Jon,
You said, "There is a big difference in trueness of roll and consistency of result." Sorry but I am confused? If a putt rolls true wouldn't the consistency of the result be pretty predictable? I really don't know what you are talking about? How do you factor in things like greens with grain or greens later in the day that have a mix of bent and poa (and the poa seed heads start to form and cause putts to wobble,...),...?
Mark,
it is the predictability of the result that is import to a golfer not the smoothness of the roll. That trueness of roll could lead to a consistent result is not really the question though I would suggest that it does not necessarily follow. What the question should have been was 'how consistent were the greens'.
Take a stimp test where the three readings are 10'0", 10'6" & 11'0". The result that would get reported is that of the average 10'6" where as what is relevant to the player is actually the variable of 1'0" between the three. If another green came back with 10'3", 10'6" & 10'9" then it would be far superior to the first even if the first green rolled true and the second bobbled and bumped all over the place. Then add into this the lateral spread on even a slight slope and you start to see WHERE the ball ends up consistently is more important than the trueness of the roll or distance it rolls out. Yet, how many times do you read a report about how consistent a putting surface is.
We hear a lot about how smooth putts a rolling and most assume this means the putting surface will be therefor more predictable but do we actually know? My limited tests suggest that on average paced greens smoothness of roll is not an indicator of constancy of result.
Jon,
The same goes for a design that as you say "allows me to stop the ball on the green"? What does that mean? If you play a good links course the only way to stop the ball on the green (at least on some holes especially down wind) is to land the ball 20 or 30 yards short. Is that ok?
Your example is I think what I am getting at. As a player I do need to be able to stop the ball within a certain distance once on the green but rather want to be able to fashion a way to get the ball to end up on the putting surface. The firmness of the green should be relevant to the firmness of the course as a whole. One of the worst set ups it to have firm greens with soft surrounds but soft greens with firm surrounds are also not really desirable. There should in my opinion be an homogenised set up of the entire course.
As to the design, links greens will almost always allow a run in shot for a reason and where not generally have slopes or runouts that allow the player to stop the ball within a reasonable area. If you take Redan a an example, it relies upon the overall firmness of the playing area for its difficulty and the solution to getting the ball to stop on the green. Were you to make the hole more receptive it would lessen the hole immeasurably.
In my opinion, receptiveness of the green is less important than accessibility.
I hope this makes what I was in a poor way trying to put across more understandable.
Mike M,
