pinnable areas

[Jim Sherma]

Speed is fine but I think firmness is much more important as far as architectural impact is concerned. Playing in PA I am mystified at courses that think fast and soft poa greens present a better surface than a firmer slower surface. If a green is cut up by soft spikes and soft spike indentations are very evident then the greens are too damn wet. If they need to be that wet to keep the grass from dying then you need to do something different such as increasing the HOC.


Architecturally a soft course eliminates almost all of the architectural intrigue since the ball is just stopping where it lands. No real need for a better player to care about angles and slopes if the ball is just going to mush into the greens.

[Rob Marshall]

I had a downhill, right to left 2 footer this morning on a 4.5% slope and 9 stimp. Scariest putt I’ve had in a while, probably more than any putt I’ve had on a fast green in some time. Pretty interesting experience overall.

Let's say it's 45° down… the putt will break about four inches (and should be aimed about 2" outside the cup).

Erik,


Okay, OT for sure, but how do you know that?  I have seen the GreenLogix, Strakaline, etc. books which all purport to be able to use for green reading, but haven't studied it enough to figure it out.  Thanks in advance......


As to your aiming point, I was lucky enough to play with Dave Stockton in a pro am and he gave me the same tip. With a 4.25" width cup, the first 2" (leaving .125" for a shot that might not drop) break is really "on the house."  Nothing says you need to hit the front center of the cup, but most of us read it that way.  In fact, most breaking putts should hit the hole somewhat high of dead center.

How hard did he tell you to hit the putt?  As Matt pointed out, it's all relative to the speed.

[Jim Sherma]

In reference to Tommy's first post. The third at Ballyhack is a wonderful and very demanding green. The main pinnable areas that Tommy references is quite large. As long as the speeds are not too great it seems like you can spread the pins across that area a fair bit to spread out any undue wear.


From the back two tee boxes I find the bowl very difficult. To get a shot to stay in the bowl from 180+ is very tough trajectory wise, and if you are not in the bowl it is almost impossible to putt down into it and get the ball to stay on the green.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

That's very true, consistency is key in these situations.  If I had to guess more of us would prefer to fight the consistency battle with things we can control vs those that we cannot.

If I play a course with fast greens that putt true, and I consistently go 5-6 feet past, that is in my control.
However if I putt on bumpy slower greens, and the ball is consistently being knocked offline due to being plinko'd on its way to the hole then that is out of my control.

P.S.  I have nothing against slower greens, I just don't recall ever playing a course with slow greens that weren't also bumpy.

But your assuming that so called true rolling greens also give a more consistent result. This is however flawed. I am always amazed that when it comes to play on the greens which constitutes the biggest section of the game for most players are happy to roll out all sorts of ill thought through and illogical claptrap based on assumptions and when it is pointed out still refuse to reassess the case.

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

We all have our assumptions and biases.  If there were a well crafted study on this specifically, I'd certainly be interested in taking a look at it. 

But my assumptions are at least based in some rational basis... like balls that run into randomly occurring bumps on greens are far more likely to give random results over ones that don't.  That and learning a course thru multiple plays with smooth greens and consistently and repeatedly being able to get balls in or near the hole. Or just simple individual observations of watching a 10 foot putt hit a bump and being knocked off line.  Its really not rocket science here, although a former GCA member knows one if needed for this...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jon,

We all have our assumptions and biases.  If there were a well crafted study on this specifically, I'd certainly be interested in taking a look at it. 

But my assumptions are at least based in some rational basis... like balls that run into randomly occurring bumps on greens are far more likely to give random results over ones that don't.  That and learning a course thru multiple plays with smooth greens and consistently and repeatedly being able to get balls in or near the hole. Or just simple individual observations of watching a 10 foot putt hit a bump and being knocked off line.  Its really not rocket science here, although a former GCA member knows one if needed for this...

Players of all ability levels, given time to adjust, putt better on faster greens. There have been studies (I read them long ago, but at the time just noted the conclusions and moved on). A big part of that is what you suggest: putts roll truer, both to speed and line. They also require smaller strokes, which can be more precise, etc. It's easier to start a putt online with a tight tolerance when the backswing/through swing is 8" instead of 13".

Bumpier, more random greens put the outcome more in the hands of fate and decrease player control. Yep.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

We all have our assumptions and biases.  If there were a well crafted study on this specifically, I'd certainly be interested in taking a look at it. 

But my assumptions are at least based in some rational basis... like balls that run into randomly occurring bumps on greens are far more likely to give random results over ones that don't.  That and learning a course thru multiple plays with smooth greens and consistently and repeatedly being able to get balls in or near the hole. Or just simple individual observations of watching a 10 foot putt hit a bump and being knocked off line.  Its really not rocket science here, although a former GCA member knows one if needed for this...

Kalen,


I also used to think like you but then I decided to put those assumption to the test and found that actually greens stimping at 8' to 10' were generally more consistent than those above that both in the length of roll and spread when tested across a gradient. It was admittedly a small study testing being done on just a handful of courses but it was enough to give a good indication. One of the reasons why a lower stimping green might lead to a 'bumpy' putting surface is nothing to do with the quality of the surface but that a ball that is travelling faster is more likely to jump.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

We all have our assumptions and biases.  If there were a well crafted study on this specifically, I'd certainly be interested in taking a look at it. 

But my assumptions are at least based in some rational basis... like balls that run into randomly occurring bumps on greens are far more likely to give random results over ones that don't.  That and learning a course thru multiple plays with smooth greens and consistently and repeatedly being able to get balls in or near the hole. Or just simple individual observations of watching a 10 foot putt hit a bump and being knocked off line.  Its really not rocket science here, although a former GCA member knows one if needed for this...

Players of all ability levels, given time to adjust, putt better on faster greens. There have been studies (I read them long ago, but at the time just noted the conclusions and moved on). A big part of that is what you suggest: putts roll truer, both to speed and line. They also require smaller strokes, which can be more precise, etc. It's easier to start a putt online with a tight tolerance when the backswing/through swing is 8" instead of 13".

Bumpier, more random greens put the outcome more in the hands of fate and decrease player control. Yep.

Or it could just be that higher stimping greens are firstly flatter in nature out of necessity and that as the ball is travelling at a slower speed it is more likely to drop into the hole.


Of course a random green is going to put the outcome more in the hands of fate but to collate the fact that a ball might leave the putting surface with the randomness is a stretch.

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen: 


Isn't it also likely that a putt started slightly off line will get help from a little imperfection, and go in when it shouldn't have?


Or do you all really hit your putts right on line every time?

[Mark Chaplin]

The 4th at Royal St George’s is a pretty big green and only around 1/3rd of it will take a pin in season. I say that as occasionally there is a winter pin in the front left bowl.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen: 

Isn't it also likely that a putt started slightly off line will get help from a little imperfection, and go in when it shouldn't have?

Or do you all really hit your putts right on line every time?

Tom,

That's a great question.  I'd have to admit statistically speaking that is bound to occur from time to time, but few things are a bigger turnoff to me than bumpy greens.  Perhaps I try a course for the first time, where i'm already guessing on putts over 8-10, so I wouldn't expect many to go in anyways until I can learn the greens a bit more.  However, courses with bumpy greens are very unlikely to get my return business, so I never actually learn them.

P.S.  Putting is far and away the best part of my game, so while I certainly don't hit anywhere near all my putts on the right line to get in the hole, I do always watch what happens with the line I've chosen as a way of continually processing and learning for the next time. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

How many times do you know the speed of the greens? Our super will not tell us the stimp?

[Rob Marshall]

How many times do you know the speed of the greens? Our super will not tell us the stimp?

I bought a Stimp when I was working on AIM Point. Our old super flipped out when he saw me on the practice green with it.


One thing I learned using it is that the stimp is usually faster than you would guess.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Isn't it also likely that a putt started slightly off line will get help from a little imperfection, and go in when it shouldn't have?

You could prove mathematically that it doesn't work out that way. Randomness is still overall a negative. Introducing randomness decreases the ability to make putts, largely because you're not talking about one bump here or there, but many bumps.

Even if you're talking about only two bumps, a bump earlier in the putt will have a much greater effect on where the ball finishes than a bump later in the putt. So a putt that hits an early bump that deflects it 5° right when the ball is still 30' from the hole (on a 35' putt) will not be countered by a bump that sends the ball left 5° 3' from the hole.

Why do PGA Tour players complain about the greens at Pebble or about them at Chambers Bay? Because they're losing control, and they don't putt as well there when they're bumpier.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen: 


Isn't it also likely that a putt started slightly off line will get help from a little imperfection, and go in when it shouldn't have?


Or do you all really hit your putts right on line every time?

I played in a pro am with Zoeller, Colbert, Peete and Player many years back.  Zoeller was the only one cool with the etiquette mistakes made by the ams, like walking in his line.  He made the same comment, "Just as likely it knocks it back on line as it knocks it off!"  Whereas the others only seemed to consider the negative possibilities, and did so even more often when they were putting badly (i.e., Peete who just hung his head when I happened to make a long putt on the first)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I played in a pro am with Zoeller, Colbert, Peete and Player many years back.  Zoeller was the only one cool with the etiquette mistakes made by the ams, like walking in his line.  He made the same comment, "Just as likely it knocks it back on line as it knocks it off!"  Whereas the others only seemed to consider the negative possibilities, and did so even more often when they were putting badly (i.e., Peete who just hung his head when I happened to make a long putt on the first)

Fuzzy is wrong. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played in a pro am with Zoeller, Colbert, Peete and Player many years back.  Zoeller was the only one cool with the etiquette mistakes made by the ams, like walking in his line.  He made the same comment, "Just as likely it knocks it back on line as it knocks it off!"  Whereas the others only seemed to consider the negative possibilities, and did so even more often when they were putting badly (i.e., Peete who just hung his head when I happened to make a long putt on the first)

Fuzzy is wrong. 

Fuzzy might be wrong but he is right in having an attitude that sees the good luck rather than the bad.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Fuzzy might be wrong but he is right in having an attitude that sees the good luck rather than the bad.

Yeah. I (try to) tell myself similar things when the greens are aerated or something.