These greens are not difficult at 14

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think this is a "faster" issue on the macro-level....its one of smoothness.  And in my experience smooth greens tend to be quicker and bumpy greens tend to be slower.  If you can make 8 stimping greens that are consistently smooth, I doubt you'd have more than a handful of complainers, much less a "4 out of 5 golfers prefer quicker greens" scenario....

[archie_struthers]

 


JK , any thoughts of running our anti ballistic missile system . I for one wold sleep better knowing same  !




Lol

[jeffwarne]

I don't think this is a "faster" issue on the macro-level....its one of smoothness.  And in my experience smooth greens tend to be quicker and bumpy greens tend to be slower.  If you can make 8 stimping greens that are consistently smooth, I doubt you'd have more than a handful of complainers, much less a "4 out of 5 golfers prefer quicker greens" scenario....

The worst possible scenario is fast AND bumpy..
and in the world we live in-always fast-this is becoming more and more common, especially around periods of aerification or during early spring poa events.
Formerly, you could just firm through the bumps.


To you point, it may well be about smooth, but my reason for the thread is to point out the folly of an icon in the game insisting on publicly quantifying the stimp number, and imply they could easily be higher

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think this is a "faster" issue on the macro-level....its one of smoothness.  And in my experience smooth greens tend to be quicker and bumpy greens tend to be slower.  If you can make 8 stimping greens that are consistently smooth, I doubt you'd have more than a handful of complainers, much less a "4 out of 5 golfers prefer quicker greens" scenario....

The worst possible scenario is fast AND bumpy..
and in the world we live in-always fast-this is becoming more and more common, especially around periods of aerification or during early spring poa events.
Formerly, you could just firm through the bumps.


To you point, it may well be about smooth, but my reason for the thread is to point out the folly of an icon in the game insisting on publicly quantifying the stimp number, and imply they could easily be higher

Jeff, Completely agree on Jack and some of the things he says about courses.


And I know he's been in the architecture biz for a long time now, but something tells me if he wasn't the GOAT, he would have never even got a sniff at it.  Which is not limited to him, same can be said for some of the other high profile guys like Arnie, Gary Player, etc....

[JMEvensky]

To you point, it may well be about smooth, but my reason for the thread is to point out the folly of an icon in the game insisting on publicly quantifying the stimp number, and imply they could easily be higher

Another possibility might be JN's competitiveness regarding MV's place in the world of golf clubs. I think his comments were partly a statement about favorably comparing his greens to ANGC's--every TV viewer's gold standard. I think he was bragging on MV's greens as much as making some kind of universal maintenance statement.

[SL_Solow]

kalen,  On more than 1 occasion I have been putting on extremely smooth greens and been asked by others," the greens are a little slow today, aren't they"?  smooth matters but significant differences in speed are noticed.

[Greg Clark]

Having only watched the event, and obviously not putted the Muirfield greens this week, color me a severe skeptic of those greens being a true 14.

[Carl Nichols]

Having only watched the event, and obviously not putted the Muirfield greens this week, color me a severe skeptic of those greens being a true 14.

I had the same reaction.  I only watched about 3 hours total, but they looked slower than 14 (with the usual caveats that tv might distort things, etc.)

[Mark Pavy]

I enjoy reading different opinions, regretfully, I don't have the time nor inclination to be involved more. When a thread, such as this, comes up, it certainly grabs my attention, because the subject matter relates to what I've been working on for the last 14 yrs.

What is a golf course?

Do yourself a favour and have a look at the famous painting by Charles Lees, The Golfers- A Grand Match played over St Andrews Links, study it and observe what the artist captured and then tell me What is a Golf Course?

I wouldn't be too concerned about the effects of the PGA Tour on golf, it won't survive in it's existing format.

[Adrian_Stiff]

A green can't properly stimp at 16. At that point a ball will move to the lowest point and you could blow the the ball off its dimple.


You could have a one way stimp up to infinity of course, but at a true 16 two way reading the green would literally have to be perfectly flat so at the end roll pattern the ball almost zig zags off its dimple pattern.


There is a pattern for a stimp reading v slope.


At 3% its something like 8 max.


JN forgets a lot of things now.


14 is incredibly fast, such that on a downhill 8 footer, you could literally miss the ball because the touch has to be incredibly light.

[Anthony_Nysse]

A green can't properly stimp at 16. At that point a ball will move to the lowest point and you could blow the the ball off its dimple.


You could have a one way stimp up to infinity of course, but at a true 16 two way reading the green would literally have to be perfectly flat so at the end roll pattern the ball almost zig zags off its dimple pattern.


There is a pattern for a stimp reading v slope.


At 3% its something like 8 max.


JN forgets a lot of things now.


14 is incredibly fast, such that on a downhill 8 footer, you could literally miss the ball because the touch has to be incredibly light.

You can stimp at 16.'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hoG7_ukb1w

[Jim Nugent]

You can stimp at 16.'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hoG7_ukb1w

The guy taking the measurement decides how high to hold the stimp meter.  Is that really how it's done? 

Also, the section of green they measured on is not flat. 

[Anthony_Nysse]

Its an average of 2 distances. There is a notch on a stimpmeter in which the ball sits. Once the meter it lifted, gravity does the rest.

[John Kavanaugh]

I never thought I was being told the truth about stimp meter readings where I play so I procured a stimp meter for myself. I think you would all be surprised how fast 11 really is. Of course, picking where to test is the real story.


I with there was a better word for truth. Stimp meter readings are more based in faith.

[SL_Solow]

Jim,
        Of course there is possible user error.  The trick is to lift the piece of flanged channel slowly so that only gravity creates momentum.  Pelz invented his own device that released the ball via a trigger with the channel on a stand at the appropriate angle.  We should remember, Stimson didn't have to be precise, the original purpose was to try to find a way to get greens running at comparable speeds.  He wasn't trying to create the equivalent of a speedometer.

[Thomas Dai]

Interesting to see in the video highlighted by Tony how far apart the balls finish when they complete rolling and come to a standstill.
I would have thought they would be more 'snuggled-up-close-together', but they're not. Many more variables involved than we initially appreciate I suspect.
Atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

That video shows a flawed reading.


All the balls should be with two hole cups in each direction.


The direction of readings should be within three hole cups in both directions or the ground was not flat enough to measure. This becomes almost impossible at 16 stimp.


If a green could properly be stimped at 16 or more it would be extremely boring and or the pinning areas become extremely limited.

[jeffwarne]

That video shows a flawed reading.


If a green could properly be stimped at 16 or more it would be extremely boring and or the pinning areas become extremely limited.

Nothing better than watching pros putt dead flat super fast 15 footers....

[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.
 
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.

 

[John Connolly]

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.

 

Steve,


When comparing an identical putt on "slow" green of 9 to a fast green of 12, where the ball rolls to a near-dead stop before it falls in the hole, the struck ball on the 9 green will indeed need greater initial velocity to overcome greater friction and will more rapidly lose speed because of said friction. But the mean velocities of both balls, over the course of the path, should be equal, provided the end velocities are zero.

[Jim Nugent]

My question about the stimp reading is that the guy taking the measurement seemed to choose how high to lift the end of the stimpmeter, before rolling the ball down it.  That cannot be correct, can it? 

[JESII]

Correct Jim, that does not happen. The ball sits in a small groove that gravity pulls the ball out of at the same height each time.


One possible flaw is continuing to lift the device as the ball is rolling down it. This would speed up the ball.

[BCowan]

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.
 

Steve,


   You wouldn't be having increased labor costs on upscale public or lower tier private because typically most asst and head keepers are on salary and would be doing the rolling.


  A lower tiered private course I worked at the keeper made this 1000-2000 lbs cement roller he attached to tractor and rolled every monday.  Greens ran fast year round and they had a shoe string budget.  Most teachings would say ur applying too much weight and creating compaction issues. It's worked for him well.

[Steve Okula]

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.
 

Steve,


   You wouldn't be having increased labor costs on upscale public or lower tier private because typically most asst and head keepers are on salary and would be doing the rolling.


  A lower tiered private course I worked at the keeper made this 1000-2000 lbs cement roller he attached to tractor and rolled every monday.  Greens ran fast year round and they had a shoe string budget.  Most teachings would say ur applying too much weight and creating compaction issues. It's worked for him well.

My assistant does the rolling most days, and most days I'm involved in the morning chores as well, spraying greens, changing holes, mowing etc. We hired an extra 3 seasonals to keep up with the additional rolling.  (36 holes) I don't think I could get away with driving a tractor over my greens every day. It would need a lot of sharp turns and backing up to avoid bunkers, water hazards, and steep slopes off the green.

[Thomas Dai]

Adrian,
Thanks. I suspected something wasn't quite right.
atb