A quick one - the fastest possible stimp speed?

[Steve Okula]

Here's the full article.

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

The 'fastest' stimp reading can only be found using level ground and a known height of cut. The lowest cut I've ever heard of is 0.100, but if someone knows one lower, then that number should be used to figure the theoretical maximum stimp reading.
All other readings are 'corrupted' by slope and different cutting heights.  

Where's George Pazin when you need him?      

The height of cut is not factored into the calculation of a Stimpmeter reading. The height of cut is one of a number of factors that affect the speed of the green, but it is not the only one. Thatch, fertility levels, soil moisture, species of turfgrass, topdressing, rolling, mowing equipment and how well it's maintained all play a roll (pun intended). The green speeds are measured with the Stimp and calculated regardless.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve,
From the report:

For the purpose of the analysis, the coefficient of friction can be generalized to encompass, without distinction, the static, dynamic, and rolling coefficients of friction that prevail during the putt of a golf ball starting at rest and rolling to a stop. It can be normalized to an all-inclusive parameter because of its dependence on many variables. Among them the most influential of which would be the height of cut, are the morphological and growing characteristics of the turfgrass species, the turf density and uniformity, the thatch layer, the dimpling pattern and the construction of the golf ball, the season, the wetness, even the time of day. Despite the influence of these variables and others, the green speeds of "as built" undulating greens can, with reasonable accuracy, be articulated and prepared analogous to the benchmark green speed indices from Stimpmeter measurements taken on level greens.

So it does seem that a reasonably good number could be derived that would answer David's question.

[Ben Kodadek]

I've never walked off a course saying to myself that the greens were too fast.   I've walked off plenty of courses bored out of my mind, slamming 20 foot putts that still come up short.   

[jeffwarne]

I've never walked off a course saying to myself that the greens were too fast.   I've walked off plenty of courses bored out of my mind, slamming 20 foot putts that still come up short.   

Curious statements.
When you have a 50 footer on a "fast" green, how do you handle that?
Couldn't you simply use that stroke on the slow 20 footer?

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

I've observed some strokes that don't scale up well on putts that are really slow. Some people with funky loops and lots of moving parts to their putting stroke seem to get worse as the stroke gets longer. Or maybe it just gets easier for my untrained eyeball to notice how loopy they are.

But now and then, I see someone who seems only slightly quirky when drawing the putter back a couple inches for a fast 20-footer but when they hit an slow uphill long putt I worry that they may actually whiff at the ball.

Surely youi've see that kind of stroke out there...

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

I've observed some strokes that don't scale up well on putts that are really slow. Some people with funky loops and lots of moving parts to their putting stroke seem to get worse as the stroke gets longer. Or maybe it just gets easier for my untrained eyeball to notice how loopy they are.

But now and then, I see someone who seems only slightly quirky when drawing the putter back a couple inches for a fast 20-footer but when they hit an slow uphill long putt I worry that they may actually whiff at the ball.

Surely youi've see that kind of stroke out there...

Brent,
You've hit the nail on the head.
The longer the stroke, the more actual skill is involved.
Players from slow greens can handle fast because they simply have to shorten their strokes.
Players from fast greens are very uncomfortable lengthening their strokes, and instead try to hit harder-killing tough and feel.

When describing what they want in a course people say they want challenge, yet when they're given it, complain because they fail. Slow greens will unmask "loopy and multi moving part strokes"

I'm amazed how many people use the same length backswing for ALL putts, and even more amazed that it actually works if the greens are fast enough

Give me sloped, slower greens where both lightning fast and super slow are possible on the same green, and then you've got an interesting challenge.

[Joel_Stewart]

Seems to me they cancelled a day or two of golf in an Australian PGA tournament a few years ago when the green speeds reached 15?  Does anyone remember that?

[Steve Salmen]

I think the firmness of the green should be factored in.  All other things equal (such as height of grass), a ball will roll farther on a firm green than a soft one.

[Steve Lang]

  Last year on our new greens at WCC, the Sr Pros were complaining about our 14th green, a par 3 that was coincidentally running @ 14, and it is wide, sloped mainly back to front except for left portion that's protected by traps front and back.. with a valley in front center zone, fronting water with shaved green collar and traps in back.  Like the chart implies there were definitely putts that didn't stop!  Some played sideways out of back traps to keep from rolling off front into the water!  

It'll be better this year of rthe old guys, but I think greens at 14 are reasonably the fastest one wants, unless your a complete masochist

[Sam Morrow]

Last year on our new greens at WCC, the Sr Pros were complaining about our 14th green, a par 3 that was coincidentally running @ 14, and it is wide, sloped mainly back to front except for left portion that's protected by traps front and back.. with a valley in front center zone, fronting water with shaved green collar and traps in back.  Like the chart implies there were definitely putts that didn't stop!  Some played sideways out of back traps to keep from rolling off front into the water!  

It'll be better this year of rthe old guys, but I think greens at 14 are reasonably the fastest one wants, unless your a complete masochist

Last year my girlfriend and I were watching the play there, the pin was far left so where we were on the ropes was only 25 or so feet from the hole, a certain player was having an expletive laced tirade about the green and hole being shit and the entire course being a piece of dog crap. He said even coming to town he hated the place.

Can you guess who?

[Steve Lang]

  Hey Sam, keeping warm?

not sure, but here's my first five guesses:

Curtis Strange
Fuzzy (cause he could probably buy and sell more tequila here than his vodka vehicle)
Stadler  
Wadkins
Hoch

do i need another 5?

[Sam Morrow]

I'm very cold but you're hot on guesses. It was Hoch, he also told a kid to leave him alone. Strange did throw a fit on 16 tee though.

[Steven Blake]

While I prefer faster green speeds, one thing is evident, good players adjust to the speed of the greens while bad players complain about them.

As long as the putting surfaces is smooth and it puts the same hole-to-hole that's all that I care about while I am playing a round of golf. Whether they are 7 or 14 is insignificant.

[Lester George]

15.2 to 15.4 on more than one occasion at Kinloch.  Not every day, thank God!

Lester

[JESII]

These are incredible numbers...the MacArthur video is ridiculous!

Steven Blake, speed doesn't matter? Can't agree with that at all. 7 foot greens would drive me nuts unless they were firm and really undulating...and small.

[Steven Blake]

Mr. Sullivan,

Like I said I prefer faster greens but if the greens are smooth and consistent I am fine with that even if 7 or 8.

Steve Blake
Golf Course Superintendent