The case for fast greens

[James Brown]

Here's a even simpler way to illustrate this:  On a flat plane at any speed, which putt rolls faster, one hit hard or one hit soft?  On a faster green does one hit it harder or slower. 


Having said this, I agree with Pat's basic point completely:  the faster the greens, the better you sort good from not as good. 

[Joe Bausch]

Keep up the good work, Pat!  Your golden domer education is serving you well.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Keep up the good work, Pat!  Your golden domer education is serving you well.
 
Joe,
 
When I enter college I couldn't spill unjuneer, and when I gradate, I are one.


 

[Josh Stevens]

Where would the world be without dicks like Pat- makes our life easier knowing who to laugh at.

Clearly he does not understand basic high school physics, or indeed putting.  We do not use a stimpmeter to putt, we use a putter.  So we need to hit the ball harder on a slow green than we would on a fast green.   Pat should then read a physics text book and look up the mathematics and laws of physics behind the coefficient for Rolling Friction before he attacks poor Mr Wiggett.  Any moron understands that a ball hit harder on a slow green with a high coefficient of rolling friction will slow much more rapidly than the ball on the fast green, once the friction kicks in and starts to overpower the ball's initial momentum.   And so yes in fact for a large part of a balls journey on the slow green, it  will actually be going faster at the same point than the ball on the fast green.

So I agree, slow greens are trickier as you are dealing with a much greater variety of velocities along the balls journey.

But that's just Isaac Newton, what would he know?

[Sean_A]

While I disagree with Pat's World of Physics, I don't necessarily believe that slower greens means trickier greens. Once one gets used to certain speeds the opposite end of the spectrum seems difficult.  Discerning difficulty is a personal situation based on our experience and comfort level.


Ciao

[Josh Stevens]

In that sense Pat has a point (which is annoying), in that putting is as difficult as you make it, and adjustment is part of the game. 

There is a range of speeds over which the ball stands a chance of going in - too fast and it hops over or lips out, too slow and of course it stops short.  So what we want to know is what is the distance  over which the ball is travelling within this sweet spot.

Consider two extremes  - a fast firm flat green running at 12, and the same green having just been sanded, running at 5.

A put at on the fast green will run true and slowly decelerate as it runs out toward the hole.  The distance over which the ball is moving at the sweet spot velocity is very stretched out and if the hole is within that length, then it has a chance.  So you are just trying to get it moving and hope the hole gets in the way

But on the sanded green, that distance is possibly 1/10 of what it was on the fast green.   So suddenly there is a new dimension - you are tying to get that very short velocity sweet spot to occur where the hole is.

[Jon Wiggett]

What is not true Patrick


That balls roll slower on higher stimping greens


and what is your basis for that view point?


The STIMPMETER which proves that the ball rolls faster on higher stimping greens.

Now answer my question.

Have you ever played in a medal play competition with the greens stimping at 12 ?

Patrick,

you obviously do not understand the stimpmeter as when the ball leaves the bottom of the stimp it is ALWAYS travelling at the same speed. As with a higher stimp reading the ball travels further and in doing so also slows at a lesser speed its overall average speed per foot is slower. But then I think others have already tried to point that out to you.

To answer your question yes I have.


Sean,

I would argue that slower greens are more playable for higher handicappers than faster greens. Faster greens are certainly (IMO) easier to hole out on than slower greens for very good players.


Jon

[Josh Stevens]

Perhaps we just need to sort out the nomenclature to avoid confusion.

Henceforth we forbid commentators from referring to greens as fast and slow and require them to use the proper term for the physical  quantity the stimp actually measures - greens shall be described as having a high or low coefficients of rolling resistance.  In addition commentators will be forbidden from referring to putts as being fast or slow, because clearly they don't understand that on very slow greens, the ball actually rolls faster and gets to the hole faster, than on very fast greens (crap I just used fast and slow) .  Instead they will be required to discuss what actually happens and talk about the rate of deceleration of a putt as defined by the rolling resistance.

There, that should do the trick. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Josh,

greens are neither fast nor slow but are in fact static unless we bring growth rate into it Stimp is measuring the length of roll out so long or short rolling is what we are looking at. However, I do think most people will still talk about slow or fast even though in reality it is the other way round.

Jon

[Ben Hollerbach]

Josh,

greens are neither fast nor slow but are in fact static unless we bring growth rate into it Stimp is measuring the length of roll out so long or short rolling is what we are looking at. However, I do think most people will still talk about slow or fast even though in reality it is the other way round.

Jon

"Slow" or "Fast" really is just a reaction to the balls resistance to deceleration during the roll. A ball on a fast green resist deceleration more than a ball on a slow green and as such a player has to be more precise with their strike of the ball to control its distance traveled. While a ball rolling on a fast green will inherently travel slower, its resistance to deceleration and ability to roll out give the general perception of being fast.


As mentioned earlier, in general the "faster" the green the more pure the surface needs to be to provide a uniform challenge as the influence of an imperfection on a rolling ball has a greater impact on the continuing path of the ball. Fast greens separate good putters from poor ones due to the increase precision that putts must be hit not necessarily to be holed, but to be controlled when the ball completes its roll out. The regulation of ones strike on the ball to impart accurate distance control over a variety of distance and slop conditions is the separating factor.


Of course much like a player unaccustomed to playing on fast greens, a player making the adverse switch can also struggle as they find their feeling of "just starting the ball online" grossly inadequate on slower greens. While their stroke has be tuned to control distance at a more micro level, macro adjustments that are required on slower greens can cause them the same difficulty but the affect of poor deliver in this scenario is typically less punishing due to the decreased resistance to deceleration.

[Josh Tarble]

Having said this, I agree with Pat's basic point completely:  the faster the greens, the better you sort good from not as good.

This is why, mainly good players, love faster greens.  It's easier to make putts, but it's also easier to make awful putts.

[Rob Marshall]

So is there any change that Pat admits he's a moron and was wrong?

[Ryan Coles]

No.

He's been playing 79 years. So by default he's automatically correct.

When you think about it, this is how it should be. You just don't see old people at the club. In fact anywhere. Being old is truly unique. And we should thank Pat every time he reminds us how long he's been playing, even if it goes up five years every six months.

[SL_Solow]

Having played for less time than Pat but being old enough to remember when truly fast greens rolled in the 8's,  I make the following observations.

   1.  If a ball is going to stay in the hole, the speed it is travelling when it reaches the hole will be about the same regardless of the speed of the green.  One needs to hit it harder on a slow green to reach the hole, but it will have slowed down by the time it gets there.  Find some footage of Nicklaus in the 60's and watch him die the ball into the hole.  I have been a reasonable die putter for more than 40 years and I assure you the green speeds have changed while the holing speeds have not.  The force of my stroke has decreased for similar length putts. .
    2.  Speed is in part a perceptual issue.  When a fast green was 8, many players 3 putted by overshooting holes, particularly on downhill putts if they were accustomed to greens in the 6's and 7's..  We calibrate our strokes to the speeds we are accustomed to.
    3.  That said, I agree that the challenge increases as speeds increase and anytime the challenge increases, the better player receives an advantage.  Until the speeds become so fast that they become too much for the contours of the green thus necessitating flat uninteresting greens, I have no problem from a playing standpoint with increased speeds or from the benefit given to the better players.  The benefit is a reflection of their skill.,
     4.  The major downside is the increased expense in maintaining modern fast greens.  But that genie is out of the bottle and there is work being done to try and lessen the costs.  A lesser downside is that , if the greens are too fast, they can result in a slower pace of play.  But even 40 years ago, people took too much time on the greens.

[Kalen Braley]

The problem is, I see this discussion as apples and oranges.
 
Pat on the one hand is describing the speed of the ball at various points of the putt as it moves across the green.
While everyone is referencing the initial speed of the ball as its struck.
 
Not to defend either side here, but lets present a scenario of a ball on a 12 stimping green to a 6 stimping green:
1)  At the initial point of contact with the green, each ball is going the same speed.
2)  At 3 feet, the ball on the slower green is moving slower as more friction is being imparted to it, whereas the ball on the faster green is now moving at a higher velocity as compared to other ball, even thou its overall speed is now slower when compared to itself.
3)  At 6 feet, the ball on the slower green has now stopped, and the ball on the faster green is going "faster" because its still moving.
4)  Ditto for 9 feet, ball on slow green is still stopped, and the ball on the faster green is still going faster compared to the other ball, albeit slower when compared to when it first hit the green.
5)  Then at 12 feet, they once again return to equal speeds as the ball on the fast green comes to rest.
 
I
 

[Josh Stevens]

So back to architecture.

A fast green presumably has to be bigger if you want to have some variety beyond plopping holes in the middle of the green.

I would also think that a slow green allows pin placements closer to interesting little shelves and steps.  Because the ball pulls up faster, in general (at least for me) I tend to miss short on slow greens and long on fast greens.  So a ledge or slope 1 yard behind the hole on a fast green would have me freaking as ridiculously unfair as it removes the option of attacking the putt.  But quite ok a green running at 8.

[Andrew Simpson]

The problem is, I see this discussion as apples and oranges.
 
Pat on the one hand is describing the speed of the ball at various points of the putt as it moves across the green.
While everyone is referencing the initial speed of the ball as its struck.
 
Not to defend either side here, but lets present a scenario of a ball on a 12 stimping green to a 6 stimping green:
1)  At the initial point of contact with the green, each ball is going the same speed.
2)  At 3 feet, the ball on the slower green is moving slower as more friction is being imparted to it, whereas the ball on the faster green is now moving at a higher velocity as compared to other ball, even thou its overall speed is now slower when compared to itself.
3)  At 6 feet, the ball on the slower green has now stopped, and the ball on the faster green is going "faster" because its still moving.
4)  Ditto for 9 feet, ball on slow green is still stopped, and the ball on the faster green is still going faster compared to the other ball, albeit slower when compared to when it first hit the green.
5)  Then at 12 feet, they once again return to equal speeds as the ball on the fast green comes to rest.
 
I

but on a putt of the same distance of 12 feet on 12 and 6 foot speed surfaces, the ball on the 6 foot speed has to start faster to get to 12 feet and it continues to be faster at every point until they come to rest at 12 feet because it is decelerating faster than the putt on the 12 foot speed surface.
Or Pat might be looking at the lower rolling resistance of the 12 foot pace surface to indicate a faster pace.

[Kalen Braley]

The problem is, I see this discussion as apples and oranges.
 
Pat on the one hand is describing the speed of the ball at various points of the putt as it moves across the green.
While everyone is referencing the initial speed of the ball as its struck.
 
Not to defend either side here, but lets present a scenario of a ball on a 12 stimping green to a 6 stimping green:
1)  At the initial point of contact with the green, each ball is going the same speed.
2)  At 3 feet, the ball on the slower green is moving slower as more friction is being imparted to it, whereas the ball on the faster green is now moving at a higher velocity as compared to other ball, even thou its overall speed is now slower when compared to itself.
3)  At 6 feet, the ball on the slower green has now stopped, and the ball on the faster green is going "faster" because its still moving.
4)  Ditto for 9 feet, ball on slow green is still stopped, and the ball on the faster green is still going faster compared to the other ball, albeit slower when compared to when it first hit the green.
5)  Then at 12 feet, they once again return to equal speeds as the ball on the fast green comes to rest.
 
I

but on a putt of the same distance of 12 feet on 12 and 6 foot speed surfaces, the ball on the 6 foot speed has to start faster to get to 12 feet and it continues to be faster at every point until they come to rest at 12 feet because it is decelerating faster than the putt on the 12 foot speed surface.
Or Pat might be looking at the lower rolling resistance of the 12 foot pace surface to indicate a faster pace.

Andrew,
 
Exactly correct.  For two putts to go the same distance in this scenario....the ball on the slower green would need an initial higher starting velocity.  And yes, it will be traveling faster at the 3, 6, and 9 foot marker until they are once again equal at 12 foot.
 
That's where the apples vs oranges thing was going on.  Pat was talking about the initial BALL SPEED being the same and everyone else was talking about the DISTANCE TRAVELLED being the same.

[Rob Marshall]

The problem is, I see this discussion as apples and oranges.
 
Pat on the one hand is describing the speed of the ball at various points of the putt as it moves across the green.
While everyone is referencing the initial speed of the ball as its struck.
 
Not to defend either side here, but lets present a scenario of a ball on a 12 stimping green to a 6 stimping green:
1)  At the initial point of contact with the green, each ball is going the same speed.
2)  At 3 feet, the ball on the slower green is moving slower as more friction is being imparted to it, whereas the ball on the faster green is now moving at a higher velocity as compared to other ball, even thou its overall speed is now slower when compared to itself.
3)  At 6 feet, the ball on the slower green has now stopped, and the ball on the faster green is going "faster" because its still moving.
4)  Ditto for 9 feet, ball on slow green is still stopped, and the ball on the faster green is still going faster compared to the other ball, albeit slower when compared to when it first hit the green.
5)  Then at 12 feet, they once again return to equal speeds as the ball on the fast green comes to rest.
 
I

If you hit a putt that goes 20 feet on a green stimping 12 it takes longer to reach the hole than the same 20 foot putt on a green that stimps at 8.


If a ball is hit so that it is going to stop 2 feet past the hole, the ball rolling on the green that stimps 8 is going faster when it gets to the hole that the ball rolling on the green that stimps 12. That's why Jon stated that the ball rolling on the faster green has the best chance of going in.


It's not opinion , it's physics.

[Rob Marshall]

The problem is, I see this discussion as apples and oranges.
 
Pat on the one hand is describing the speed of the ball at various points of the putt as it moves across the green.
While everyone is referencing the initial speed of the ball as its struck.
 
Not to defend either side here, but lets present a scenario of a ball on a 12 stimping green to a 6 stimping green:
1)  At the initial point of contact with the green, each ball is going the same speed.
2)  At 3 feet, the ball on the slower green is moving slower as more friction is being imparted to it, whereas the ball on the faster green is now moving at a higher velocity as compared to other ball, even thou its overall speed is now slower when compared to itself.
3)  At 6 feet, the ball on the slower green has now stopped, and the ball on the faster green is going "faster" because its still moving.
4)  Ditto for 9 feet, ball on slow green is still stopped, and the ball on the faster green is still going faster compared to the other ball, albeit slower when compared to when it first hit the green.
5)  Then at 12 feet, they once again return to equal speeds as the ball on the fast green comes to rest.
 
I

but on a putt of the same distance of 12 feet on 12 and 6 foot speed surfaces, the ball on the 6 foot speed has to start faster to get to 12 feet and it continues to be faster at every point until they come to rest at 12 feet because it is decelerating faster than the putt on the 12 foot speed surface.
Or Pat might be looking at the lower rolling resistance of the 12 foot pace surface to indicate a faster pace.

Andrew,
 
Exactly correct.  For two putts to go the same distance in this scenario....the ball on the slower green would need an initial higher starting velocity.  And yes, it will be traveling faster at the 3, 6, and 9 foot marker until they are once again equal at 12 foot.
 
That's where the apples vs oranges thing was going on.  Pat was talking about the initial BALL SPEED being the same and everyone else was talking about the DISTANCE TRAVELLED being the same.

Pat states in reply 9 that the ball does not roll slower on faster greens.


 I've been talking about the distance traveled over the same period of time which equates to ball speed. A faster putt breaks more than a slower putt because it's rolling for a longer period of time.


The ball doesnt roll faster on a higher stimpimg green as Pat states in the same post, it just rolls for a longer period of time.

[Jim Nugent]

If you hit the putt exactly the same -- i.e. if you apply the same force to it -- on which green does the ball roll faster? 

Does it matter whether you talking average speed (over the entire putt) or maximum speed?

How do slope and contour on the green affect this?

I assume the greens are identical except for stimp readings.   

[Pat Burke]

reminds me of algebra class word problems.


I have a ten foot straight putt
1) I hit it harder on slow greens than faster
2)at five feet the slower green putt has more pace
3) the ball slows at the target more quickly on the slower green
4) both trains arrive at their destination in 5.5 hours

[JC Urbina]

Pat,


I know that fast greens are more diabolical when progressive slopes are part of the equation.  It is hard to gauge when the speed will increase or decrease so golfers tend to be hestitent on the lag putts. 



I am not an advocate of super fast green speeds but I am an advocate of greens that roll true even if they are what some would consider slow.  I know how to increase the weight of the putt.

[Mike Hendren]

The least athletic move in the world of sports is the short downhill putt on fast greens.  It's dainty to put it simply.

Everybody talks about the "Augusta Syndrome" but what about the "Oakmont Syndrome?"

Fast greens are an afront to the tradition of the game.

Bogey

[JESII]

Fast greens are an afront to the tradition of the game.

Bogey

Baloney...