[Carl Johnson]

I say "yes it is" (including any other similarly purposed device that may have been invented later if the Stimpmeter hadn't).  Today I was asked what my club's greens "stimped at."  My answer, "that's something we don't get into."  We try to maintain nice, smooth healthy greens.  Some days you might find then a little slower than you expect, and other days faster.  In my 19 years as a member I've never heard mention of what our greens "stimp at."  And I'm glad of it.  Obsession with stimp readings - like mine is faster than yours - is more detrimental to the greens and the golf experience than it is positive. 

[Mac Plumart]

Great points, Carl.

[Ken Moum]

I sort of liked the super who made his Stimpmeter into Excalibur, which he kept in his office.

Buried it in a five-gallon bucket of concrete and said that anyone who could pull it out could use it on his golf course.

K

[Paul Carey]

As a tool the stimpmeter is valuable to superintendents.  It's harm occurred when it became a popular measure of the quality of green surfaces.  Your points, Carl, are perfectly valid but don't blame the tool.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I tend to agree with Paul.

It was a great tool in terms of measuring and striving for consistency.

I don't think the need for speed would have been abated had it not been invented.

Unfortunately, golfers seemed to take pride in the difficulty of their course and the speed of their greens.

The stimpmeter is merely the lightening rod for dissension

[Tom_Doak]

As a tool the stimpmeter is valuable to superintendents.  It's harm occurred when it became a popular measure of the quality of green surfaces.  Your points, Carl, are perfectly valid but don't blame the tool.

"Stimpmeters don't kill golf courses, superintendents do ? "

[Thomas Dai]

I sort of liked the super who made his Stimpmeter into Excalibur, which he kept in his office.
Buried it in a five-gallon bucket of concrete and said that anyone who could pull it out could use it on his golf course.
K

Brilliant!
atb

[Adam Lawrence]

As a tool the stimpmeter is valuable to superintendents.  It's harm occurred when it became a popular measure of the quality of green surfaces.  Your points, Carl, are perfectly valid but don't blame the tool.

"Stimpmeters don't kill golf courses, superintendents do ? "

I'd never have picked you as a Goldie Lookin' Chain fan, Tom!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Very useful tool if you know your greens and understand your maximum stimps. That way you do not get them too fast that they are not 'mickey mouse like' .

We post our stimp readings every day and it is perceived as a massive plus as part of the service. Most of our members know what are greens are like at 8, 9 and 10....rarely would we go past 10 because it is not enjoyable.

[Mac Plumart]

Very useful tool if you know your greens and understand your maximum stimps. That way you do not get them too fast that they are not 'mickey mouse like' .

We post our stimp readings every day and it is perceived as a massive plus as part of the service. Most of our members know what are greens are like at 8, 9 and 10....rarely would we go past 10 because it is not enjoyable.

That's a good membership.  Theres a club in town here that posts their green speeds. Members are disappointed if they are not 13.

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure the stimpmeter is really to blame here.  Even if it had never been invented guys would still be measuring their manhood against the green speeds of the other clubs in town.  You don't need scrap metal to know what faster is.

[A.G._Crockett]

Very useful tool if you know your greens and understand your maximum stimps. That way you do not get them too fast that they are not 'mickey mouse like' .

We post our stimp readings every day and it is perceived as a massive plus as part of the service. Most of our members know what are greens are like at 8, 9 and 10....rarely would we go past 10 because it is not enjoyable.

Agreed on all counts.  Our super has started posting a daily reading, and he tries hard to keep the green speeds relatively consistent; as a tool, the stimp is best used that way.  I think most of the membership has been surprised at the numbers, and I don't think anybody has had anything negative to say about it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Very useful tool if you know your greens and understand your maximum stimps. That way you do not get them too fast that they are not 'mickey mouse like' .

We post our stimp readings every day and it is perceived as a massive plus as part of the service. Most of our members know what are greens are like at 8, 9 and 10....rarely would we go past 10 because it is not enjoyable.

That's a good membership.  Theres a club in town here that posts their green speeds. Members are disappointed if they are not 13.

Mac,
Since we're in the same town, I'm of course curious to know which club this might be, though I suspect that I know.  If it is the club that I'm thinking about, a lot of the members avoid one of the club's two courses because it just isn't much fun to play.  (Green speeds are one reason, but only one.)

If a club is actually at 13 on a regular basis, then unless they have very, very flat greens I can't imagine that it is too much fun for most of the membership.  I've played at that speed a handful of times, and while it was "interesting" I wouldn't find it to be much fun on a regular basis.  10 is pretty good, 11 is quick, and 12 or higher gets kind of silly unless you are an extraordinarily skilled iron player and putter.

[Steve Okula]

I'm old enough to remember the early seventies before the Stimpmeter came out and people talked about fast greens with envy and admiration. The desire for slick putting surfaces has always been there, the Stimpmeter didn't cause it, but rather gave it a method of measure.

It is a useful tool for the superintendent, which was all it was ever intended to be. The Stimp is kind of like a drug: properly applied it can be beneficial, but when it's abused it becomes dangerous and even lethal.

[SL_Solow]

Stimpmeter has been around since the 30's but it only came into the public eye in the last 25 or so years.  At least in our area, where there has been an "arms race" among the "better clubs" regarding green speeds, posting is a very dangerous practice.  I encourages competition with other clubs.  it increase pressure on the Super to attain high speeds every day.  Moreover, with the new grass cultivars, it is much easier to get to "silly" speeds which lead to slow paly, reduced hole locations etc.   But as a tool for trying to achieve consistency, it is useful.  Nonetheless, we are pressured to announce the readings.  so far we have supported our Super and refused.

[Ryan Coles]

Nothing wrong with giving and sharing the facts.

I think golfers in England routinely overstate what they perceive the stimp reading to be. Most run of the mill Club's will have the members saying the greens were easily 11-12 when the fact is they were around 9-10. Add the fact that they slow up during the day as well usually.

[Don Mahaffey]

I dunno. For comparison purposes, I think it's a valid tool and information. But maybe not for the reasons some might think. For instance, for somebody that does not play a many Ross or Doak courses, it's interesting to see what the greens optimally run. Until very recently, I was a member of two clubs, one that has pretty pedestrian/uninteresting/shrinking greens and one that has some wild greens, courtesy of Steve Smyers.

I have my preference but what was interesting was when I had my best friend (who is a member at the club with the boring greens) as my partner for the Member/Guest as the Smyers course. After our practice round, he was shaking his head at how many putts he raced 8-12 feet past and made a statement that the greens were very, very fast in comparison to the boring greens. I checked with the Super and he told me he had them at 9.5. When we got home, I checked with our Super in charge of the boring greens course and he informed me that they were running at 12 to 12.5. Interesting what a bit of undulation can do to a green.

The obvious negative of the stimpmeter is when it is used to compare one set of greens to another based solely on speed. The example above illustrates that as most would instantly say that the greens rolling 9.5 would be less interesting, or not as good, as the greens rolling 12. But that is not the case.

Good greens with internal contour are great fun to play and 9.5 is easier to maintain consistently than 12.

[JMEvensky]

As a tool the stimpmeter is valuable to superintendents.  It's harm occurred when it became a popular measure of the quality of green surfaces.  Your points, Carl, are perfectly valid but don't blame the tool.

"Stimpmeters don't kill golf courses, superintendents do ? "

More likely the Green Chairman or GM.

[Greg Tallman]

As a tool the stimpmeter is valuable to superintendents.  It's harm occurred when it became a popular measure of the quality of green surfaces.  Your points, Carl, are perfectly valid but don't blame the tool.

"Stimpmeters don't kill golf courses, superintendents do ? "

Greens Chairmen/Committees?

[Carl Nichols]

Very useful tool if you know your greens and understand your maximum stimps. That way you do not get them too fast that they are not 'mickey mouse like' .

We post our stimp readings every day and it is perceived as a massive plus as part of the service. Most of our members know what are greens are like at 8, 9 and 10....rarely would we go past 10 because it is not enjoyable.

That's a good membership.  Theres a club in town here that posts their green speeds. Members are disappointed if they are not 13.

I believe I saw the board posting the speeds at that club . . .

[Jim Hoak]

The obsession with fast greens is the bane of good golf courses.  They invite diseases on the greens, overuse water, slow down play, etc.  And the Stimpmeter helped cause this obsession.  So, yes, it is a bad invention.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The obsession with fast greens is the bane of good golf courses.  They invite diseases on the greens, overuse water, slow down play, etc. 
And the Stimpmeter helped cause this obsession.  So, yes, it is a bad invention.

Jim,

If used internally, I think the Stimp has it's benefits.

I think one of the problems arose when it became a devise used for comparisons.

I think that's when the "speed race" began.
Clubs with different circumstances began comparing and competing to see who could get their greens the fastest.

Some clubs in my area have significant budgets, hence they could increase their green speeds and take the necessary daily steps to protect them from damage.  Other clubs didn't have those budgets and as a result, couldn't afford the necessary daily steps to protect them from damage.

One of the most shocking putting experiences I've encountered occured at Tehama.
I was used to fairly fast greens, but, nothing prepared me for their pace.
It took me more than a few holes to adjust.

Then, for the next few days, in August, I was further indoctrinated to very fast greens at MPCC.

I explained to my host that we could never get our greens as fast as MPCC or Tehama for an extended period of time because we don't have the same micro-climate.
That August is a brutal month for us and that we'd lose our greens.

MPCC enjoys cooler temperatures and close proximity to the ocean hence they can do things that we couldn't dream of.

Yet, I would venture to say that golfers, including Green Chairman and Board members from clubs in the NYC area, having experienced the greens at MPCC and Tehama, returned home and said, "I just putted on super fast greens and we should get our greens that fast".

I think that situation occurs, not just intercoastally, but, locally as well.
And therein lies part of the problem......... comparison.
Comparison without understanding the differences, obvious and nuanced.

Yet, the Genie is out of the bottle and not about to return.
I don't think anyone would champion the return to greens putting at 6-8, hence, I think the following suggestion regarding the determination of speed is a  prudent one.

Take the severest green on a golf course and determine what speed it can tolerate while still performing as it was intended. (hole locations)
Then use that speed as the highest speed allowable for all of the greens.

When I see courses like Winged Foot, Merion and others disfiguring their great putting greens to accomodate higher speeds, for four days every ten years, I think it's sacriligious.

And, where does the need for increased speed end, when all greens are flat as a board, lacking all of their distinctive features which made them unique in the first place ?

I think you defined the problem at it's heart.
The "OBSESSION with fast greens"
,

[Steve Okula]

You're exactly right, Pat, and I agree with you.

Nothing personal.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Stimpmeters don't kill greens, morons do.

[Mark Pavy]

The obsession with fast greens is the bane of good golf courses.  They invite diseases on the greens, overuse water, slow down play, etc.  And the Stimpmeter helped cause this obsession.  So, yes, it is a bad invention.

Totally agree with Jim.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()