to be true in practice, and that's the limit we've been using for about ten years now.

The PGA Tour's guidelines are not to exceed 2.25% in areas for hole locations ... which suggests that either they are holding out for Stimp readings of 14+ , or else they never want a hole location to provide difficult putts for the players, even if they've put themselves on the wrong side of the hole.  Either way, it seems like a lousy conclusion to me.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Who defined the curves or colored areas on these charts?

[Jerry Lemons]

Who defined the curves or colored areas on these charts?

Tom, a tour official actually assisted me on this when I started to try and answer a question I knew I would be asked in my ASGCA membership interview. (What is the max slope on a green?)

The tour does try and stay around 2- 2.25% so players are not made to look foolish. I still remember an Open where the ball would not stop near a hole and many USGA Officials were grilled, so they & we all have learned from that experience.

Mike, I defined the colors.

 I decided to use stoplight colors to indicate good =green, bad= red and yellow = use real caution. In a red area, the golf ball will not stop rolling on a slope with that green speed. The green area, a ball stops easily. The yellow is where the margin of error is greater. The ball may stop or may not depending on smoothness or if the slope changes and is not flat.

Again, intended to be used easily by any person with enough intelligence that is capable of cutting a hole.
 

Jerry

[Bryan Izatt]

It's good to see all the architects here have differing and unique views on slope vs Stimp.  It gives hope that you all will continue to build diverse, unique and interesting greens that will still be playable.  I don't think any of us would be happy if all architects built greens by the book/chart.  That would take the artistry out of it and be very boring to boot.  Fie on flat greens and high Stimp readings.

[Paul_Turner]

Jerry

Any idead as to the approximate wind speed at which a ball will start rolling-from rest-on a 10 stimp 5% slope green?  i.e. at what force is the coefficient of friction overcome?

[Jerry Lemons]

Paul I have no idea. The new rule allowing no penalty if a ball moves on a green from wind makes it a moot point.

[Jud_T]

From the peanut gallery it seems that the yellow area is the most interesting.  If this is true then why is the green labelled "recommended"? To err on the safe side?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, the turf type might influence things in that Bermuda might be overseeded in the winter, while Bent never is.  Heavy overseed tends to slow greens down, but I have seen light over seeds that allow them to speed up from summer speeds.

Always an interesting question about how close to critical to get if you think greens might be fast once or twice a year for club championships.  Generally, I find once they get faster, the good players want them faster all the time, and it often happens that way for every day play within a few years.  So, instead of figuring only one or two pin spots for when greens run fast, it is sure safer if you figure all the green is at the edge of the green zone or slightly in the yellow.

I think I know the answer to doing steeper greens that can still be putted, as mentioned "speed bumps" and also counter slopes.  That said, the question always comes up as to whether the contours ought to be designed for those truly intuitive players (probably 1%) who would understand that, vs the 99% who would struggle even more?  Obviously, at most places, it would pay to curry favor with the more average player, at least most of the time.

BTW, only semi related, but I have saved a thread from here on my computer, but from memory, it stated that if you have a one foot stair step in a green, it takes a ball rolling from the upper level at least 14 feet to stop, even if coming over the top at nearly no speed.  I have seen some flatter lower tiers, and counter slopes at the front of the green to counter continuous rolling, but still, putting a pin less than 14 feet from the bottom of a tier sure wastes cup space on a busy course.  So, speed bumps, and counter slopes can be done to get higher slopes, but on budget courses and high play courses (often one and the same!) the question becomes whether those steeper greens are really worth it as a design feature.

BTW 2, from my courses and measurements in play thereof, I find that the 2.25% slope is typically very comfortable at all speeds for cup areas.  2.5-2.75% is doable, and some folks like them, but hard.

I have seen a few greens with limited areas of 4% slopes that do well at 9.5 stimps, but not much higher.  If you have a constant green of 2.5-3.5% it really gets to be too much for most players.  Misses start to miss by a lot and the three putts add up.

All that said, while I grant that rolling greens are more attractive than flatter ones, no one has ever convinced me that any percentage of slope is inherently more interesting to approach putt than another.  Every putt requires careful reading, including allowance for grain, proper aim and proper speed to make, or miss close, no?  I actually try to mix up my slopes from 1.75% to 2.5%, figuring that the variance from green to green might keep them guessing in reading, without the less fun aspect of going by the hole by 10-20 feet.