[Tommy Williamsen]

When an architect designs the severity of slopes or undulation, does he take speed into account? I have no hard evidence but the greens at my old Club (Four Streams Steve Smyers) did not have a lot of slope. Some greens had a bunch of slope but many did not. I was told my the head pro that the greens were designed for a stimp of 12. Any less and the greens don't break as much and are easier to putt.

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


Yes, we have to take anticipated green speed into account ... and we have to allow for creeping standards.  When i talked with my client at Stonewall in 1992 about greens at 9 1/2 on the Stimpmeter, i was aware that might be an outdated standard someday.


But speed is telative to what youre used to.  When we were shaping greens at Sebonack, Jack Nicklaus pointedly asked our client Mr Pascucci what speeds he imagined keeping the greens, because if they were  "really fast" some of our contours might not work. Mr Pascucci replied he expected the greens would be around 11 1/2, and i started to sweat, until Mr Nicklaus replied, "okay, as long as they arent too fast" (!).  Of course, since it opened ive played in a member-guest event when the greens were well north of 11 1/2.  Live and learn!

[Ally Mcintosh]

The greens we built at Carne would start to lose a bunch of pin positions if they ran at anything over 8. I don’t expect them to get there but you never know.

[Jon Wiggett]

The golf industry gets this totally the wrong way round. The green speed should suit the contours of the green not the other way round. I am afraid that those who think that higher stimp readings make putting harder for good putters really do not get it.


Jon

[Tommy Williamsen]

The need for speed has made many pin placements untenable on some greens. I find that especially on some beautiful old Ross greens.

[jeffwarne]

The golf industry gets this totally the wrong way round. The green speed should suit the contours of the green not the other way round. I am afraid that those who think that higher stimp readings make putting harder for good putters really do not get it.


Jon

+1
In some ways, higher stimp readings DO make putting harder for good putters, as every little spike mark, poa bump or micro undulation suddenly are in play when a ball trickles for most of its jpurney on a stimp of 14-which is something I see more and more of.
Which sucks for everyone-and leads to much longer rounds while the good putters have putts wobble off line and the bad putters can't stop the ball anywhere near the hole.

[Jon Wiggett]

The need for speed has made many pin placements untenable on some greens. I find that especially on some beautiful old Ross greens.

Tommy,


can you please tell me what this need for speed is? It seems to me that the higher stimp readings is no different to the race ball manufacturers had with how many dimples they could fit on a ball.

+1
In some ways, higher stimp readings DO make putting harder for good putters, as every little spike mark, poa bump or micro undulation suddenly are in play when a ball trickles for most of its jpurney on a stimp of 14-which is something I see more and more of.
Which sucks for everyone-and leads to much longer rounds while the good putters have putts wobble off line and the bad putters can't stop the ball anywhere near the hole.

Jeff,


whilst I agree with the spike marks and the micro contours that is countered by the player being allowed to tap spike marks down and that greens are much flatter than they used to be because stronger contours are too hard. The fact that higher stimp readings mean the ball is actually rolling slower means it is more likely to lip in rather than lip out making the hole a larger target ergo putting easier.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

As to putts breaking more around the cup on faster greens, there is also the 'ring donut' effect around the hole.
The slight depression that occurs approx 2" to 1 ft away from the edge of the hole, the area that becomes compressed by a significant footfall as players plant their feet to pick the ball out of the roll. Holes are regularly criticised for being 'crowned' when in fact they're not, they're just suffering from the ring donut effect.

A question if I may - from a worldwide and 365 days p/a perspective, to what extent does the intended slope, undulation, wind, sun/shade etc etc effect the grass variety chosen for the putting surface?


atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As to putts breaking more around the cup on faster greens, there is also the 'ring donut' effect around the hole.
The slight depression that occurs approx 2" to 1 ft away from the edge of the hole, the area that becomes compressed by a significant footfall as players plant their feet to pick the ball out of the roll. Holes are regularly criticised for being 'crowned' when in fact they're not, they're just suffering from the ring donut effect.

A question if I may - from a worldwide and 365 days p/a perspective, to what extent does the intended slope, undulation, wind, sun/shade etc etc effect the grass variety chosen for the putting surface?

I think that effect is overstated. I’ve measured around the edges of 72+ holes and found very little evidence of this. The largest slope was still under 0.4%. I once measured a hole I specifically thought had a volcano thing going on. It did. Almost 2%… because I’d just cut the hole and had pulled up the turf a bit removing the hole cutter. I hadn’t yet used the cup presser thing. 

[Jon Wiggett]

As to putts breaking more around the cup on faster greens, there is also the 'ring donut' effect around the hole.



atb

Thomas,


your statement is incorrect. If the BALL is travelling faster when it gets to the hole then it is more likely to lip out but what I believe you are describing as a faster green is a green with a higher stimp reading which means the BALL will be traveling slower at the hole and so more likely to fall. If I understand you correctly than you are making the classic mistake of conflating higher stimp readings with faster greens and therefore that the ball travels faster which is WRONG.


Greens always have the same speed which is 0mph unless you look at growth which would make it less than a 10th of a mm per hour. Stimp is a measurement of distance not speed.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps we should be using terms such as friction, rolling resistance, gravity etc?
As to donuts, by all means email Mr Pelz.

Atb

[Don Mahaffey]

I know it’s presching to the choir...but designing to speed and future speeds..,14...15?!?...means now the greens HAVE to be that speed to be interesting. 
It’s like hearing the guy who says build flat greens for a low budget course when what they are really doing is putting 100% of the focus on conditioning because the only way flat greens are interesting is when they are super fast.

[Jon Wiggett]

Perhaps we should be using terms such as friction, rolling resistance, gravity etc?
As to donuts, by all means email Mr Pelz.

Atb

Thomas,


that a ball that is rolling slower is more likely to drop than one that is rolling faster is simple physics regardless of what either you or Mr. Pelz believe. You live in your world of 'The Occult of the Lip Out' if you want but I prefer to rely on science myself 

[Thomas Dai]

?
Atb

[Sean_A]

?
Atb

ATB


A green which is cut at 2.5mm offers less resistance than a green cut a 5mm.  Therefore, a ball will not be hit with as much force on 2.5mm surface compared to a 5mm surface.  Therefore, the ball is actually rolling slower on a 2.5mm VS 5mm surface to cover the same distance.  Of course, when a lip out on a 2.5 green happens there is less friction to stop the ball rolling away from the hole!


Anyway,  I agree with the above.  Green height should follow slopes and contour.  For my entire life the main stream thinking has been the reverse.


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

?
Atb

ATB


A green which is cut at 2.5mm offers less resistance than a green cut a 5mm.  Therefore, a ball will not be hit with as much force on 2.5mm surface compared to a 5mm surface.  Therefore, the ball is actually rolling slower on a 2.5mm VS 5mm surface to cover the same distance.  Of course, when a lip out on a 2.5 green happens there is less friction to stop the ball rolling away from the hole!


Anyway,  I agree with the above.  Green height should follow slopes and contour.  For my entire life the main stream thinking has been the reverse.


Ciao

Well said and explained Sean. At least there is at least one other person who understands the reality. 




Thomas,


as I have already said stimp is a measurement of distance not speed which is why it is measured in feet not mph. You talk about fast greens but greens do not move. I have never seen a 'fast green' speeding along the fairway. Greens are so slow they are always in the same place.


That you talk about fast greens shows you are looking at the wrong thing. It is the ball that is the object of concern. With stimp measuring the ball always has the same maximum speed so if you want to look at 'SPEED' as you and most others seem to want to ALL greens in the entire world have the SAME 'STIMP SPEED'. Stimp is a measurement of DISTANCE and the further the ball rolls the SLOWER it's average speed is going to be.


That you fail to grasp the concept is because you think about it the way the golf industry presents it to you which is about a fast greens when the reality is it is all about a slow rolling golf ball.


The stimp reading is irrelevant to a good putter until slope on a green makes it difficult for the ball to stop. This scenario can be created by slope with any stimp reading it is all about the slope. It is contours that make putting more challenging for good putters yet the PGA Tour and the golf industry as a whole push the misnomer of green speed which only leads to the PGA Tour players looking super good which is what they want. The fact that Joe Bloggs off 20 handicap finds greens with a higher stimp reading harder is not because they are more difficult but rather because poor old Joe cannot putt very well.


Thomas, you need to look at what is really there and not what you have been told is there then you might actually understand what you are talking about (no insult intended).

[Sean_A]

Jon

To be honest, I think a lot of people understand the concept of the stimp measuring distance and still say "fast". It is very common and part of the golf lexicon.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like a case of the same hymn book but with the hymns being sung in different languages.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon

To be honest, I think a lot of people understand the concept of the stimp measuring distance and still say "fast". It is very common and part of the golf lexicon.

Ciao

Sean,


I don't agree. I think that most people think that a green with a stimp reading of 15' means the ball actually rolls quicker when actually the ball rolls slower on average. Yes, it is a common part of the lexicon but it is factually wrong.

[Jon Wiggett]

Seems like a case of the same hymn book but with the hymns being sung in different languages.
atb

Hmmmmm…..

[Tim Rooney]

Canton Brookside is a great example of unplayable green speeds.As Bob Sowards once told me, they are unbelievable Ross greens but unusable at todays green speeds.

[jeffwarne]

Jon,
Thomas used a term common in golf- "faster" greens.
That phrase is almost universal to describe a green with a high stimp, and can also be used to describe a putt, even one that stimps quite low if there's enough slope (as in " this is a really fast putt so just get it started"


I'm sure Thomas, and many others recognize that on a "fast" green (high stimp) that a ball rolls slower.


Unless some of his posts or comments have been deleted and I missed something, I'd say the horse is well beyond dead that you continue to beat.


We all agree, so why continue to pile on Thomas about using a very common phrase in golf (even if it make little sense as you've so well explained)

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,

A ball that is travelling faster is more likely to horseshoe out.

  Thomas however claimed that a ball is more likely to horseshoe out on 'faster' greens which is factually incorrect. The only reason I can see that he would presume this is if he is conflating high stimp reading (fast green ) with fast ball. Language matters very much in this case and if you ask most golfers if a 'fast' green means that the ball rolls faster on it they will answer yes.


Just because it is a 'common' phrase does not mean it should be accepted even though it is factually incorrect.

[Neil White]

For atb's info a golf ball leaves the bottom of an inclined stimpmeter at 1.83m/s.

[Thomas Dai]

Thank you for this very specific figure Neil. Nice to have a specific reference point.
Thanks also to Jeff for your words of support.
As to others, my apologies if my use of the written word doesn't correspond exactly to my thoughts or perhaps your interpretation of them.
I'm out on this thread now, although I imagine someone else may wish to have the last word as this Discussion Board has become a bit that way inclined recently.
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()