Pelz-meter vs. Stimp-meter

[Mike Benham]

While sitting in the doctor's office yesterday waiting for him to tell me that my cholesterol is too high, I was reading the December 2002 issue of Golf Magazine.

They had an article (almost sounded like an ad ...) describing how in accurate the Stimpmeter is compared to the Pelzmeter.

The article boasted how the Pelz people helped (?) the USGA and Superintendent to prepare Bethpage the weeks prior to the US Open, even stating that although the Stimpmeter is the only USGA approved device for measuring green speed, that the Pelz guys provided their data to show the greens weren't as consistant as the USGA thought.  The article made claims that the Stimpmeter was off by as much as 6-7 inches (only 4.8% on 12.0 greens) in the consistancy measurement, implying the device is faulty and doesn't provide true data.

The Pelzmeter looks like a 3-car starting gate for the HotWheels game we had as kids ...

I couldn't find the article to link ...

Like the yardage books, yardage markers on sprinkler heads, but why do we need a more accurate measurement of green speed?

[THuckaby2]

Mike:  I read that article also with great incredulity.  My response was Dave Pelz has way too much time on his hands.  To me there is abosolutely no reason we need to know the speed of greens with any accuracy, for the following reasons:

1. For course rating we do need a standard normal summertime green speed, so that we put the surface ratings in the proper "category" (severity of contours/rolls/tiers effect it within the category).  The stimp meter is just fine for this, though, and given that the categories go in ranges of several feet, exact accuracy is pretty meaningless.

2. The more numerical data about the speed of greens, the more keeping of with the joneses there is, the more the Augusta effect takes place, the more our game is ruined.

I'd banish the devices altogether if I were king.  We'd find a way to do our surface ratings without these numbers and then great courses like Pasatiempo could slow down there greens and use all of the available areas for pins.

TH

[SL_Solow]

I saw Pelz demostrate it on the Golf Channel.  It seems like the choice between execution by hanging or firing squad; neither is very appealing.

[TEPaul]

For just 12 monthly payments of $49.99 the Pelzmeter is actually a wonderful deal.

It's far more accurate than the stimpmeter in reading the consistency of putting greens, the consistency of sand in bunkers, the consistency of ball plug marks in fairways, and even the consistency of your waffles and pancakes!

[Mike Benham]

TEPaul,

Nope, not waffles ... the article painful points out that the way the Pelzmeter allows the ball to roll down the track is far better than the Stimpmeter because, and I am semi-quoting here, "there is less dimple-less area on the modern golfball which means that the Stimpmeter method of the ball rolling on two narrow aluminum tracks is far more inconsistant than the Pelzmeter method of a v-shaped track ..."

Can't wait for the info-mercial ...

And if this information got into the hands of the player ...

Player to Caddie:  "I've got 143 to the front, another 6 on but the Pelzmeter says that within 12 feet of the cup, its rolling at a 12.157297 with a green density of 73mm at an inclination of 72 degrees which projects to forward bounce of 6.498871 feet, and with my new Pro VIII spin rate of 4,200 rpm and grip coeffiecient of 6.132, the ball will end up 4 below the cup with a slight uphill putt ... give me a 9-iron ..."

Caddie:  "Like I said before, it LOOKS like a 9-iron ..."

[TEPaul]

MikeB:

You forgot the most important part---the result of all that sophisticated data and calculation!

SHANK!!

[Steve Lang]

OK Now, I'll bite on this..

Definitely, throw out the Stimpy one,, bring it on DP..  

Why wouldn't you want to have some real type of feedback available to help the greenskeepers?  Oh by the way, they don't need any moisture meters either, and certainly no wind speed or rain forecasts either.. just look at the cows out on the back forty of Mack's farm.., are they standing or lying down?

Why not have an accurate and precise metric (for any important variable)?  Really, who cares if your temperature is 98.6 or 103.5 or 98.4, a doctor doesn't care about 5%... hey you feelin hot or cold, just put some extra socks on and bundle up, maybe have a shot or two in that tea, so you'll feel bad but not care.

Why bother to even measure the mower depths, just let the greenskeepers choose what looks nice to their eye, but I certainly agree to definitely let them keep away from scalping anything. I've never liked that brown, about to erode look on greens..  I suppose all those mowers should be reset back more than a couple of 32'nds too?  Might as well slow everything up to original specs and let the darts fly, eh?  

I love to make a full turn on my lag putts.. or should I just feel it and go 67% back..

Really, knowledge is not equal to empowerment, but it helps to look before you leap into something really absurd.

Don't blame the technician and messenger working for the megalomaniac greens chairman or tourney director..  who's really responsible for dressing up greens in a certain way to fit some type of idea..  

[THuckaby2]

Steve:  all of the other examples you cite are measurements that are NEEDED, for one reason or another.

Please enlighten me - why do you need more accurate measurements of green speed?

TH

[Mike Benham]

Steve,

I am all in favor of giving the superintendent the tools and resources to keep the course in appropriate condition, with appropriate being defined as "the condition consistant with the design of the course".

Consistancy of condition is always the challenge of a superintendent and no one can be or is perfect in this area.  How many times have you played a course with someone who has played it 100's of times, and one of their comments is "this green always plays slower (or faster) than you think ...".  
There is no need for this information to be used by (or given to) tournament committees or greens committees, and especially to players ... Local knowledge, i.e. experience on that course, is the most useful tool a golfer has in dealing with the nuances of that course.

[Bob_Huntley]

Dave Pelz reminds me of the medicine men that hawked Lydia Parkinsons Pink Pills for Ladies Ailments.

To listen to him and one would have to agree that Bobby Locke and R.T.Jones Jnr., had not a clue on putting.

[Steve Lang]

Please enlighten me - why do you need more accurate measurements of green speed?

TH

Let me say I have no Pelz Inc. stock options, have never attended any of his schools, and have only looked at DP's Short Game Bible..  I'm game to take the debate to examine the issue.

I don't need this info, I just play.  

Today I could see the greens were furry in areas from the winter overseeding and almost clay-like in areas where the seed didn't take.  Today's goal was aim to middle of green, get inside 3 or 4 feet on lag putts and Faldo it in from there.  The players have their own final responsibility.

However, I do believe that in the Super's hand, true (accurate & precise) knowledge of green speed could become a worthwhile metric, a FACT, i.e, a basis to protect the setup from deviating from the design intent.  I do not believe that all supers want such a tool (complexity etc.), but if others (like the committee) are going to drive supers to take actions by their use of it, perhaps in conflict with what should be done, then the supers should have some defensive capability or knowledge basis to resist or counter its interpretive use.

I see it no different than folks saying to the super that its too wet or too dry out there.. add water to insure there's soft green's or f& f or to maintain it green, irregardless of it ruining pin locations or the ground game options of the original architecture.  In the converse, there's no way either of keeping the supers on target either, if needed, unless there is an unequivocal metric, a specific objective.

I think the future supers need every tool that they can utilize to their benefit, for every component of the course they're charged with maintaining.

[S. Reid]

Pelz / Stimp Who needs them and here are a couple reason why.

First, as soon as the membership sees you on the course "stimping" you hear "what are they rolling"! Four hours later, someone comes along and says "what are they rolling"! Well, four hours later they may be fast, faster, slow or a little slower, as they were 4 hours previously due to surface drying, growth, and grain, especially from what I've seen on 'champions' bermuda.

Next, the pro walks in and says, "you know we should start posting the green speeds". So Mr. Pro I should start stimping every hour. "Well no" the pro replies. "Just take one in the morning when you have time". But what about the factors of growth, surface drying, grain, and especially if they were taken at 9:00 in the morning? Don't you think by 5:00 p.m. that the speed is going to change? HUH? "I didn't think about
 that". Sure, I'll post them. I'm going to put 32 ft. on the sign and leave it and have the course all to myself when I get off work! "HUH".

One doesn't need a pelz or stimp if your mowing at 1/8, the super knows there running pretty good and I'll bet it's at a speed that EVERYONE! can play.

On that note, I played a tournament at a golf course super's convention in San Antonio this weekend. It was proudly announced that the greens were rolling a 14 not to mention the fact that they were painted and had very little turf on them. I watched a 20 handicapper have a 7 putt and heard an echo of "pick the damn thing up"! I myself was 1 over after 14 holes until I had a 5 putt from ten feet. The whole day I could hear Happy saying, "just tap it in". It was neither fun or challenging, and definitely took away from the merits of the overall design.

Simply put, health and a good roll over speed any day!

[Steve Lang]

S. Reid,

I see experiences not unlike what you report, but I don't believe those are reasons not to use a metric.  I'm contending that its unabated use is akin to the one-up-man-ship idea that more is better that is the culprit!  I call this the member-guest-tourney syndrome.

Yes, no-one diputes that a dynamic living, growing or going dormant or dead organism like a golf course doesn't change character within or between the hours, days, weeks, months, quarters/seasons, years, decades, centuries.   No one is trying to say all greens should necessarily be the same other than perhps the USGA..

What does "rolling well" mean?  How does one repeat it or control it?  How does one meld it into routine?  

It looks like those supers in San Antonio got a good lesson on why outrageous ratings should not be sought on courses or individual holes not designed for it.  At La Cantera's Wieskoff or Palmer courses there are ways to play thoses speeds or something shy of them, but only with a high degree of skill and local knowledge.  Did y'all apply for CEU credits?