News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #75 on: October 02, 2015, 09:13:24 PM »
time to stop digging pat.

Arguments where there is no right answer are fun to have.  Arguments about maths and physics where there is a right and wrong answer are not so much fun when you are on the wrong side.

You are wrong - go out the back with a putter and stopwatch and actually carry out the experiment if you are not convinced. Then come back and apologise to everyone you called a moron.

None so blind as those who will not see

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #76 on: October 02, 2015, 09:15:59 PM »
Nothing worse than someone who is not always right but never wrong, ahh Pat?
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2015, 04:22:49 AM »
We need Threadkilla to drop a bomb.  He would figure out how to allow the man to have the last ego stroking words.


Ciao
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 04:09:17 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2015, 04:39:47 AM »

Patrick,

....................

If you knew anything about "Stimping" a green, you'd know that that's NOT what you do to determine Stimp speed.


I was trained in using a Stimpmeter by my golf association as it is part of the process in rating courses for handicapping purposes.  We use the USGA methodology.  I have rated courses using USGA methodology including measuring green speeds using a Stimpmeter.  I haven't got your thousands of repetitions, nor have I used one to stimp a carpet.  ;D   Too bad you've been doing it wrong thousands of times.  :'(

You pick a point (X) where the ball will hit the green after rolling down the Stimpmeter, and you initiate the drill.
Then, you repeat the exercise but from 180 degrees, keeping the same point (X) as the impact point.
You can also repeat at 90 and 270 degrees, averaging all of your readings in determining what the Stimp speed is.


Sadly, that's not the correct procedure.  You do three balls starting at point (X).  You average the distance of those three balls and mark that as point (Y).  You then do three balls starting at point (Y) going back toward point (X).  You average the distance of those three balls.  Then you average the (X) - (Y) and the (Y) - (X) distance and that is your stimp reading in feet.Here is the USGA video on how to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlULpKsewnE

You might listen to the bit at the end where they admonish against green speeds higher than 10 feet as it is too difficult for most and slows play down.




.........................................





On your "case for fast greens" I'm not surprised that you like them.  They favor more skilled players such as yourself.  The USGA discourages green "speeds" over 10 (feet) because they are too hard for the masses and slow down play.


I'm comfortable with 10 or 11


For me, I like fast (10 feet) greens with undulations although they humble me sometimes.  My home courses are both high speed and highly contoured.  They contribute significantly to slow play. 


Baloney or Bolagna Bologna.
Slow play has little to do with the pace of the greens.

The USGA begs to differ.  See the video above.  I disagree.  The more people making three and four putts, the longer it takes to complete a round.  Every extra stroke requires an extra 20 or 30 seconds per player.

It's a cultural mindset.
I'm certain you have not played my home courses, nor met the membership, so I'm certain you cannot opine about the cultural mindset.  I will observe that there may be only one player of your caliber and most are double digit cappers.When players are taking more putts, it takes longer.  And, longer still when they fear a 5 footer turning into a 10 footer coming back.



...................................




Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #79 on: October 05, 2015, 10:07:46 PM »

Patrick,...

If you knew anything about "Stimping" a green, you'd know that that's NOT what you do to determine Stimp speed.


I was trained in using a Stimpmeter by my golf association as it is part of the process in rating courses for handicapping purposes.  We use the USGA methodology.  I have rated courses using USGA methodology including measuring green speeds using a Stimpmeter.  I haven't got your thousands of repetitions, nor have I used one to stimp a carpet.  ;D   Too bad you've been doing it wrong thousands of times.  :'( 


My method is correct

You pick a point (X) where the ball will hit the green after rolling down the Stimpmeter, and you initiate the drill.
Then, you repeat the exercise but from 180 degrees, keeping the same point (X) as the impact point.
You can also repeat at 90 and 270 degrees, averaging all of your readings in determining what the Stimp speed is.


Sadly, that's not the correct procedure.  You do three balls starting at point (X).  You average the distance of those three balls and mark that as point (Y).  You then do three balls starting at point (Y) going back toward point (X).  You average the distance of those three balls.  Then you average the (X) - (Y) and the (Y) - (X) distance and that is your stimp reading in feet.Here is the USGA video on how to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlULpKsewnE

You might listen to the bit at the end where they admonish against green speeds higher than 10 feet as it is too difficult for most and slows play down.


Your reading comprehension skills are failing you AGAIN.

Please retread my green paragraph above where I specifically state that you "initiate the drill"

Only a colossal moron would assume that you don't average the readings

On your "case for fast greens" I'm not surprised that you like them.  They favor more skilled players such as yourself.  The USGA discourages green "speeds" over 10 (feet) because they are too hard for the masses and slow down play.

I'm comfortable with 10 or 11


For me, I like fast (10 feet) greens with undulations although they humble me sometimes.  My home courses are both high speed and highly contoured.  They contribute significantly to slow play. 


Baloney or Bolagna Bologna.
Slow play has little to do with the pace of the greens.

The USGA begs to differ.  See the video above.  I disagree.  The more people making three and four putts, the longer it takes to complete a round.  Every extra stroke requires an extra 20 or 30 seconds per player.







It wouldn't be the first time.

If every golfer in a foursome three putted very green it would only add 24 minutes to the round.

If every golfer three putted 4 greens it would only add 5 minutes and 33 seconds to the round, taking a round from 3:30 to 3:35, hardly a slow play round.

The USGA doesn't want to tackle the core issues.
1. Failing to read and line up your putt BEFORE it's your turn.
2. Plumb bobbing
3. Reading the putt from 360 degrees
4. Not reading your putt as you approach the green
5. Taking a dozen practice strokes
6. LINING UP THE LINE ON THE BALL
7. Just being slow (TV-PGA GOLF


It's a cultural mindset.I'm certain you have not played my home courses, nor met the membership, so I'm certain you cannot opine about the cultural mindset.  I will observe that there may be only one player of your caliber and most are double digit cappers.When players are taking more putts, it takes longer.  And, longer still when they fear a 5 footer turning into a 10 footer coming back.






That's pure B.S.
What course keeps their greens that fast and what member doesn't adjust to faster speeds after a week ?

let's use the most extreme example......Oakmont.

No club has consistently faster greens, yet play at Oakmont is at a brisk to reasonable pace. 

Keep drinking the Kool-Ade and remain in denial of the fact that

SLOW PLAY IS ROOTED IN CULTURAL BEHAVIOR



Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #80 on: October 05, 2015, 10:10:38 PM »


Josh,

You'd have to be a colossal moron to deny that balls roll faster on greens with higher Stimp speeds.

A ball ONLY rolls slower when LESS force is applied.

You can't cure "dumb"

time to stop digging pat.

Arguments where there is no right answer are fun to have.  Arguments about maths and physics where there is a right and wrong answer are not so much fun when you are on the wrong side.

You are wrong - go out the back with a putter and stopwatch and actually carry out the experiment if you are not convinced. Then come back and apologise to everyone you called a moron.

None so blind as those who will not see

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #81 on: October 05, 2015, 10:12:13 PM »
Pat,


Would you apply more or less force to a 20 foot putt on greens stimping 8 feet versus 11 feet?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2015, 10:17:28 PM by Jim Sullivan »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #82 on: October 05, 2015, 10:16:07 PM »


Rob,

The phrase is, "not always right, but never in doubt."

Balls roll faster on greens with higher Stimp readings.
That's irrefutable.

A ball can ONLY roll slower if LESS force is applied to the ball.

That you and others don't understand that is proof positive that Ran has ceased administering the minimum intelligence test for those seeking access ;D



Nothing worse than someone who is not always right but never wrong, ahh Pat?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #83 on: October 05, 2015, 10:16:33 PM »
Maybe we can move on to the meat of what you're asking/suggesting in the opening post...


Which greens create more interest all the way through the playing of a hole, faster or slower?


I agree that the hole you described creates a need to focus on your play back to the tee if the greens are fast but if they are slow you don't have near the concern for downhill or side hill putts so the value of controlling your ball from tee to green decreases.


The dilemma for golf is finding the right balance of optimal conditions that are playable and affordable. Each club can define those two terms...and there is a right answer for all.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #84 on: October 05, 2015, 10:21:34 PM »
Jim,


More thought is combined with a heightened premium on accuracy when green speeds are increased

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2015, 04:00:20 AM »
Balls roll faster on greens with higher Stimp readings.
That's irrefutable.

A ball can ONLY roll slower if LESS force is applied to the ball.

That you and others don't understand that is proof positive that Ran has ceased administering the minimum intelligence test for those seeking access ;D



Pat,

Stimp measures distance not speed. On a green that is stimping at 12 a player will use less force to get the ball to go 10 feet than on a green stimping at 6. If your supposition that a ball hit with less force will travel slower is correct then the green with the higher stimp reading will need the ball to be rolling slower in order for it to go the required distance.

Ergo, even your own argument back the other side of the discussion ::)

Jon

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #86 on: October 06, 2015, 04:23:48 AM »
Pat,


Come on now. Even for you this is getting ridiculous. We've already covered the whole 'over a specific distance' thing earlier in the thread. It is a pointless exercise on your part and embarrassing to even be a spectator at this little shovelling demonstration. Shock everyone and rise in people's estimation by conceding that you are wrong. I know, you're already thinking how to phrase "don't care what everyone else thinks" in a way which makes you sound a little less like a churlish eight year but just try to amaze even yourself.


It takes a big man to admit defeat, Pat. Be that big man.  ;D [size=78%] [/size]
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #87 on: October 06, 2015, 08:03:37 AM »


Rob,

The phrase is, "not always right, but never in doubt."

Balls roll faster on greens with higher Stimp readings.
That's irrefutable.

A ball can ONLY roll slower if LESS force is applied to the ball.

That you and others don't understand that is proof positive that Ran has ceased administering the minimum intelligence test for those seeking access ;D



Nothing worse than someone who is not always right but never wrong, ahh Pat?

Pat,
You have a 20" putt on greens that stimp at 8 and 12 and you roll both putts so that they will finish 18" past the hole.

Which putt would break more? Why?

Which putt has the better chance of lipping in? Why?

Which putt stops first? Why?

An answer without the sarcasm and BS would be appreciated. Simple questions.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #88 on: October 06, 2015, 11:52:10 AM »
Rob,

Balls roll faster on greens with higher stimp speeds.

That's irrefutable

A stimp meter measures ball green/ball speed.

The higher the stimp speed the faster a ball will roll.

How can you not understand that ?

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #89 on: October 06, 2015, 11:58:12 AM »
Rob,

Balls roll faster on greens with higher stimp speeds.

That's irrefutable

A stimp meter measures ball green/ball speed.

The higher the stimp speed the faster a ball will roll.

How can you not understand that ?


Can you answer my questions please?
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #90 on: October 06, 2015, 12:09:26 PM »

Pat,
You have a 20" putt on greens that stimp at 8 and 12 and you roll both putts so that they will finish 18" past the hole.

In order for that to occur, you must apply DIFFERENT IMPACT SPEEDS WITH THE PUTTER, invalidating your conclusion.

If you hit both balls with the same impact speed the ball on the green stimping at 12 will roll faster


Which putt would break more? Why?

Your premise, above, didn't include any slope/contour, so this question is absurd.


Which putt has the better chance of lipping in? Why?

The more accurate putt


Which putt stops first? Why?

Gravity exerts an equal force on both balls.  Hit with the same force they might both stop at the same time


An answer without the sarcasm and BS would be appreciated. Simple questions.

No it's not a simple question because you conveniently left out the fact that the two balls don't have the same force applied to them.  You've predisposed your answer by having different  forces applied to each ball.

That you don't understand that is mind boggling.

I'll repeat myself for the sake of clarity.

Balls roll faster as the stimp speed of a green increases.

That's irrefutable


SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #91 on: October 06, 2015, 12:18:49 PM »
Pat;  a Stimpmeter measures how far a ball rolls when started from an angle that dislodges it from the indentation machined into the piece of flanged channel that constitutes the Stimpmeter.  The theory is that by using the Stimpmeter  properly, the initial velocity of the ball will be constant.  Therefore, the difference in the distance achieved is attributable solely to the speed of the green (or lack of friction if you will) and not to any other external factor.  Accordingly, because it measures the speed of the green and not the speed of the ball.  the implications are clear.  On a green that stimps at 11, a player will need to impart less force on a 20 foot putt to reach the hole than he/she would have to impart if the green were stimping at 8.  If the same force were imparted, either the ball would go too long for the 11 green or too short for the 8.  Given the same force, the balls rolling on the higher stimping green will go faster, on the average and will roll farther.  But if we want the ball to go a specific distance, the variation in green speed requires the player to differentiate the force imparted on the ball.  Thus the faster green requires a more delicate touch.  Moreover, the lack of friction on extremely fast greens makes certain slopes too steep as a ball will not stop rolling thus rendering those areas unsuited for pin positions.  This lack of friction has 2 observable impacts on greens.  It make larger slopes less viable but it also increases the impact of smaller more subtle slopes.  This is what I think Pat was really getting at in his initial post.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 12:22:27 PM by SL_Solow »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #92 on: October 06, 2015, 12:21:33 PM »
Moving away from semantics...

For those of you with a good grasp of math and/or physics, is it fair to say that putts hit on greens that stimp at higher numbers are influenced more by gravity (slope of the turf) than on lower stimps? I believe they are, and this is what makes putting on fast greens so hard, especially in tournament stroke play.

On a green stimping at 8, I can hit a four-footer "with pace" and keep it inside the hole. Change that stimp number to 12 and I may aim an inch or more outside the hole. I won't hit it with as much force, because if I miss, the ball will roll out further and leave a come-backer that I do not want.

On fast greens you have to "marry" pace and break; you have to be more mindful of the effect of gravity. On slower greens, getting it on the proper line is more critical. 

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #93 on: October 06, 2015, 01:04:50 PM »

Pat,
You have a 20" putt on greens that stimp at 8 and 12 and you roll both putts so that they will finish 18" past the hole.

In order for that to occur, you must apply DIFFERENT IMPACT SPEEDS WITH THE PUTTER, invalidating your conclusion.

No kidding really?  That's the point which of course you intentional ignored. I made no conclusion. I asked questions.

If you hit both balls with the same impact speed the ball on the green stimping at 12 will roll faster


Which putt would break more? Why?

Your premise, above, didn't include any slope/contour, so this question is absurd.


It doesn't matter, it's a simple question.  Lets say a 2 degree slope to the right. Would you like wind direction?

Which putt has the better chance of lipping in? Why?

The more accurate putt


Again you can't answer a simple question.

Which putt stops first? Why?

Gravity exerts an equal force on both balls.  Hit with the same force they might both stop at the same time


Interesting, again you can't answer the simplest of questions.

An answer without the sarcasm and BS would be appreciated. Simple questions.

No it's not a simple question because you conveniently left out the fact that the two balls don't have the same force applied to them.  You've predisposed your answer by having different  forces applied to each ball.

I didn't conveniently leave out any facts. I asked simple questions that required simple answers. I asked you to answer questions about putts that would require balls to be hit with different forces.

That you don't understand that is mind boggling.

I'll repeat myself for the sake of clarity.

Balls roll faster as the stimp speed of a green increases.

That's irrefutable


I would expect better from you Pat, Someone who is successful and has persevered  and won a battle many have lost would have enough respect to just answer the simple questions asked. I guess I expected to much. I'm done.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #94 on: October 06, 2015, 01:25:13 PM »
Pat,

just repeating a point of view that has been demonstrably shown to be intellectually bankrupt does not make it correct but rather shows how little you really understand.

Jon

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #95 on: October 06, 2015, 01:27:12 PM »
Safe to say, I think we've reached this point in the process.
 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #96 on: October 06, 2015, 01:40:01 PM »

Pat;  a Stimpmeter measures how far a ball rolls when started from an angle that dislodges it from the indentation machined into the piece of flanged channel that constitutes the Stimpmeter.  The theory is that by using the Stimpmeter  properly, the initial velocity of the ball will be constant.  Therefore, the difference in the distance achieved is attributable solely to the speed of the green (or lack of friction if you will) and not to any other external factor.  Accordingly, because it measures the speed of the green and not the speed of the ball.  the implications are clear.  On a green that stimps at 11, a player will need to impart less force on a 20 foot putt to reach the hole than he/she would have to impart if the green were stimping at 8.  If the same force were imparted, either the ball would go too long for the 11 green or too short for the 8.  Given the same force, the balls rolling on the higher stimping green will go faster, on the average and will roll farther.  But if we want the ball to go a specific distance, the variation in green speed requires the player to differentiate the force imparted on the ball.  Thus the faster green requires a more delicate touch.  Moreover, the lack of friction on extremely fast greens makes certain slopes too steep as a ball will not stop rolling thus rendering those areas unsuited for pin positions.  This lack of friction has 2 observable impacts on greens.  It make larger slopes less viable but it also increases the impact of smaller more subtle slopes.  This is what I think Pat was really getting at in his initial post.

 
Shel,
 
Thanks.
 
Ask yourself this question.
 
On a green stimping at 8 and a green stimping at 12, side by side, and at the same time gravity releases the balls from the notch, at the 9 foot mark, which ball is rolling faster ?
 
At the 10 foot mark, which ball is rolling faster ?
 
At the 11 foot mark, which ball is rolling faster ?
 
The moment both balls hit the putting surface, the green stimping at 8 will begin to slow the ball down at a greater rate than the green stimping at 12.
 
That's just a scientific fact.  (co-efficient of friction)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #97 on: October 06, 2015, 01:42:53 PM »
Pat,

just repeating a point of view that has been demonstrably shown to be intellectually bankrupt does not make it correct but rather shows how little you really understand.
 
Jon,
 
My point is scientifically irrefutable.
 
Golf balls roll faster on greens with higher stimp speeds.
 
Why can't you grasp that fact ?
 
And, BECAUSE golf balls roll faster on higher stimping greens, they're typically struck with less force.
 
Is any of this registering with you ?


Patrick_Mucci

Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #98 on: October 06, 2015, 01:47:09 PM »

I would expect better from you Pat, Someone who is successful and has persevered  and won a battle many have lost would have enough respect to just answer the simple questions asked. I guess I expected to much. I'm done.
 
Rob,
 
I'm sorry that the laws of physics escape you.
 
Balls roll faster on greens with higher stimp speeds.
 
That's irrefutable.
 
The variable is that BECAUSE balls roll faster on greens with higher stimp speeds, less force is applied to them at impact.
 
If a two balls are struck with a putter moving at 5 mph, the ball on the higher stimping green will roll faster.
 
That's irrefutable, unless the laws of physics cease to exist in your kitchen.


BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The case for fast greens
« Reply #99 on: October 06, 2015, 01:48:12 PM »
This thread is a showcase of how to spend an incredible amount of time to discuss absolutely nothing of importance. It is the epitome of a "first world problem" and I applaud the posters for having an inordinate amount of free time on their hands. Congratulations, gentlemen!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back