The case for fast greens

[RSantangelo]

For my 2 cents, I have only played oakmont twice but loved the ground game and greens....really  had a number of shots where we got to use the approaches and slopes and funnel the ball towards the hole, like the approach on #1....a lot of fun.....I think it's all in harmony there....can't wait to go back....

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been diverted from its core premise.
 
The fact is that balls roll faster on faster greens.
 
That's undeniable.
 
What the morons don't understand is that the force/speed at which the putter contacts the ball differs, in practice, on fast versus slow greens.
 
Now can we get back to the subtle internal design features that make greens that putt at a good pace, so challenging, yet so much fun to play.
 

[Kalen Braley]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been diverted from its core premise.
 
The fact is that balls roll faster on faster greens.
 
That's undeniable.
 
What the morons don't understand is that the force/speed at which the putter contacts the ball differs, in practice, on fast versus slow greens.
 
Now can we get back to the subtle internal design features that make greens that putt at a good pace, so challenging, yet so much fun to play.

Pat,
 
I think you would cause a lot less heartburn and gain some credibility if you just changed one word in that statement.
 
"The fact is that balls roll faster farther on faster greens."
 

[Ben Sims]

Pat,

I think the diversion from your original premise is directly proportional to your indifference towards the good arguments of others. Browbeating is not discussion.

My thoughts as they apply to the OP are that the case for slower greens with more aggressive contouring is far easier made than the case for subtle contouring on fast greens. there are any number of reasons for this to include: long term sustainability, healthy agronomic conditions, increased surface drainage, playability for ALL levels, and yes, increased challenge.

[Rob Marshall]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been diverted from its core premise.
 
The fact is that balls roll faster on faster greens.
 
That's undeniable.
 
What the morons don't understand is that the force/speed at which the putter contacts the ball differs, in practice, on fast versus slow greens.
 
Now can we get back to the subtle internal design features that make greens that putt at a good pace, so challenging, yet so much fun to play.

Pat,
 
I think you would cause a lot less heartburn and gain some credibility if you just changed one word in that statement.
 
"The fact is that balls roll faster farther on faster greens."

I'm one of the guys who enjoys Pat's posts for the most part. I agree with your post. Substitute farther for faster and I'm on board.

[Jim Nugent]

Rob, I didn't see you address the question I asked a bit up-thread.  Suppose you hit two putts exactly the same, with exactly the same green and conditions, with one exception: one green stimps at 8 and the other at 12.  i.e. you apply the same force to both putts, where everything is the same except the stimp measurement.

Which putt goes faster? 

[Rob Marshall]

Jim, I would think that neither ball goes faster. When the ball is initially hit it goes airborne so both balls would have the same initial velocity with the slower green decelerating at a more rapid pace. The ball on the faster green would travel farther but the actual ball speed would never exceed the initial velocity of either ball.


If the putts were hit perfectly so that each ball went an equal distance, the ball on the slowest green would reach that distance first. That's why faster putts break more.


Am I wrong in part 1? Part 2 is a fact.

[Josh Stevens]

Um, perhaps we should step back from physics and stick with what we think we know

Putts break because of the interaction of gravity with momentum.  Gravity tries to the make the ball turn, momentum tries to make it go straight.  As we know, momentum is equal to mass x velocity.  So balls turn less on slow greens because they are moving faster.  Its just maths.  Or math as you say over there

[Jim Nugent]

Jim, I would think that neither ball goes faster. When the ball is initially hit it goes airborne so both balls would have the same initial velocity with the slower green decelerating at a more rapid pace. The ball on the faster green would travel farther but the actual ball speed would never exceed the initial velocity of either ball.

I know nothing about physics.  My intuition tells me the putt on the faster green would go faster, if the exact same force got applied to it. 

For example, I think a putt on the fairway would go slower still, if hit with the same force.  A putt in the rough might barely move at all.  It's not clear to me why putts on the green would be different: in all cases aren't we just lowering or raising the height of the grass? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I think the diversion from your original premise is directly proportional to your indifference towards the good arguments of others. Browbeating is not discussion.
 
"Good Arguments"
Like balls roll slower on faster greens
Is that what you consider a good argument ? ? ?
The higher the stimp speed, the faster a ball rolls.
That's irrefutable, and now you want to defend the absurd statement that "balls roll slower on fast greens" by offering that statement as a being "good argument"
 
As to "brow beating", let's just say that I don't tolerate fool well.  You'd have to be beyond moronic to support the claim that "balls roll slower on fast greens"
 
So, I guess you support the notion that the faster the green, the slower the ball rolls, hence, stimps of 15 would produce a snail like pace.


My thoughts as they apply to the OP are that the case for slower greens with more aggressive contouring is far easier made than the case for subtle contouring on fast greens.
 
The "critical" problem with your thought is that we're not going back to slower greens.
 
I'd prefer more contouring in greens, but, I don't see that as a trend today, or in the future.
 
there are any number of reasons for this to include: long term sustainability, healthy agronomic conditions, increased surface drainage, playability for ALL levels, and yes, increased challenge.
 
Skilled superintendents have demonstrated that they can maintain reasonably fast speeds (9-11) without much difficulty.  Hence, the above is a non-factor.
 
Green speeds aren't going to trend toward 8, so while we might want to see more dramatic contouring, I don't see it happening.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim, I would think that neither ball goes faster. When the ball is initially hit it goes airborne so both balls would have the same initial velocity with the slower green decelerating at a more rapid pace. The ball on the faster green would travel farther but the actual ball speed would never exceed the initial velocity of either ball.
 
Rob,
 
You're in denial.
 
The ball on the green stimping at 12 will travel at a faster speed over the course of it's roll out.
 
That's the fundamental concept behind the stimp meter.
 
And, balls don't go airborne upon contact unless they're hit hard.
 
When's the last time you had a 6 footer or 3 footer go airborne ?
 
Have you ever heard of the word "friction"



If the putts were hit perfectly so that each ball went an equal distance, the ball on the slowest green would reach that distance first. That's why faster putts break more.
 
That can ONLY happen when different levels of force are used to strike the ball.
 
The ball on the green stimping at 12 will roll faster than a ball on a green stimping at 6 or 8.
 
The "stimpmeter" provides you with the answer to your nonsensical premise.
 
Balls on faster greens roll faster than balls on slower greens.
 
To think otherwise disqualifies you from posting for a week.



Am I wrong in part 1? Part 2 is a fact.
 
No it's not, it's a conclusion drawn, absent a critical missing component, namely the varying force applied to the ball

[jeffwarne]

So, I guess you support the notion that the faster the green, the slower the ball rolls, hence, stimps of 15 would produce a snail like pace.

On a stimp of 15, or your garage floor, the ball would absolutely need to leave your putter more slowly and therefore roll more SLOWLY in order to have the proper pace to die at the hole.
If, on a putt of the same length, the green rolled at 5 it would need to leave the putter FASTERand therefore roll FASTER for much of the putt.


Semantics might say the 15 was rolling "faster" but the ball itself would actually be moving a LOT "slower" and take a much longer time to get there.


Perhaps you only play courses with fast greens and have forgotten how fast a ball needs to initially roll to go 20 feet on an uphill putt stimping at 5.

[John Kirk]

It's unfortunate that this thread has been diverted from its core premise.
 
The fact is that balls roll faster on faster greens.
 
That's undeniable.
 
What the morons don't understand is that the force/speed at which the putter contacts the ball differs, in practice, on fast versus slow greens.
 
Now can we get back to the subtle internal design features that make greens that putt at a good pace, so challenging, yet so much fun to play.

Pat,

I think you're wrong about this.

In order for a ball to travel the same distance on a slower green, it must be hit with greater initial velocity.  I think the proper way to look at the initial hit is a conservation of momentum equation:

m1v1 = m2v2

So I think the putt on a slow green starts with a greater velocity, given equal distance.

I found this little abstract on a rolling golf ball.  Very interesting.  It claims the ball stops skidding and starts rolling once it has achieved approximately 5/7 of the initial velocity.  Great stuff.

http://robocup.mi.fu-berlin.de/buch/rolling.pdf

 

[Jon Wiggett]

Pat's way of thinking is that when you have a Ford Fiesta and a Ferrari both been driven at 55mph the Ferrari is travelling faster because it is the faster car If only he realised that stimp readings messure DISTANCE not SPEED that is why they are expressed in feet.

Jon

[Jim Nugent]

John Kirk, I think the question is not if you apply more force to the putt on the lower-stimping green.  The question is if you apply the SAME force to the putt. 

The objects (ball and putter) are the same.  The force is the same: you hit both putts identically.  The surface the ball is moving over is the same, except for one thing: on the lower-stimping green there is more resistance.  Again I don't know physics, but I would think that greater resistance means the putt moves slower. 

I know that on an ice skating rink, the same stroke moves you faster on smooth ice compared to chopped up ice others have skated on.   

I'm pretty sure that if you putt the ball on a fairway, the same force moves the ball slower than on a green. 

I'm almost certain that if you try putting in the rough, the same force moves the ball slower still. 

In all these cases, everything is the same except the resistance, yes?  It seems to me the same is true on greens. 

btw, in your equation, does m = momentum, and v = velocity? 

[Mark Pavy]

If only he realised that stimp readings messure DISTANCE not SPEED that is why they are expressed in feet.

Jon

You know what, I think you're right. I just assumed that he knew what a stimpmeter was and how it worked.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

The ball on the green stimping at 12 will travel at a faster speed over the course of it's roll out.
 
That's the fundamental concept behind the stimp meter.

Really, that's the fundamental concept!  Who knew.  Have you ever used a Stimpmeter?  Have you ever measured the speed of the ball as it rolls out the 12 feet?  At which point in its travel did you measure the speed?

There is no stopwatch involved.  There is no measurement of the ball speed.  You simply raise the bar to 20 degrees and the ball releases from the notch and rolls along the green.  You measure how far the ball went in feet and inches and that "distance" is the stimp reading.  The stimp reading gives no indication of how fast the ball was rolling.  The Stimpmeter reading give no indication of the speed of the ball at any point.

For your information, the initial velocity of the ball coming off the Stimpmeter is around 6 feet/sec.  When the ball stops it's velocity is zero.  In between it is decelerating due to friction between the rolling ball and the turf.  On a green stimping at 6 (feet) a ball will decelerate faster than on a green stimping at 12.  So, if premise is that a ball coming off a Stimpmeter rolls faster on a fast green  than a slow green, that would be correct as soon as the friction between the ball and the turf kicks in.

But, that's a silly premise.  Nobody putts with a Stimpmeter.  And no intelligent player is going to hit a 20 foot putt, or any putt, with the same force on a fast green and slow green.  In the real world, on a slow green, you'll stroke the ball harder to go 20 feet and it's initial velocity will be higher.  On a fast green you'll stroke the ball softer and the initial velocity will be lower.  The velocity will dissipate faster on the "slow" green, but for a good portion of the 20 feet it will be moving faster than a 20 foot putt on a "fast" green.  Of course, if you can provide some empirical evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

On your "case for fast greens" I'm not surprised that you like them.  They favor more skilled players such as yourself.  The USGA discourages green "speeds" over 10 (feet) because they are too hard for the masses and slow down play.

For me, I like fast (10 feet) greens with undulations although they humble me sometimes.  My home courses are both high speed and highly contoured.  They contribute significantly to slow play.  Our men's nights often run to 5 hours because of the difficulty of the greens.  So, it's a blessing and a curse.

[Bob Montle]

Pat's way of thinking is that when you have a Ford Fiesta and a Ferrari both been driven at 55mph the Ferrari is travelling faster because it is the faster car If only he realised that stimp readings messure DISTANCE not SPEED that is why they are expressed in feet.

Jon

Best laugh I have had all week!  Jon - well said!   That's it exactly. 

[Kalen Braley]

Can't believe this thread is still going.   
 
Its been explained in extremely simple terms. (Thanks Bryan that was a very easy to understand and accurate analysis as well)
 
Sorry Pat, but you still don't get it, and I don't think it can be explained in much simpler terms than it already has.  I know you're a very smart guy Pat, so I can't imagine you don't understand these fundamental concepts. I'm left thinking its just hard headedness at this point to admit you were wrong....
 
Remember Pat, just change one word and you're a hero!!
 
"The fact is that balls roll faster farther on faster greens."

[John Kirk]

Jim Nugent,

Momentum equals mass X velocity.

A simple physics principle is the conservation of momentum.  It applies to perfectly "elastic" collisions.

[Joe Bausch]

Here is what I have taken away from the thread, and it has been transformative:

All those times when I've been playing weekend golf prime-time at a public course and a very slow round of 5+ hours, the golfers are actually playing fast!

Who knew?!

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, I guess you support the notion that the faster the green, the slower the ball rolls, hence, stimps of 15 would produce a snail like pace.

On a stimp of 15, or your garage floor, the ball would absolutely need to leave your putter more slowly and therefore roll more SLOWLY in order to have the proper pace to die at the hole.
If, on a putt of the same length, the green rolled at 5 it would need to leave the putter FASTERand therefore roll FASTER for much of the putt.

YIKES.

MORONMANIA is spreading at an alarming pace.

Jeff,

I'll repeat this for you one last time.

Balls roll FASTER on greens that Stimp at HIGHER speeds.

Semantics might say the 15 was rolling "faster" but the ball itself would actually be moving a LOT "slower" and take a much longer time to get there.

Perhaps you only play courses with fast greens and have forgotten how fast a ball needs to initially roll to go 20 feet on an uphill putt stimping at 5.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

The ball on the green stimping at 12 will travel at a faster speed over the course of it's roll out.
 
That's the fundamental concept behind the stimp meter.

Really, that's the fundamental concept!  Who knew.

Anyone who's not a MORONG

Have you ever used a Stimpmeter?

YES, Thousands of times.

I even used a Stimpmeter to buy carpet.

Have you ever measured the speed of the ball as it rolls out the 12 feet? 
At which point in its travel did you measure the speed?

The things I have to do for you morons is beginning to grow tiresome.

There is no stopwatch involved.  There is no measurement of the ball speed.  You simply raise the bar to 20 degrees and the ball releases from the notch and rolls along the green.  You measure how far the ball went in feet and inches and that "distance" is the stimp reading.  The stimp reading gives no indication of how fast the ball was rolling.  The Stimpmeter reading give no indication of the speed of the ball at any point.

If you knew anything about "Stimping" a green, you'd know that that's NOT what you do to determine Stimp speed.
You pick a point (X) where the ball will hit the green after rolling down the Stimpmeter, and you initiate the drill.
Then, you repeat the exercise but from 180 degrees, keeping the same point (X) as the impact point.
You can also repeat at 90 and 270 degrees, averaging all of your readings in determining what the Stimp speed is.

So, let me make this easy for you, and that in itself isn't easy, especially when I promoted you to a colossal moron a few years ago.

Let's just take North and South readings at point (X).
When the ball rolls North, it rolls to 12 feet.
When the ball rolls South, it rolls to 8 feet.

So, when the ball is rolling South, at the 8.5, 9.5, 10.5 and 11.5 mark, would it be:
1     Rolling faster than the ball rolling North
2     Rolling at the same speed as the ball rolling North
3    Rolling slower than the ball rolling North 

For your information, the initial velocity of the ball coming off the Stimpmeter is around 6 feet/sec.  When the ball stops it's velocity is zero.  In between it is decelerating due to friction between the rolling ball and the turf.  On a green stimping at 6 (feet) a ball will decelerate faster than on a green stimping at 12. 

Which means that the ball on the green stimping at 12 rolls FASTER than on a green stimping at 6.
Thanks for proving my point.

So, if premise is that a ball coming off a Stimpmeter rolls faster on a fast green  than a slow green, that would be correct as soon as the friction between the ball and the turf kicks in.

IF that's my premise ?
Of course that's my premise.
Must I demote you to the plebian moron status
[/size]

But, that's a silly premise.  Nobody putts with a Stimpmeter.  And no intelligent player is going to hit a 20 foot putt, or any putt, with the same force on a fast green and slow green.  In the real world, on a slow green, you'll stroke the ball harder to go 20 feet and it's initial velocity will be higher.

So you never heard of the phrases, "The putter went off in my hand" or, "I forgot to hit it"
I've seen guys knock 10 footers 20 feet past the hole and I've seen guys hit 12 footers half way there.

The issue isn't about the force you put on putts on greens of varying speeds.

On a fast green you'll stroke the ball softer and the initial velocity will be lower.  The velocity will dissipate faster on the "slow" green, but for a good portion of the 20 feet it will be moving faster than a 20 foot putt on a "fast" green.  Of course, if you can provide some empirical evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

On your "case for fast greens" I'm not surprised that you like them.  They favor more skilled players such as yourself.  The USGA discourages green "speeds" over 10 (feet) because they are too hard for the masses and slow down play.

I'm comfortable with 10 or 11

For me, I like fast (10 feet) greens with undulations although they humble me sometimes.  My home courses are both high speed and highly contoured.  They contribute significantly to slow play. 

Baloney or Bolagna.
Slow play has little to do with the pace of the greens.

It's a cultural mindset.

What courses keep their greens at 11, 12 or 13

Oakmont you say ?

I'll bet that the pace of play at Oakmont is about 4 hours or less.
Let's not forget how narrow those fairways are and how deep and difficult those fairway bunkers are.

I've played in medal play tournaments on highly contoured/sloped greens putting well in excess of 10 and it didn't result in 5 or 6 hour rounds

Our men's nights often run to 5 hours because of the difficulty of the greens.  So, it's a blessing and a curse.
I would think, that after time, your membership would adapt to the faster speeds.

I find it hard to believe that 5 hour rounds are a product of the pace of your greens, versus the culture of the golfer.

P.S.  I may continue your colossal moron status, you've earned it.

[Joe Hancock]

Please let this thread die. Wrong doesn't know wrong from right. Brian Izatt painted a perfectly scientific, clear picture that is all that needed to be said as it pertains to science. As to how fast greens manifest themselves through the game of golf is more complicated and subjective.

The only way Pat is right is major downhill putts that will accelerate a ball beyond what a stimpmeter elevates.

Remember when Tim McCarver used to infer that some pitchers had a little "pop" at the end of their pitch, as if it actually "accelerated" after it left the pitchers hand? Physically impossible.

DONE.

[jeffwarne]

Pat,
If I needed to hit the ball 20 feet on a green stimping 13
and 20 feet on a green stimping 5
which ball would need to be hit with more force?
I'm going to assume you got part A right.
So one foot off the putter, which ball would be moving faster?


Repeat
a ball has to roll faster initially on a slow green to cover the required distance as it will be greatly slowed by the higher amount of friction.
Which putt takes longer to reach its objective-a putt so fast you barely touch it and it takes so long you can beat it to the hole?
or the same putt uphill on an uncut wet green.