[Chip Gaskins]

Anyone seen this before?
1977 Green Speeds: https://www.instagram.com/p/CSsCxvVpkWD/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
USGA Stimpmeter Readings, 1977
Augusta National       7'11
Congressional           6'4"
Cypress Point            7'8"
Harbour Town           5'1"
Medinah                   7'8"
Merion                     6'4"
Oakland Hills            8'5"
Oakmont                  9'8"
Pine Valley              7'4"
Pinehurst #2           6'10"
San Francisco GC    7'2"
Shinnecock Hills      7'2"
Winged Foot            7'5"

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:


For context, I believe those readings were taken by USGA Green Section staff, on consulting visits to the clubs in question . . . ie, on a random Tuesday.  I would guess their green speeds for a member event were more like 8.5 or 9.  But it is a good indication of what everyday speeds really were back in the day.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm curious as one who has never stimped a green before, much less derived a rating for a course.

But if one is looking for a valid assessment, shouldn't this consist of multiple measurements on multiple greens with at least some of those being 3-4 measurements in the exact same spot as a control?

A handful of data points can be wildly disparate, but if you have 40 or 50, that would seem to be far more statistically accurate.  I would think if I were doing it to take all the measurements, throw out the outliers, and average the rest for a "course rating".

That is how it's done. The method is three rolls in one direction, take the average and roll back from there. I just roll back from the average spot as it's quicker, but measuring it in both directions and taking the average is technically more accurate - although the difference is minor, if at all. It should be a straight roll and the balls should all stop within 8" of each other and within 16" of both directions. If using the x2 side on a shorter distance, these tolerances should be halved.


I've played with it over the years on slopes for fun and the readings are actually pretty accurate even if the difference in both directions are way off - ie a 6 up hill and an 18 downhill would average a 12, which would match the proper roll on the flat area. There is a formula out there to more accurately calculate the roll on slopes but the best way is to find a flat spot. The x2 side of the stimpmeter (which wasn't around when that video was made) doesn't need much room as the roll is halved. On a side note, if you use the x2 backwards so the ball has the longer roll down the meter, the greenspeed goes up x1.5.....


Its funny this thread went here as I spend a few weeks this summer dealing with this and working out why the readings didn't match up to the perceived speed (ie they "are not as fast as usual", even though the reading was over a ft more than normal...). The issue is that its not a very accurate device, as it relies on the users input as well as other factors. Generally, a person will use it the same every time, therefore getting a consistent result, but the issue is comparing that to another user or different conditions. Eg someone else may raise it fractionally quicker and get a slightly different reading. There's consistently a half foot difference between my assistant and my readings, on the same spot at the same time...... Even the type of ball can add an extra foot of roll.....

Alan,

Thanks for posting this.

I wanted to focus in on this sentence:
There's consistently a half foot difference between my assistant and my readings, on the same spot at the same time....

Isn't a course average that is within 6 inches good enough?  When the members show up, do they really want to know if the greens are at 11.2 or 11.5?  Or are they not appeased with "Its somewhere between 11 and 12 today?"

Precision is tricky cause it can be wildly different for different applications.  If I'm framing a house, a measurement to 1/8 inch will always be good enough, but if I'm manufacturing computer chips that's absurdly inaccurate.  Can't give or take 6 inches be enough for a good Stimp rating?

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Alan,

Thanks for posting this.

I wanted to focus in on this sentence:
There's consistently a half foot difference between my assistant and my readings, on the same spot at the same time....

Isn't a course average that is within 6 inches good enough?  When the members show up, do they really want to know if the greens are at 11.2 or 11.5?  Or are they not appeased with "Its somewhere between 11 and 12 today?"

Precision is tricky cause it can be wildly different for different applications.  If I'm framing a house, a measurement to 1/8 inch will always be good enough, but if I'm manufacturing computer chips that's absurdly inaccurate.  Can't give or take 6 inches be enough for a good Stimp rating?

You're welcome!

The USGAs tolerance with the short stimp is 8" so it's not far off. If I roll a few times my readings can vary up to 8-9". If I take three full readings, I'll take the average, or like you suggested, just go with "it's between 12 & 13", or of course, I could just use the fastest one (not that any superintendent would do that ). The studies have shown that golfers can't detect a speed difference of 6" (IIRC) and I'd say that number could be up to a foot in reality. Coupled with environment, turf type and probably a bunch of minor stuff I'm not even thinking about, it can vary from property to property also. It's not a very accurate way to measure so any reading within 8-12" is close enough.

I know lots of supers have anecdotes on green speed issues. Mine is from a long time ago when in the fall the greens were stupid fast so I didn't roll. I had a 16 handicapper (who played every day) tell me the greens were slower than the previous day. I told him that I was impressed that he was able to pick up on the 4" difference as only the best golfers would know that. The pro nearly choked he laughed so hard..... The next day I didn't roll again but had the cup changer pull the roller behind his cart. When I met the same guy that day he told me he was so happy the greens were back up to speed (they lost maybe another 4" of speed). I told him I was happy that he was happy. A lot of green speed is perception especially within a foot or so of the actual measurement.

[Rob Marshall]

Great story Alan, I was trying aimpoint and a key component is the speed of the greens so I bought a stimp. First time I was practicing with it our former Super saw me and his head just about exploded. I get a call from the GM. I explained what I was doing and he said please only do it when no one is around. The Super thought I was trying to show him up. It now resides in my basement……where I can stimp my perfect practice mat.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

That's insane that Oakmont was pushing 10" in 1977. That must have felt like 200 or something. Upper 9's (in 2021) is the best speed for the game IMO, all things considered. Downhill putts can get away from you a little bit, but uphill putts don't require a hip high to hip high stroke. I feel like I am personally at my putting best in the upper 9 range.


In regards to Oakmont, there were a couple things I found interesting as I just watched the final round today. Late I know. There were a number of holes where the players missed the fairway, and were so wide that they missed the bunkers too, and ended up with a reasonably flat lie in mowed rough. I thought this was a little odd. Two of the very best amateurs in the world missed not just the fairway, but the entire architectural corridor, and ended up in maintained turf. Shouldn't they have been in trees or shrubs or knee high grass or something? I do understand that if left and right of the fairway were all gunch, it would be absolute hell from a lost ball perspective, but it just seemed weird to me.


On the topic of playing to the wrong fairway, the look into 10 from 11 fairway (I think) was most attractive, so it's hard to fault the players for clearly intending to play over there.


To me, besides the length, and the trillion bunkers the thing that made Oakmont look so difficult was the tendency of balls to wander away from hole locations after well struck shots into greens. There were a number of times where the players hit balls to 15 feet, only to have the ball wiggle away from the pin and end up 40 feet away. I guess this is a function of greens speed, undulation, and hole location, but to me that's where Oakmont's "teeth" reside.

[Jeff Schley]

There were a number of holes where the players missed the fairway, and were so wide that they missed the bunkers too, and ended up with a reasonably flat lie in mowed rough. I thought this was a little odd. Two of the very best amateurs in the world missed not just the fairway, but the entire architectural corridor, and ended up in maintained turf. Shouldn't they have been in trees or shrubs or knee high grass or something? I do understand that if left and right of the fairway were all gunch, it would be absolute hell from a lost ball perspective, but it just seemed weird to me.

Tom for the hole you referenced there are others where they were penalized. With taking out the trees over 10 years ago it plays wide open and don't see a need to punish everyone who happens to be a fairway over etc. TOC you can play in fairways even if you hook a ball and that seems charming. At Oakmont you may have a bad angle, shortside yourself and although the hole you viewed wasn't penal there are others where you aren't so fortunate. I played in early July there and didn't think there anything easy about missing the fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

On the topic of playing to the wrong fairway, the look into 10 from 11 fairway (I think) was most attractive, so it's hard to fault the players for clearly intending to play over there.


To me, besides the length, and the trillion bunkers the thing that made Oakmont look so difficult was the tendency of balls to wander away from hole locations after well struck shots into greens. There were a number of times where the players hit balls to 15 feet, only to have the ball wiggle away from the pin and end up 40 feet away. I guess this is a function of greens speed, undulation, and hole location, but to me that's where Oakmont's "teeth" reside.

It's really a function of tilt and gravity!



Several of those greens fall sharply away from the (intended) line of play and also off to one side, just like at Garden City Golf Club, but harder because the course is on the side of a hill.  For 100+ years, the difficulty has been to get the ball to stop near the hole when none of the tilt is in your favor.  Playing into the other fairway gives the players a better angle to use some of the tilt to hold the greens better, something like tacking into the wind, but with gravity.


If they don't figure out a way to stop it, everybody is going to be taking those same routes at the next US Open.

[Mike_Trenham]

I heard a rumor that the strategy of playing up the other holes was primarily laid out by the Oakmont caddies.

[Lukas Michel]

I heard a rumor that the strategy of playing up the other holes was primarily laid out by the Oakmont caddies.

I played with Travis Vick in the strokeplay, who made the semi-finals. He played all the lines described in the original post, and it was his Oakmont caddie (young guy, whose dad I think is a member), who pointed them all out.

[Mike_Trenham]

I heard a rumor that the strategy of playing up the other holes was primarily laid out by the Oakmont caddies.

I played with Travis Vick in the strokeplay, who made the semi-finals. He played all the lines described in the original post, and it was his Oakmont caddie (young guy, whose dad I think is a member), who pointed them all out.

Lukas:


Just curious, with Vick employing this strategy how did your group do with maintaining your position on the course in terms of pace of play?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()