[Pete_Pittock]

Is there any unwritten rule here?  Assuming some contour I would think 11 1/2 to 12 stimp would be max for a 4-5000 sq ft green.
I guess we will find out mid-month,

[Jeff Schley]

With Pebble's tiny greens we shall see what they do, I'd like to see them film the stimpmeter test for each day and put it on the broadcast so we have some actual data, but the USGA wouldn't want anyone to see that.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

In 2000 they ran at 10 to 10 1/2.  Not sure how fast they ran in 2010, but they lose almost every worthwhile pin if they ramp them up to Bethpage speeds.  Perhaps PB is where the USGA wakes up and sets the greens up like they did for the Ladies.

[James Bennett]

I'd be more concerned with the slope on the green than the size of the green when it comes to green speed.And the exposure to the wind.

[jeffwarne]

I'd be more concerned with the slope on the green than the size of the green when it comes to green speed.And the exposure to the wind.

You're 100% right...but the golf world tends to look at this exactly backwards and is slowly evolving to adjusting slopes(and certainly pin placements) to match a certain desired green speed
#Heads buried in sand led by governing bodies and egos

[James Bennett]

Very challenging to build flat greens on dramatic ground - unless you want something to look artificial and uninteresting.

[Rick Lane]

I'd be more concerned with the slope on the green than the size of the green when it comes to green speed.And the exposure to the wind.

+1.
I play a 1931 Tillinghast course, and the greens are quite sloped and a lot of fun to play.   While some members always clamor for faster and faster greens, when these get to about 10.5, they are maxed out, we are losing pin positions, and we have three greens in particular that balls will roll off if the wind blows down the green. You can also experience a putt that rolls up to the hole and back to your feet.    I would guess they were designed for speeds running about 8?  So that TD quote about slowing the greens down and not taking character out is exactly spot on.

[James Brown]

In 2000 they ran at 10 to 10 1/2.   Not sure how fast they ran in 2010, but they lose almost every worthwhile pin if they ramp them up to Bethpage speeds.  Perhaps PB is where the USGA wakes up and sets the greens up like they did for the Ladies.

What’s your source on that? 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I was a member at Four Streams outside3 DC for fifteen years. The greens for the most part did not have a lot of slope or undulations. They were designed, by Steve Smyers, to run about 12. Then the slope was noticeable. When they were slower the greens were not as much fun. Most of the greens were about 7500 or more square feet with a lot of pinable areas.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

James Brown, I have been fortunate to have great sources.  Craig Currier has been a friend since he was an intern at Piping Rock, and over the years a lot of course conditioning information has come for him.
I have played in the June Classic, and information on the green speeds was readily available to the players, and several of my friends played in 2000.  I have been fortunate to have played quite a few rounds at PB,  so I kind of know the greens fairly well.

[Jeff Schley]

Fastest greens I have played was LACC, where the pins were very fair that day I'm told.  Also one day maybe 20 years ago at the Stadium Course at PGA West which was ridiculously fast the week after Q school and windy day.  Wind matters as we all know and that was very very unfair with pin locations, green sizes, wind, extreme cutting.

[Jon Wiggett]

Its really weird how many people have claimed to see really quick greens because I have never seen a green that was running fast. All the greens I have ever seen have been moving at exactly the same speed which is 0.0mph. Are really fast greens the UFOs of the golfing world and those who claim to have seen them just poor fools who do not understand what they are witnessing


Pete,


to answer your question, small greens with a high stimp reading need to have a lot of slopes on them in order stop the ball. On the one hand this might have the effect of reducing pin positions though with a lower stimp reading due to more slope you get more pinable area. Swings and roundabouts it would seem.


I would suggest that green size has more to do with the amount of footfall than the stimp reading.



Jon

[Jeff Schley]

to answer your question, small greens with a high stimp reading need to have a lot of slopes on them in order stop the ball.

Or have areas where you can run the ball up from short of the gree, which in the US isn't very common.  A hazard or thick rough abounds.

[Jon Wiggett]

to answer your question, small greens with a high stimp reading need to have a lot of slopes on them in order stop the ball.

Or have areas where you can run the ball up from short of the gree, which in the US isn't very common.  A hazard or thick rough abounds.

Jeff,


correct. I often think for many players the surrounds are pretty much the same as the putting surface if they roll well enough. Thick rough is a sign of a lack of imagination in my book. Better to have a short sharp slope or hump to make the player think.

[Pete_Pittock]

Its really weird how many people have claimed to see really quick greens because I have never seen a green that was running fast. All the greens I have ever seen have been moving at exactly the same speed which is 0.0mph. Are really fast greens the UFOs of the golfing world and those who claim to have seen them just poor fools who do not understand what they are witnessing


Pete,


to answer your question, small greens with a high stimp reading need to have a lot of slopes on them in order stop the ball. On the one hand this might have the effect of reducing pin positions though with a lower stimp reading due to more slope you get more pinable area. Swings and roundabouts it would seem.

I would suggest that green size has more to do with the amount of footfall than the stimp reading.

Jon

That was pretty much my thought; however the high ball's angle of attack and amount of spin  might change your equation.  Then I might ask the question is there is a positive correlation that the stronger golfer with proper technique would also prefer faster green speeds?

[Jon Wiggett]

You might be correct. Good putters prefer greens with a higher stimp reading as they are usually flatter and easier to putt. It is slope which makes putting more challenging.


Jon

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You might be correct. Good putters prefer greens with a higher stimp reading as they are usually flatter and easier to putt. It is slope which makes putting more challenging.

I don’t necessarily agree with that.

Putts roll truer on higher stimp greens, generally, and so better players control their line and speed better. Yes.

But talk with good putters and I think you’ll often find it’s not slope they dislike - it’s actually the subtle ones they dislike. Not knowing if your 20 footer is gonna break 3” left or 2” right is unsettling. If it clearly breaks left 2’ or so, that’s often an easier putt to read.

Now that still requires subtle breaks and slopes. Actually flat greens with a lot of straight-ish putts are easiest yet, though less so at stimp 9 than 12.

[Jeff Schley]

You might be correct. Good putters prefer greens with a higher stimp reading as they are usually flatter and easier to putt. It is slope which makes putting more challenging.

I don’t necessarily agree with that.

Putts roll truer on higher stimp greens, generally, and so better players control their line and speed better. Yes.

But talk with good putters and I think you’ll often find it’s not slope they dislike - it’s actually the subtle ones they dislike. Not knowing if your 20 footer is gonna break 3” left or 2” right is unsettling. If it clearly breaks left 2’ or so, that’s often an easier putt to read.

Now that still requires subtle breaks and slopes. Actually flat greens with a lot of straight-ish putts are easiest yet, though less so at stimp 9 than 12.

What a coincidence as I was reading Jon's statement thinking, "I wonder what Eric's data and opinion are on this?"

So Eric is there any data kept for putts that break as opposed to purely distance? For example with all the laser generated lines on the broadcast, is there any stats on amount of break for an ideal speed putt that XYZ players has made in a round?  We know they keep track of total feet made in putts, but curious if this is kept and if so would it yield any correlation between good and bad putters?

[Jon Wiggett]

You might be correct. Good putters prefer greens with a higher stimp reading as they are usually flatter and easier to putt. It is slope which makes putting more challenging.

I don’t necessarily agree with that.

Putts roll truer on higher stimp greens, generally, and so better players control their line and speed better. Yes.

But talk with good putters and I think you’ll often find it’s not slope they dislike - it’s actually the subtle ones they dislike. Not knowing if your 20 footer is gonna break 3” left or 2” right is unsettling. If it clearly breaks left 2’ or so, that’s often an easier putt to read.

Now that still requires subtle breaks and slopes. Actually flat greens with a lot of straight-ish putts are easiest yet, though less so at stimp 9 than 12.

Erik,


if you want to take a quote out of context then go ahead but unfortunately for you your answer actually agrees with my point in that it is the break that makes the putt awkward not the speed.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So Eric is there any data kept for putts that break as opposed to purely distance?

They're starting to track that stuff.

I expect we'll see, for example, that on 8' putts, righties might be slightly better on right-to-left putts than left-to-right putts. And that some individuals may have even larger gaps. Some players will be better on downhill putts than others, while some might like uphill putts.

But I know we won't see anything that says, for example, a 5' putt 90° to the slope is made more often than an 8' putt within ±30° of straight uphill, because that sort of stuff has been pretty thoroughly tested. Distance inside of about 12' plays a HUGE role in determining whether the putt goes in (overall). Again, yeah, you can find some devilish 5' putts… but if they're that devilish, the ball often doesn't come to rest in those spots, either.

For example with all the laser generated lines on the broadcast, is there any stats on amount of break for an ideal speed putt that XYZ players has made in a round?  We know they keep track of total feet made in putts, but curious if this is kept and if so would it yield any correlation between good and bad putters?

Good putters make a higher percentage of putts and three putt less frequently. That's about it. Some good putters putt with more pace than others. Tiger Woods would hit his short putts pretty firmly, but died his long putts at the hole. That made him a good putter. Other good putters die all of their putts at the hole (and that's a good strategy, often, on PGA Tour greens, though maybe not late afternoon on poa).

if you want to take a quote out of context then go ahead but unfortunately for you your answer actually agrees with my point in that it is the break that makes the putt awkward not the speed.

I apologize. I didn't really see any context as you hadn't quoted anyone, and you simply said three sentences, one of which was "You might be correct." That obviously referred back, but I scrolled, and your previous comment seemed to be about chipping from rough versus having a slope on the green…

I assume by this post here that you just mean that PGA Tour players are good at any speed, but it's slope in general that is frustrating. If that's what you're saying, then I agree, but as you could probably tell, I took your previous post to mean by "flatter" greens were easier to putt over greens with "slope." Given that all greens have slope, "flatter" greens are actually often more difficult to make putts on, because the differences between 0.4% slope one way and 0.3% slope the other way can result in missed putts, and it's not a big distinction. Players never quite know which way the ball is going to move, whereas on a green with holes cut in areas of higher slope, they at least know which direction the ball will go.

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,

you quoted me so it is your quote not mine


I say slope you say speed then go on to explain that because of the speed the putt breaks and this is difficult to read. Break happens because of slope hence my point. You might argue that it is the speed causes the ball to break more yet in the end it is slope that causes the break and without it there is none. Would you be of the opinion that ANGC would be harder to play if they flattened the greens significantly so as to leave only putts which break a little?


Jon

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I say slope you say speed then go on to explain that because of the speed the putt breaks and this is difficult to read. Break happens because of slope hence my point. You might argue that it is the speed causes the ball to break more yet in the end it is slope that causes the break and without it there is none. Would you be of the opinion that ANGC would be harder to play if they flattened the greens significantly so as to leave only putts which break a little?

Jon, I am not sure you're understanding my point. I didn't "explain that because of the speed the putt breaks." I would never argue that "speed causes break."

My point remains that flatter greens at the same speed are often tougher to read and make players more uncomfortable than greens with more slope, where the breaks are more obvious. Players routinely putt better when they have a known right-to-left breaking putt (maybe 90° to a 1.5% slope) than the same length putt where they're not sure if it's 0.4% left or 0.3% right.

Would you rather have a putt that's clearly right-to-left or one that you're not sure whether to play left edge or a ball out right from 8'?

That's the only point I've been trying to make here - that sometimes flatter greens are more difficult to putt or make players more uncomfortable.

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


yes, you are correct that subtle breaks are harder to read but this does not lead to the putt being harder. What you are describing is how difficult the green is to read not how difficult the green is to putt. Ask anyone if you have to hole a putt would you prefer a 20' putt that breaks 5 foot or a 20' putt that will break between 0" and 3" the vast majority would go for the latter.


As for your example I find it somewhat contrived as I have never met a good putter who was unsure if the putt from 8' would move from the left or from the right except when grain was a factor. At the most it is an uncertainty as to whether the putt is straight or slightly from the one side.


I asked in my last post about whether ANGC would become harder if they flattened all their greens. According to your way of thinking it would and scores would go up. I do not hold this opinion and am of the opinion it would make the course a lot easier.


My point has always and only been that it is slope that makes putting difficult not speed. I never mentioned at any point anything about ease of reading the green. What I would say on this point is that it is one thing to know for sure that a putt will break in a particular direction but the art of reading is knowing how much it will break and not as you appear to be suggesting just whether it breaks. There is no difference between will it break an inch to the left or an inch to the right or will it break 4'8" to the right or 4'10" except the bigger the break the harder it is to get the break right.


Jon

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As for your example I find it somewhat contrived as I have never met a good putter who was unsure if the putt from 8' would move from the left or from the right except when grain was a factor. At the most it is an uncertainty as to whether the putt is straight or slightly from the one side.

Grain doesn't really affect the direction of break very much. Old misconception. Mark Sweeney can tell you more.

I asked in my last post about whether ANGC would become harder if they flattened all their greens. According to your way of thinking it would and scores would go up. I do not hold this opinion and am of the opinion it would make the course a lot easier.

That's not "according to my way of thinking" at all. I've given examples of a 1.5% slope and a slope that might be 0.3% one way or 0.4% another way. The former is easier to make putts on, and players are more comfortable on the obvious breaking putt.


At any rate…
- Players of almost any skill range, given time to acclimate, tend to putt faster greens better. They three putt a bit more often, but they also one-putt more often.
- Higher speed greens (yes, where the ball rolls slower) break more given the same slope, and some putts are MUCH more sensitive to line/break combinations.


Architecturally, I try to listen almost exclusively, so I have no architectural opinions here. Just sharing some information on slope and "speed."

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


I don't think we are so far apart in thinking other than certain points. There is certainly less grain today than in the past and especially if the HOC is quite low, I never argued otherwise but it was a factor used by several good players in the past as a reason for uncertainty whether it is a misconception or not I do not know nor to be honest really care. If the player thinks that then it will be an influence on them fact or fiction.


As for your 0.3% one way or 0.4% the other as I have already said, I do not believe I have heard any good putter have this problem though there are putts that break the opposite way to that that they look the player still has a good idea as to the read. As with your grain being a misconception so is reading a putt breaking in two different directions and not knowing which.


As to your 'at any rate' comments I am also broadly of this opinion which was always my point. Higher stimping greens are easier to putt on so the way to make the putting more challenging is through contours.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()