What's the deal with grain?

[iacas]

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I've played thousands of rounds on Bermuda greens…

Just so we're clear… you're putting your anecdotal evidence versus scientific evidence.

That always ends well…

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

But as I said, next time you're down here, I'll take you to a couple of courses where you'll struggle if you don't consider the grain in addition to the slope.

I won't. But I know how to read greens.

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

If you'd care to share the actual testing protocols and results though, including the specific strains tested, I'd love to see it though...

My tests, and the tests I've done with others, or the tests I've seen others do?

Pretty simple.

1. Find the stimp of the green.
2. Find a putt.
3. Measure the percent slope at various points along the line of the putt.
4. Determine the amount of break, factoring in the speed if necessary.
5. Use a Perfect Putter or other machine to roll the putt on that line.
6. Observe and note the results.

Conclusion: if you factor for speed on a downhill putt, grain has no effect on the break of a putt.

I'm not at liberty to share Mark Sweeney's research, but I can summarize it by saying that he would basically conduct the study just like I did above, except that he had access to some of the grainiest greens in the world (Kapalua's are particularly grainy), and that he's got green maps down to the millimeter measured every centimeter (the greens were mapped to that level of precision when he was doing the AimPoint line for Golf Channel coverage).

His conclusion remains that if you account for a change in speed on just downhill putts (a total of about 60°), his mathematical model continues to accurately predict break. For uphill and sidehill putts, the difference in break due to the difference in speed is negligible, and no adjustment is necessary. A direct quote: "Due to the minimal straightening of the putt from uphill angles, I have found that ignoring break changes for uphill and sidehill putts does not change the make percentage and accuracy of the read."

Also… grain only ever really grows uphill on 1% slopes, often near the top of crowns, and only for a few feet of width.

GrainontheBrain.pdf

"In an unpublished university study, it was found that at a height of cut of 0.125 (18) inch, there was no measurable effect of grain on ball roll."

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Mostly speed, true.  But certainly something to consider.

No. Not something to consider at all.

27 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Again, it's somewhat strain dependent.  Most of the courses you've played are likely using some of the newer strains that have less grain...

You're clinging to that as your out, @David in FL, but I've tested this stuff on plenty of courses that have pretty old, grainy greens and lower stimp speeds where the blade length is longer than what they have on the PGA Tour.

Sorry, I'm taking my experimental data and Mark Sweeney's experimental data, over your experiential "data."

[David in FL]

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

Just so we're clear… you're putting your anecdotal evidence versus scientific evidence.

That always ends well…

I won't. But I know how to read greens.

My tests, and the tests I've done with others, or the tests I've seen others do?

Pretty simple.

1. Find the stimp of the green.
2. Find a putt.
3. Measure the percent slope at various points along the line of the putt.
4. Determine the amount of break, factoring in the speed if necessary.
5. Use a Perfect Putter or other machine to roll the putt on that line.
6. Observe and note the results.

Conclusion: grain has a very, very small effect on the break of a putt.

I'm not at liberty to share Mark Sweeney research, but I can summarize them by saying that he would basically:

1. Find some of the grainiest greens in the world (often those at Kapalua and the Sony).
2. Mathematically determine the amount of break having mapped the green to the millimeter every centimeter (the greens were mapped to that level of precision when he was doing the AimPoint line for Golf Channel coverage).
3. Observe how balls rolled by a machine would actually break.

His conclusion, from one of the earlier tests, is that if you account for a change in speed on just downhill putts, his model continues to accurately predict break. For uphill and sidehill putts, the difference in break due to the difference in speed is negligible. A direct quote: "Due to the minimal straightening of the putt from uphill angles, I have found that ignoring break changes for uphill and sidehill putts does not change the make percentage and accuracy of the read."

Also… grain only ever really grows uphill on 1% slopes, often near the top of crowns, and only for a few feet of width.

GrainontheBrain.pdf

"In an unpublished university study, it was found that at a height of cut of 0.125 (18) inch, there was no measurable effect of grain on ball roll."

No. Not something to consider at all.

You're clinging to that as your out, @David in FL, but I've tested this stuff on plenty of courses that have pretty old, grainy greens and lower stimp speeds where the blade length is longer than what they have on the PGA Tour.

Sorry, I'm taking my experimental data and Mark Sweeney's experimental data, over your experiential "data."

Please re-read the 3d paragraph of the study to which you refer.  It's also worth noting that .125 is a very close mow that isn't representative of most courses on your average day....certainly not by the end of the day.

I'd love to look at your actual scientific data though.  Failing that, yep, I believe that my vast experience on older Bermuda greens trumps your limited scope tests.  Interestingly, a lot of tour pros seem to feel the same way.  And while I acknowledge that even some tour pros get some things wrong, that doesn't mean that they're always wrong about everything.  

I know you're not going to change your mind, and that's ok, but those of us with more experience, yes, experience, than you on this particular matter, know better.  Ok.  I'll quit now...

 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Please re-read the 3d paragraph of the study to which you refer.

1. it's not a study, it's simply supportive of some things and is publicly available.
2. it's literally talking about the 1960s and 1970s, dude.
3. Mark Sweeney's studies include greens that stimp at 8, as do my studies. Do you regularly play greens that stimp at 6 or whatever speed they were in the 1960s?

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

It's also worth noting that .125 is a very close mow that isn't representative of most courses on your average day....certainly not by the end of the day.

Oh brother.

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I'd love to look at your actual scientific data though.

You're not gonna get it. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so there's no point in sharing it anyway.

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Failing that, yep, I believe that my vast experience on older Bermuda greens trumps your limited scope tests.

I love the phrasing here. Limited scope? You have no clue what the scope of my tests has been.

Your experience matters for next to naught - you can't even accurately read every putt. You're guessing what the read is, and then likely attributing an error to the grain. Your position is preposterous. You literally have no "control." No basis for prediction/calculation.

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Interestingly, a lot of tour pros seem to feel the same way. And while I acknowledge that even some tour pros get some things wrong, that doesn't mean that they're always wrong about everything.  

I never said they were always wrong about everything.

They're wrong about this.

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I know you're not going to change your mind, and that's ok, but those of us with more experience, yes, experience, than you on this particular matter, know better.  Ok.  I'll quit now...

What an idiotic statement. The earth is flat, too, David. Hey, your vast experience looking out over the state of Florida trumps, you know, rigorously gathered data.

[saevel25]

@David in FL, Yea these same pros believe all putts break towards water. Like all putts break towards Rae's at Augusta National. Like they believe that swing path causes the starting line on a shot. Come on, you've been on this forum long enough to know that Tour players are not the most knowledgeable in facts.

[David in FL]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

@David in FL, Yea these same pros believe all putts break towards water. Like all putts break towards Rae's at Augusta National. Like they believe that swing path causes the starting line on a shot. Come on, you've been on this forum long enough to know that Tour players are not the most knowledgeable in facts.

Some get some things wrong.  That doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything.  Even Erik doesn't get it right every time.  This is one of those times...  

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Some get some things wrong.  That doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything.  Even Erik doesn't get it right every time.  This is one of those times...  

You literally have no control. You have no idea how much a putt should break, and then you have no way of testing how much that putt does break. You don't have a mathematical model. You don't have greens mapped every square centimeter down to the millimeter.

I can't share Mark Sweeney's data because it's not mine to share.

I could share my data, but what's the point? You're going to continue to insist the earth is flat. Here's what my data all says: grain has no effect on uphill and sidehill putts, and if you account for a small change to the speed on a downhill putt, doesn't affect those either.

Your experience (without any control) falls flat (pun intended). You're welcome to your own beliefs, @David in FL, but not your own facts.

[Buckeyebowman]

I think what we're seeing displayed here is a mistrust of science, which is fairly prevalent today. There's a local radio screamer who takes the same tack. I took the time to call the show to tell him that the media in which he works, radio, only exists because of a scientist, Guglielmo Marconi! Well, he along with many others.

However, scientists have also been known to be wrong. The most famous experiment in physics, the Mickelson-Morley, was an abject failure! It was designed to prove the existence of the "luminiferous aether". This was because scientists, at the time, had the wrong idea of how light waves or particles, take your pick, moved through space. Total bust!

David in FL mentioned different strains of grass. I'd like to know what what "strain" grows on the greens of a certain local course. Of course it would not be Bermuda since it's in NE OH, but it's the grainiest stuff I've ever seen! This is also the hilliest course in the area. On one hole, we were hitting our approach shots to a putting surface that appeared to be a deep, verdant green! I hit the green with my approach, and my buddy was a bit long, just over the green. We drove around to the back of the green, and what a difference! The green looked silver! It shone like a mirror!

I started chuckling, and told my buddy to have fun! His little pitch looked to be perfect, but ran all the way off the bottom of the green. His chip back was a mile short! Surprise! My putt was across and a little up the slope. The problem came when it took the break, with the slope, and began running downhill WITH the grain! These kind of putts drive me crazy! Just how far above the hole do I have start this putt in order to have it finish in decent 2 putt distance once it starts running down that grain?

Isn't that enough of a problem to have?

[saevel25]

6 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

However, scientists have also been known to be wrong. The most famous experiment in physics, the Mickelson-Morley, was an abject failure! It was designed to prove the existence of the "luminiferous aether". This was because scientists, at the time, had the wrong idea of how light waves or particles, take your pick, moved through space. Total bust!

Science is a process. It's a process of failures and revisions until a truth is found. So, scientists are wrong a lot. A scientist may have a theory. They may have logic to support it. Until they can observe it, measure it, and prove it, it will stay a theory. People routinely misunderstand this aspect of science. That isn't what is going on here. It looks like these were independent tests done by multiple people, sharing data, and coming to a consensus.

6 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

The problem came when it took the break, with the slope, and began running downhill WITH the grain! These kind of putts drive me crazy! Just how far above the hole do I have start this putt in order to have it finish in decent 2 putt distance once it starts running down that grain?

If you use aimpoint, a lot more ;)

 

[iacas]

Hypothesis Matt. Theories are pretty high up on the list.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Hypothesis Matt. Theories are pretty high up on the list.

Now that you mention it

 

[boogielicious]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Hypothesis Matt. Theories are pretty high up on the list.

Like my favorite scientific theory with respect to putting, The Theory of Gravity!

[Fourputt]

On 8/12/2017 at 6:42 PM, iacas said:

 

GrainontheBrain.pdf

"In an unpublished university study, it was found that at a height of cut of 0.125 (18) inch, there was no measurable effect of grain on ball roll."

No. Not something to consider at all.

Most of the issues with grain go back a couple of decades and beyond, when greens weren't generally being cut as closely as they are today.  I played a course in Ft. Myers back in the mid 90's and the grain was definitely a factor on those bermuda greens.  Because of the fact that I had never seen bermuda greens before, it was both significant and frustrating, since I thought of myself as a fairly good putter, and I was a total wreck on those greens.  

These days, with tighter cuts and rolling, grain is not really part of anything I try to read on a green.  Now a stiff breeze can have more influence on the roll of a putt than grain does.

[saevel25]

For people who think that 0.125 is a close cut. It roughly turns out to be about 8 STIMP. I would say typical green speeds are around 9-10.

http://grounds-mag.com/golf_courses/grounds_maintenance_lowdown_greens_height/

Quote

Typical mowing height for golf greens has been about 0.125 inch (⅛-inch) for years, and a good all-round Stimpmeter greens speed was somewhere around 7.5 to 8.5 feet. But a lot of golfers have been demanding faster greens for longer rolls and superintendents are frequently asked to alter agronomic practices to meet the demand. It's making it tougher to keep greens “green” and growing.

http://collegeofgolf.keiseruniversity.edu/how-do-golf-courses-cut-the-grass-so-short-on-the-putting-green/

Quote

For many years, the mowing height for an average golf green was about 0.125 inches, with a Stimpmeter rating around 8 feet. For a variety of reasons, many golfers have asked for fast greens, and club superintendents are stretching the boundaries of good putting greens maintenance and construction in order to meet the demand. Grass heights have lowered to around 0.100 inches which provides a Stimpmeter rating of around 10 feet.

To put that into perspective. Back in 1978 some of the US Open courses had their green speed measured.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/jerry-tarde-long-grass

Not many had their greens above an 8 on the STIMP rating. Those were US Open courses, not your local golf courses back then.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I played a course in Ft. Myers back in the mid 90's and the grain was definitely a factor on those bermuda greens.

Probably not anywhere near as much as you think. The PDF cites the 1960s or 1970s as the end of the era where greens were cut at lengths where grain had much of an effect (i.e. longer than 0.125" IIRC).

And good note from @saevel25 just above.

[Buckeyebowman]

On 8/14/2017 at 7:31 AM, saevel25 said:

Science is a process. It's a process of failures and revisions until a truth is found. So, scientists are wrong a lot. A scientist may have a theory. They may have logic to support it. Until they can observe it, measure it, and prove it, it will stay a theory. People routinely misunderstand this aspect of science. That isn't what is going on here. It looks like these were independent tests done by multiple people, sharing data, and coming to a consensus.

If you use aimpoint, a lot more ;)

 

Aimpoint notwithstanding, I learned to "feel" the slope of the green with my feet well before that came out. I just wasn't clever enough to patent or trademark a name and promote it the greatest thing ever. I'm sure lots of golfers did the same in the past. And that still doesn't address how it deals with grain.

And, if science is a process, I would suggest that golf is also! Consider the variety of full swing ideas that have been around.

On 8/14/2017 at 10:00 AM, boogielicious said:

Like my favorite scientific theory with respect to putting, The Theory of Gravity!

This reminds me of a Feherty essay from when he was playing the Bob Hope Desert Classic, or whatever it was called when he played it. Some mouth breather in the bag room told him that all putts break toward Indio! Feherty decided that "Indio" was an ancient Indian word meaning "the rest of the United States"!

The putts all broke downhill according to slope and gravity.

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Probably not anywhere near as much as you think. The PDF cites the 1960s or 1970s as the end of the era where greens were cut at lengths where grain had much of an effect (i.e. longer than 0.125" IIRC).

And good note from @saevel25 just above.

But wouldn't that depend on the course? Not everybody can afford top of the line equipment. I'm sure there is some selling of old equipment going on between courses.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Aimpoint notwithstanding, I learned to "feel" the slope of the green with my feet well before that came out. I just wasn't clever enough to patent or trademark a name and promote it the greatest thing ever.

There's a lot more to it than that.

2 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

And that still doesn't address how it deals with grain.

Have you read the posts in this topic? It doesn't need to "deal with grain."

2 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

The putts all broke downhill according to slope and gravity.

But wouldn't that depend on the course? Not everybody can afford top of the line equipment. I'm sure there is some selling of old equipment going on between courses.

Huh?

[will h]

Does grain change on a particular green? In other words, if you mapped out the grain directions on a green, would it stay consistent from day to day? Would the grain direction today on a particular green be the same as tomorrow, next week or next month?

[iacas]

Yes.