These greens are not difficult at 14

[Adrian_Stiff]

The Breed formula can determine Stimpmeter readings on slopes.
 
Where A is the ascent and D is the descent, then:
 
2 (A X D) divided by A+D.
 
For example, roll 7 feet on the ascent and 14 feet on the descent :
 
2 (7 X 14) / 7 + 14
196/21
9.33 or a 9’4” stimp.
 
This works in metric too. I need to use it frequently because there are too few flat areas on my greens for level stimping, especially when the speeds go past 11 feet. .
 
A couple of pages back, SL_Solow made an excellent post with perceptive observations regarding the growth of golf over the past 90 years, and he’s quite correct that fast greens cost more to maintain than slow greens. In the past two years, we’ve added 50% labor costs to the maintenance of our greens with daily mowing and rolling to increase green speeds. We’re in a tight, stagnant growth market, in the suburbs of Paris, where there are a half dozen top clubs competing for members, and nothing draws them in better than fast greens. Whether you agree with them or not, it’s business.
 
For Mr. Wigget’s contention that “fast” greens are really “slow” greens, I beg to differ. What determines green speed is the amount of resistance or friction on the surface. True, the maximum speed of the ball is at the bottom of the stimpmeter, but the ball rolling on less resistance will decelerate more slowly than the ball on greater resistance. The ball on the surface with less friction will roll out further, yes, but it also maintains greater velocity than the other ball throughout the roll. After all, one has stopped after a certain distance while the other is still moving.  I can get a notion if a green is rolling fast or not just by seeing the speed of the ball 3-4 feet after it came off the stimp.

A stimp meter read is soley over level ground that is paramount. Using that method you could get up as high as 40. Its very easy for a ball to run 60 feet out of the shute on a 3% downslope and still run 8 feet back up in the other direction. The real stimp is not 34, though 40 is the real downward stimp. 13.33 still does not seem right.
I have seen greens at a 33 metre depth with 1000 mm of vertical interval front to back where a released ball at the back of the green will move off the front of the green. It was a fair time ago but I reckon the greens were only at 10 real stimp. I don't think some people understand that a stimp reading of 10 is very fast and that the real range for most courses is between 7 and 10 anything outside that is abnormal. The real difference between 10 and 11 is not the same as 9 and 10 purely because of the effects of slope. Internal green contouring of >3% is enough to move balls vastly off line, some fingers/toes into greens can be greater than 3%, Some UK McKenzie greens can have angles of 15% over a short distance. We see balls that have virtually come to rest at Augusta gradually oscillate off their spot and then move 200 feet. All a combination of slope v height of cut/sward density/leaf weight.


 On a separate note faster greens dramatically increase the time it takes to play 18 holes as their is more time consideration evaluating the putt, the putts are harder and so more are missed resulting in more time taken on the greens.


Greens need some sort of fall for internal drainage to speed water away and for that reason 16 stimp is a no.


It is typical that several greens on a course would not suitable to take stimp meter readings.

[Garland Bayley]

...

 On a separate note faster greens dramatically increase the time it takes to play 18 holes as their is more time consideration evaluating the putt, the putts are harder and so more are missed resulting in more time taken on the greens.
...

The greens I play vary in speed considerably by season. However, I don't notice anyone I play with taking any more time in the summer when they are fast than in the winter when they are slow.

I suppose your comments may apply to the low handicap grinders that slow the pace of play down in general, but I haven't seen it amongst the higher handicappers I play with, whether at home, or at senior events around the area.

[Steve Okula]

The Breed formula can determine Stimpmeter readings on slopes.
 
Where A is the ascent and D is the descent, then:
 
2 (A X D) divided by A+D.
 
For example, roll 7 feet on the ascent and 14 feet on the descent :
 
2 (7 X 14) / 7 + 14
196/21
9.33 or a 9’4” stimp.
 
This works in metric too. I need to use it frequently because there are too few flat areas on my greens for level stimping, especially when the speeds go past 11 feet. .
 
A couple of pages back, SL_Solow made an excellent post with perceptive observations regarding the growth of golf over the past 90 years, and he’s quite correct that fast greens cost more to maintain than slow greens. In the past two years, we’ve added 50% labor costs to the maintenance of our greens with daily mowing and rolling to increase green speeds. We’re in a tight, stagnant growth market, in the suburbs of Paris, where there are a half dozen top clubs competing for members, and nothing draws them in better than fast greens. Whether you agree with them or not, it’s business.
 

A stimp meter read is soley over level ground that is paramount. Using that method you could get up as high as 40. Its very easy for a ball to run 60 feet out of the shute* on a 3% downslope and still run 8 feet back up in the other direction. The real stimp is not 34, though 40 is the real downward stimp. 13.33 still does not seem right.
I have seen greens at a 33 metre depth with 1000 mm of vertical interval front to back where a released ball at the back of the green will move off the front of the green. It was a fair time ago but I reckon the greens were only at 10 real stimp. I don't think some people understand that a stimp reading of 10 is very fast and that the real range for most courses is between 7 and 10 anything outside that is abnormal. The real difference between 10 and 11 is not the same as 9 and 10 purely because of the effects of slope. Internal green contouring of >3% is enough to move balls vastly off line, some fingers/toes into greens can be greater than 3%, Some UK McKenzie greens can have angles of 15% over a short distance. We see balls that have virtually come to rest at Augusta gradually oscillate off their spot and then move 200 feet. All a combination of slope v height of cut/sward density/leaf weight.


 On a separate note faster greens dramatically increase the time it takes to play 18 holes as their is more time consideration evaluating the putt, the putts are harder and so more are missed resulting in more time taken on the greens.


Greens need some sort of fall for internal drainage to speed water away and for that reason 16 stimp is a no.


It is typical that several greens on a course would not suitable to take stimp meter readings.

Level ground is not necessary, let alone paramount. I have never encountered the extremes you mention, but 8' up and 60' down would indeed be 13'1", why is that so unbelievable? Under what circumstances could you arrive at a 40' stimp? You'd need a green several hundred feet long, or one made of polished marble.

[Jon Wiggett]

 
For Mr. Wigget’s contention that “fast” greens are really “slow” greens, I beg to differ. What determines green speed is the amount of resistance or friction on the surface. True, the maximum speed of the ball is at the bottom of the stimpmeter, but the ball rolling on less resistance will decelerate more slowly than the ball on greater resistance. The ball on the surface with less friction will roll out further, yes, but it also maintains greater velocity than the other ball throughout the roll. After all, one has stopped after a certain distance while the other is still moving.  I can get a notion if a green is rolling fast or not just by seeing the speed of the ball 3-4 feet after it came off the stimp.

Got to Mr Okula


So how fast are your greens moving? Maybe a millimeter or two vertically due to growth but that is it. Yes, higher stimp means slower deceleration but does not mean faster.

[Adrian_Stiff]

You can have a near infinity stimp in one direction. The depth of a green could easily be 30 metres (33 yards) (100 feet) if you have 1 metre of vertical interval from back to front and a ball coming out of the shute and the balls rolls off the front it can easily be crazy high in that one direction. Chambers Bay US Amateur had swings where someone missed the putt and had a strong pitch back. 9th @ Augusta can be the same.


Read the instructions, you are bastardizing. Level ground is paramount.


There is a table that relates to %slope v stimp and what is in the non usuable zone. 10+ is out of bounds for very highly contoured greens.

[Mark Pearce]

I've never heard a golfer other then myself complain that the greens are too fast. I'm also not going to get in a back in forth with u.

The first year we had Regional appended Qualifying at The Northumberland the R&A feedback after the event was that at 13 the greens were too fast.

[Steve Okula]

You can have a near infinity stimp in one direction. The depth of a green could easily be 30 metres (33 yards) (100 feet) if you have 1 metre of vertical interval from back to front and a ball coming out of the shute and the balls rolls off the front it can easily be crazy high in that one direction. Chambers Bay US Amateur had swings where someone missed the putt and had a strong pitch back. 9th @ Augusta can be the same.


Read the instructions, you are bastardizing. Level ground is paramount.


There is a table that relates to %slope v stimp and what is in the non usuable zone. 10+ is out of bounds for very highly contoured greens.

The USGA itself published an article suggesting the use of the Brede formula.

Reprinted from  The USGA Green Section Record 1990 November/December Vol 28(6): 10-12 
http://www.asgq.org/documents/pdf/communication/archives/Stimpmeter_AN.pdf

So the USGA does not consider a perfectly level area paramount, and they too are bastardizing.

[Steve Okula]

 
For Mr. Wigget’s contention that “fast” greens are really “slow” greens, I beg to differ. What determines green speed is the amount of resistance or friction on the surface. True, the maximum speed of the ball is at the bottom of the stimpmeter, but the ball rolling on less resistance will decelerate more slowly than the ball on greater resistance. The ball on the surface with less friction will roll out further, yes, but it also maintains greater velocity than the other ball throughout the roll. After all, one has stopped after a certain distance while the other is still moving.  I can get a notion if a green is rolling fast or not just by seeing the speed of the ball 3-4 feet after it came off the stimp.

Got to Mr Okula


So how fast are your greens moving? Maybe a millimeter or two vertically due to growth but that is it. Yes, higher stimp means slower deceleration but does not mean faster.

Maybe not, but it doesn't mean slower either. John Conolly is probably right when he says the mean velocity is the same. And you know very well that a "fast green" is a figure of speech, a rhetorical device used to reference the amount of ball roll and not meant to be taken literally by anyone with common sense. A "fast woman" may not run quickly.

[Sean_A]

 
For Mr. Wigget’s contention that “fast” greens are really “slow” greens, I beg to differ. What determines green speed is the amount of resistance or friction on the surface. True, the maximum speed of the ball is at the bottom of the stimpmeter, but the ball rolling on less resistance will decelerate more slowly than the ball on greater resistance. The ball on the surface with less friction will roll out further, yes, but it also maintains greater velocity than the other ball throughout the roll. After all, one has stopped after a certain distance while the other is still moving.  I can get a notion if a green is rolling fast or not just by seeing the speed of the ball 3-4 feet after it came off the stimp.

Got to Mr Okula


So how fast are your greens moving? Maybe a millimeter or two vertically due to growth but that is it. Yes, higher stimp means slower deceleration but does not mean faster.

Maybe not, but it doesn't mean slower either. John Conolly is probably right when he says the mean velocity is the same. And you know very well that a "fast green" is a figure of speech, a rhetorical device used to reference the amount of ball roll and not meant to be taken literally by anyone with common sense. A "fast woman" may not run quickly.

Steve

Yes, all this blinding with science doesn't hide the fact that we know what is intended when the term "fast greens" is used. 

I am in the camp that believes most golfers are well out with their estimates of green speed.  I think there must be a connection with estimates of wind velocity 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

I've never heard a golfer other then myself complain that the greens are too fast. I'm also not going to get in a back in forth with u.

The first year we had Regional appended Qualifying at The Northumberland the R&A feedback after the event was that at 13 the greens were too fast.

Goodness...was hoping it hadn't crosed the pond

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Circa 2013 the USGA introduced a new Stimpmeter. It has two sides. One is the same as the original. The other has the notch at about 1/3 of the length. It is a x2 meter for sloped/faster greens so only half the distance is needed to get the reading ie a reading of 6' = a 12' stimp reading.


The USGA recommend less than 8" between the balls in one direction and less than 18" difference between the two directions. http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/holen/article/2000aug24.pdf


I've played with them to see about getting accurate reading on slopes, and as Steve has stated, within reason if the distance is more than 18" between the rolls you can still get a fairly accurate reading. I'm not saying if it rolls 25' in one direction and 5 in other it works, but if they end up 5-6ft apart it will get you within a half foot or so of the exact reading.


Generic stimpmeters give a different reading than the official USGA ones.


As for a green stimping 16ft. I've seen one for a Tour event stimp slightly over 16ft. The players loved it, the Tour didn't...... The greens were not overly undulating and it wasn't easy find an area to get the reading, but it was a genuine stimp of 16ft.


From experience, for regular play speed has an upper limit where it no longer becomes fun as people start to struggle.


The stimpmeter was designed to compare greens on a course, not between courses as there are so many variables that contribute to green speed. As we all know a 10 on an odg course will feel a lot faster than on a large 80s/90s "tournamant" type course.

[jeffwarne]

The stimpmeter was designed to compare greens on a course, not between courses as there are so many variables that contribute to green speed. As we all know a 10 on an odg course will feel a lot faster than on a large 80s/90s "tournamant" type course.

Great post.


Sadly, the conclusion many well heeled/classic courses make after agronomic "advances" is that it's the GREENS that need altering, rather than the high speed mindset.
Even if the greens aren't altered, many, many interesing pins can't be used.

[Steve Okula]

Nobody ever complains about the greens being too fast, but when they are, the gripes shift to "unfair" pin positions.

[Tim Gavrich]

So...which is it? Are greens stimping at 14+ too easy or do they slow down play?


I'm guessing the answer is "too easy for good players and play-slowing for not-so-good players."


So where's the equilibrium?


Mine is only the experience of one person, but in recalling the rounds that have stood out as especially slow, I don't know that I'd attribute any of them to overly fast greens.

[jeffwarne]

Nobody ever complains about the greens being too fast, but when they are, the gripes shift to "unfair" pin positions.

[Thomas Dai]

Nobody ever complains about the greens being too fast, but when they are, the gripes shift to "unfair" pin positions.

+1, or is it +2.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

Jack and expertise.

Story told by Robert Trent Jones, Jr about having dinner at Pebble Beach with Jack and Bob's friend Art, a wine collector.

"Now we know Jack -- he is such a great champion, and because of that, he's pretty sure of himself -- so he started telling the maitre'd at Pebble Beach which wines were which, and Art asks Jack, "When did you get interested in wine?" and Jack says, "A couple months ago!""
WS 101516