[Jim_Coleman]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2013/9/17/in-praise-of-long-grass-stimp-readings-in-77.html

     I DON'T

[BCrosby]

There was a thread on this about a week ago.

[Bill_McBride]

Growing up on poa/bent greens in Northern California, most of us learned a "pop" putting stroke.  The greens were slow.  I don't dispute these numbers at all.  

Also even today I doubt most players can tell the difference between an 8 and a 10.  

[jeffwarne]

I do, but suggest they were more variable and amped a bit higher for certain events.
and tilt combined with slope (rather than tiers) made downhill putts seem really fast
Especially comparing downhill putts to uphill putts

I routinely play at a course where the greens stimp 5 (at most) some of the downhill putts are crazy fast

[Garland Bayley]

I do.

Oakmont is king as usual.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Today we have fairways that would stimp higher than the greens of the 50's and 60's

[V. Kmetz]

jeff w,

I know the type. My curious little haunts include a number of courses whose greens cannot be imagined in terms of pitch and slope...thank god they putt like a 4 uphill, but in places like an 8.5 downhill...

cheers

vk

[JWL]

I played a considerable amount of amateur tournament golf in 1977.   I am quite sure that those numbers were are not correct in relation to how the Stimp is determined today.   I can only surmise that they had some different method of measuring. ....height of the release point or something?  I would estimate that those numbers are off about 3' on average.   They were most assuredly faster than the numbers posted measured as they would today imho.

[Jim_Coleman]

   That is my memory too.  Merion 6.4?  No way.  That is literally a fairway.  Merion has always been known for it's scary greens in my lifetime.

[Jim Nugent]

 I would estimate that those numbers are off about 3' on average.  

That would make Oakmont nearly 13 back then.  Sound right?  

[BCrosby]

Oakmont has always been famous for its fast greens, but when Nicklaus was asked how fast they were in '62, the year he beat Palmer in the US Open, he said they would have stimped at about 6.5 or 7.

Bob

[Mark Pearce]

Those numbers look entirely credible to me. 

[Lou_Duran]

No.  Based on my experience in Ohio during the 1970s, JWL is about right.

[Jason Topp]

I believe the numbers.  At my old club we kept the greens at 9-1/2 for normal play to make them playable on steep slopes. 

In the 70's and 80's the course had a reputation for having lighting fast greens.  Today they seem slow compared to other private courses.  I asked the super who had been there 40 years if the green speed had changed over the years.  He said no - that the difference was that other club's greens have sped up dramatically.

The 1971 US Open replay was also instructive in this regard.  Those greens seemed slow.

[Steven Blake]

I believe the numbers to be accurate.

[Steve Okula]

I played a considerable amount of amateur tournament golf in 1977.   I am quite sure that those numbers were are not correct in relation to how the Stimp is determined today.   I can only surmise that they had some different method of measuring. ....height of the release point or something?  I would estimate that those numbers are off about 3' on average.   They were most assuredly faster than the numbers posted measured as they would today imho.

I've been using Stimpmeters continuously since 1978, and I assure you the tool and the methods have not changed one iota for 35 years. I have personnally witnessed general green speeds go from 6-8 ft. in the late 70's to 9 - 12 ft. or more today.

The numbers are true, memories are faulty. This is the very reason for the existence of the Stimp, to have an objective method of collecting data that does not depend on subjective interpretation.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't know why people wouldn't believe these numbers.

Even today, we regularly play on links greens that stimp 7 or 8 and they are plenty fast enough even for those that like "fast greens".

[Ed Brzezowski]

Yes I do, I recently saw a video of a match at Pine Valley from the 60's. It was a SWWOG event, the boys were giving the ball a mighty whack on those greens. I recall seeing a putt on 5 that if struck on todays greens at current speed would end up in the amusement park across the street. The putting strokes were very wristy and as a post pointed out the ball was struck with a " pop".

[Thomas Dai]

It isn't just speed, it's also trueness of roll.

Does anyone have any experience of this tool which claims to categorise both - http://www.greenstester.com/

ATB

[John McCarthy]

Does anyone know where I could get a full set of the USDA data?

[Mark Bourgeois]

   That is my memory too.  Merion 6.4?  No way.  That is literally a fairway.  Merion has always been known for it's scary greens in my lifetime.

Steve Smyers says fairway Heights for the 1971 Open were one inch.

[Tom_Doak]

Denial is very powerful, but it doesn't change the facts.  Do we think that the USGA guys lied about the data back then?  Do we think that table where 8' 6" is a fast green was just made up so that more clubs could say their greens were fast?

The data was not collected at tournaments, it was collected at clubs over the course of a golf season.  I doubt that 6' 4" was really the average speed of the greens at Merion; they might have caught it the day after aerification, or on a day when they hadn't been mowed for some reason.  And of course 6' 4" greens seemed much faster when you were putting downhill and down grain.  But I absolutely believe that the data is accurate.

[A.G._Crockett]

I not only believe these numbers, I believe that greens are generally much slower on the stimpmeter today that most golfers believe.  I seriously doubt that most golfers have a frame of reference for extreme speeds, nor an ability to accurately assess what the speed of most greens is.  Why would we?  I think we understand green speeds in the same way we understand off the rack clothing sizes; greens come in S, A, F, and VF.  What we consider to be VF might be in the 10 range, probably a bit less.

I recently played a round at a course where the greens were actually running at 12, by order of the owner of the club, who has the money to make his wishes come true.  I had NEVER been on anything like that, and it changed putting 100%.  Really no way to describe it.

Two days later I was back at my club for my regular Saturday round and all my buddies were commenting on how fast our greens were at that moment.  Based on the average distance by which I left putts short, I'd estimate that our greens were a 9 at most, and more likely 7 or 8.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Funny.  My experience is the opposite.  About 7 years ago, we complained that the greens were painfully slow.  The super said he had stimped them at 9.  We went out on the course to see.  There aren't many places at Rolling Green where one can stimp a green.  We went to #10, where one can perform the test.  Sure enough, the green stimped at 9.  We couldn't believe how slow it was.  We like our greens when a downhill putt can get away from you if not perfectly hit.  I think the number is around 10.5 for regular play.  And my memory is that in the late 70's they were requisitely scary.  It is true that memories are often faulty, but that's mine.

[Tom_Doak]

A.G.:  The thing about stimpmeter speeds that few people realize is how much difference a sloped green makes at higher speeds.  If you're putting on a green where the speed is 10, but you are putting down a 3% slope, a putt that would roll 10 feet normally will roll something more like 20 feet ... whereas an uphill putt will still roll 6 or 7 feet.  Thus the effect of faster greens is greatly exaggerated in real-life putting.  That's why people over-estimate green speeds on many occasions, and probably why you are under-estimating the speed of the greens on the course you played "the day after".  There is a huge difference between 10 and 12 on the Stimp, because greens aren't flat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()