Faster Greens = Slower Play

[Ty_Webb]

I would be curious to hear what impact on the time the ball actually spends in motion would be. For example a green that is a 9 and a 25 foot putt on that green might take 5 seconds to come to a stop (I'm flat out guessing - I have no idea), but the same putt on a green that's a 12 might take more like 8 or 9 seconds. I had a putt once on a green that was running pretty fast and it was quite downhill and I timed it out of curiosity. It was 28 seconds till the ball came to rest. On a slow green I don't doubt that would have only taken 10-12 seconds. Granted that's an extreme example, but it wouldn't take much to have caused a good chunk of the time described above be caused by only that.

[saevel25]

A slower green requires the ball to be traveling faster because it needs to be hit with more force.

It's a tad more complicated than basic projectile motion. Distance, velocity, time and acceleration are all interlinked. Slower greens require more acceleration, which produces a higher rate of speed. If you have the same distance putt, then the time it takes to get to the hole is less on a slower green.

 

 

[klineka]

46 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

For example a green that is a 9 and a 25 foot putt on that green might take 5 seconds to come to a stop (I'm flat out guessing - I have no idea), but the same putt on a green that's a 12 might take more like 8 or 9 seconds.

I'm confused by this. Wouldnt the time it takes to come to a stop be directly related to how hard you hit the ball and whether or not the ball goes in the hole? I could putt the 25 foot putt with the intention of making it go 30 feet. If it drops in the hole on both greens, then wouldnt the ball have gotten into the hole quicker on the green that is a 12 compared to a green thats a 9?

Regardless, if you assumed 3 seconds difference in stopping time between different green speeds, 2 putts per hole, 18 holes, thats 108 seconds, just under 2 minutes added per person. And that number would get reduced because some of the putts like tap ins and 3 footers would basically take identical time regardless of the green speed, so youre really talking MAYBE 5-6 minutes difference in stopping time of putts for a 4 some. Not really that big of a deal IMO, and its so heavily influenced by how good/bad the people are at putting. If you have someone that averages under 30 putts per round itll be lower. If you have someone that races every putt 10 feet past then itll be higher.

Edited November 16, 2017 by klineka

[Eric C]

12 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

Couldn't slower greens than a golfer is used to, also slow up play?

So my unscientific, but experiential take on this is - absolutely.  I've played the same course on the same day at roughly the same time for the past four weeks - i'm trying like hell to break 80 on this course.  I shot an 83, 80, 84 and this past week an 87. Correspondingly, they overseeded this past week and did not mow the greens for the previous two days which resulted in significantly slower greens. 

While I haven't been tracking GIR's, I will say with confidence that I hit at least as many if not more GIR's when I shot my 87 as when I shot the 80, but struggled all day to putt the ball to the hole and the breaks were different.  I just couldn't make the adjustment, which resulted in significantly more putts per round, which of course must mean a slower round.  

[NM Golf]

What I don't understand is the decline in enjoyment with faster greens. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I love faster greens. I hope the greens keeper at my home course doesn't see this article, you already have to take a full backswing on a 10' putt on our greens.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I'm confused by this. Wouldnt the time it takes to come to a stop be directly related to how hard you hit the ball and whether or not the ball goes in the hole?

No. Green speed matters too.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I could putt the 25 foot putt with the intention of making it go 30 feet. If it drops in the hole on both greens, then wouldnt the ball have gotten into the hole quicker on the green that is a 12 compared to a green thats a 9?

It would take longer to go in the hole on a stimp 12 green than on a stimp 9 green, and you'd have had to hit it harder too.

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

I'm confused by this. Wouldnt the time it takes to come to a stop be directly related to how hard you hit the ball and whether or not the ball goes in the hole? I could putt the 25 foot putt with the intention of making it go 30 feet. If it drops in the hole on both greens, then wouldnt the ball have gotten into the hole quicker on the green that is a 12 compared to a green thats a 9?

Regardless, if you assumed 3 seconds difference in stopping time between different green speeds, 2 putts per hole, 18 holes, thats 108 seconds, just under 2 minutes added per person. And that number would get reduced because some of the putts like tap ins and 3 footers would basically take identical time regardless of the green speed, so youre really talking MAYBE 5-6 minutes difference in stopping time of putts for a 4 some. Not really that big of a deal IMO, and its so heavily influenced by how good/bad the people are at putting. If you have someone that averages under 30 putts per round itll be lower. If you have someone that races every putt 10 feet past then itll be higher.

If the green is slower, you have to hit it harder. That means the ball is travelling faster. If the ball goes the same distance on two greens, it will always be travelling faster on the slower green (until it comes to rest - and ignoring any differences in slope or whatever). If it's travelling faster, then it gets where it's going in a shorter time. Even if the hole gets in the way.

5- 6 minutes difference is a healthy chunk of the difference that we are discussing I think isn't it?

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, klineka said:

I'm confused by this. Wouldnt the time it takes to come to a stop be directly related to how hard you hit the ball and whether or not the ball goes in the hole? I could putt the 25 foot putt with the intention of making it go 30 feet. If it drops in the hole on both greens, then wouldnt the ball have gotten into the hole quicker on the green that is a 12 compared to a green thats a 9?

Joking aside, you can putt really aggressively and and fast on a slow green then the greater friction will slow the ball near the hole. It's like putting on aerated greens. The ball stops from a much higher velocity with a lot less distance.

I was actually joking that slower greens means a slower ball speed, hence the laughing emoticon.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, NM Golf said:

What I don't understand is the decline in enjoyment with faster greens. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I love faster greens. I hope the greens keeper at my home course doesn't see this article, you already have to take a full backswing on a 10' putt on our greens.

You are a plus handicap so it stands to reason that fast greens aren't as befuddling to you as they are to a player of less ability.  Up until  about 5 years ago I preferred faster greens, but they are more problematic now simply because as I've aged, my touch on those faster greens has become less certain, especially on short putts. 

I mostly play 2 courses, the one where I play in Men's Club tournaments 150 miles from home, and my local 9 hole course.  The tournament course has greens that roll 10.5-11, while the local course rolls about 8 (just an estimate, could be slower - I've never seen a stimpmeter around here).  I putt better on the slow greens these days because I can be more aggressive, and a slight mistake in speed isn't as likely to result in a 5 or 6 foot comebacker. 

I don't putt badly even on the fast ones, but I'm less sure of myself for speed most of the time.  I have to be careful not to overthink it and just let my 40 years of playing the course guide my instincts.

[Ty_Webb]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

You are a plus handicap so it stands to reason that fast greens aren't as befuddling to you as they are to a player of less ability.  Up until  about 5 years ago I preferred faster greens, but they are more problematic now simply because as I've aged, my touch on those faster greens has become less certain, especially on short putts. 

I mostly play 2 courses, the one where I play in Men's Club tournaments 150 miles from home, and my local 9 hole course.  The tournament course has greens that roll 10.5-11, while the local course rolls about 8 (just an estimate, could be slower - I've never seen a stimpmeter around here).  I putt better on the slow greens these days because I can be more aggressive, and a slight mistake in speed isn't as likely to result in a 5 or 6 foot comebacker. 

I don't putt badly even on the fast ones, but I'm less sure of myself for speed most of the time.  I have to be careful not to overthink it and just let my 40 years of playing the course guide my instincts.

I think it's most to do with what you're used to. If you're used to playing slow greens, fast greens are going to get in your head. If you're used to playing fast greens, you'll struggle on slower ones. 

That said, it's also true that the faster the greens are, the less margin for error you have. If you hit it too hard and your ball would go 4 feet by the hole on a green stimping at 8, that's 5.5 feet by the hole on a green stimping 11. That difference adds up over time. Ramp that up significantly if you're putting downhill too. Faster greens also break more, so I think faster greens are generally harder to putt, all else being equal.

I think people who struggle going from fast greens to slow greens do so because they introduce a "hit" to their stroke. That results in variations that they're not used to so they miss putts they wouldn't otherwise. 

[klineka]

34 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

That said, it's also true that the faster the greens are, the less margin for error you have. If you hit it too hard and your ball would go 4 feet by the hole on a green stimping at 8, that's 5.5 feet by the hole on a green stimping 11. That difference adds up over time. Ramp that up significantly if you're putting downhill too. 

@iacas @Ty_Webb your explanations do make sense and definitely help my understanding. Thanks. 

Based on the quote above, it seems like you are saying the same speed of putt that would go 4 feet past on stimp 8 would go 5.5 feet past on stimp 11?

Wouldnt the putt that would end up rolling past 5.5 feet (on the stimp 11 green) keep its velocity higher for longer in order to achieve that additional 1.5 feet of total distance compared to the putt that would end up rolling 4 feet past? 

This chart I just made is showing what I am trying to explain/ask about. The numbers are purely arbitrary and just to demonstrate the thought in my head. 

 

This thought is what I based the question off of in my original post on this topic, that if both of these putts were to drop in the hole, wouldnt the one on the stimp 11 drop into the hole quicker since it is traveling at a higher speed when it reaches the hole?

[Ty_Webb]

12 minutes ago, klineka said:

@iacas @Ty_Webb your explanations do make sense and definitely help my understanding. Thanks. 

Based on the quote above, it seems like you are saying the same speed of putt that would go 4 feet past on stimp 8 would go 5.5 feet past on stimp 11?

Wouldnt the putt that would end up rolling past 5.5 feet (on the stimp 11 green) keep its velocity higher for longer in order to achieve that additional 1.5 feet of total distance compared to the putt that would end up rolling 4 feet past? 

This chart I just made is showing what I am trying to explain/ask about. The numbers are purely arbitrary and just to demonstrate the thought in my head. 

 

This thought is what I based the question off of in my original post on this topic, that if both of these putts were to drop in the hole, wouldnt the one on the stimp 11 drop into the hole quicker since it is traveling at a higher speed when it reaches the hole?

The initial speed on the stimp 8 and the stimp 11 will be different. The passing hole speed will be the same. The ball on the faster green slows down more slowly, which is why it goes 5.5 feet past rather than 4 feet past on the slower green.

Initial speed might be 16 on the stimp 8 if it's 12 on the stimp 11. So you get this:

Stimp 11: 12  10  8  6  4 (passing hole) 2 1 0End

Stimp 8: 16 13 10 7 4 (passing hole) 1.5 0End

At every point up to the hole, the stimp 8 ball is moving faster. At the hole they're moving the same. After the hole the stimp 11 ball is moving faster and as a result goes further past the hole. 

[NJpatbee]

I will leave the physics discussion for others.  As a high HCP (17) I much prefer greens to be on the fast side and play quicker since I have less of a problem making and controlling gentle putting stokes than when I have to whack the ball.  One provision though, the pin placements have to be "fair" and follow the recommendations of the USGA.  It must be possible to putt towards the pin and have the ball not roll 30 feet off the green unless you sink it - that will slow things up! 

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

I will leave the physics discussion for others.  As a high HCP (17) I much prefer greens to be on the fast side and play quicker since I have less of a problem making and controlling gentle putting stokes than when I have to whack the ball.  One provision though, the pin placements have to be "fair" and follow the recommendations of the USGA.  It must be possible to putt towards the pin and have the ball not roll 30 feet off the green unless you sink it - that will slow things up! 

Agreed, that and faster greens are generally in better condition as well. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

Faster greens also break more, so I think faster greens are generally harder to putt, all else being equal.

Yet people of all ability levels (I think the studies included only people that can break 100) putt better on faster greens.

43 minutes ago, klineka said:

Based on the quote above, it seems like you are saying the same speed of putt that would go 4 feet past on stimp 8 would go 5.5 feet past on stimp 11?

No, because you're not accounting for the speed of the ball when it was hit, or before the hole. Only a ball running the same speed at the hole (i.e. as if it was hit from at the hole) will vary those same percentages (8:11 ratio, or 4:5.5).

43 minutes ago, klineka said:

Wouldnt the putt that would end up rolling past 5.5 feet (on the stimp 11 green) keep its velocity higher for longer in order to achieve that additional 1.5 feet of total distance compared to the putt that would end up rolling 4 feet past?

Not necessarily. It's going slower, but there's less force opposing it, so it can roll out longer too.

Red = "slow green", Green = "fast green" (for a putt that's holed… I'm not getting into roll-out beyond the hole):

Also note, these aren't to scale, they're just illustrating a point. In reality the red and green lines in the top graph cross over much closer to the end.

43 minutes ago, klineka said:

Wouldnt the putt that would end up rolling past 5.5 feet (on the stimp 11 green) keep its velocity higher for longer in order to achieve that additional 1.5 feet of total distance compared to the putt that would end up rolling 4 feet past?

They'd be going the same speed at the hole if the ratio of 8:11 is reflected in the 4:5.5 roll-out, so at every moment after that the stimp 11 ball is rolling faster. But those are putts hit the same exact speed, or where v₀ is the same.

43 minutes ago, klineka said:

This chart I just made is showing what I am trying to explain/ask about. The numbers are purely arbitrary and just to demonstrate the thought in my head. 

The problem with that chart is that you have the initial speed as the same. Unless the initial speed is really close to the hole, the balls aren't rolling out those distances with the same initial speed.

In reality you needed to set the "passing hole" speed to be the same. Like…

Total bullshit numbers, but at the hole the balls are moving the same speed, and at every point before it, the "stimp 11" ball is going slower, and at every point after, faster.

43 minutes ago, klineka said:

This thought is what I based the question off of in my original post on this topic, that if both of these putts were to drop in the hole, wouldnt the one on the stimp 11 drop into the hole quicker since it is traveling at a higher speed when it reaches the hole?

It is not traveling at a higher speed. At every point in the above chart (mine), it's traveling at a slower speed, yet still covers the same distance.

[klineka]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, because you're not accounting for the speed of the ball when it was hit, or before the hole. Only a ball running the same speed at the hole (i.e. as if it was hit from at the hole) will vary those same percentages (8:11 ratio, or 4:5.5).

The problem with that chart is that you have the initial speed as the same. Unless the initial speed is really close to the hole, the balls aren't rolling out those distances with the same initial speed.

Thanks for the responses and charts guys! I definitely understand it now. 

All that being said, I dont really prefer one or the other in terms of fast or slow. All that I really care want is for the practice green to be very similar speed as the actual greens so I can get a feel for the greens ahead of time. I feel I can adjust pretty quickly to the green conditions regardless of if they are fast or slow.

I understand the general concept of stimp and greens, but I have never been on a course that I know the actual stimp of, so I dont really have a reference point to judge other courses off of. I couldnt tell you if the local courses I play are a 6,8, or 12. All I really know is fast/slow which is all relative to my perception.

[Ty_Webb]

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yet people of all ability levels (I think the studies included only people that can break 100) putt better on faster greens.

I believe that. Three thoughts about why - one is on a faster green, it's easier to get the ball travelling slowly at the hole. On a 10 foot putt, on a stimp 11 green the ball will be rolling slowly enough to create a large capture area even if it rolls 2 feet by. To take it to an extreme, on a green stimping at 3, to get 1 foot by the hole it would be moving fast enough at the hole that the capture area would be small, so you hole more putts.

Faster greens also tend to be better greens.

Lastly putting stroke is typically smoother and more rhythmical on faster greens. 

I guess I would expect on faster greens more three putts, but on slower greens fewer one putts. Quite definitely plausible that the more one putts outweighs the fewer three putts.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Ty_Webb

[Lihu]

54 minutes ago, klineka said:

All that being said, I dont really prefer one or the other in terms of fast or slow. All that I really care want is for the practice green to be very similar speed as the actual greens so I can get a feel for the greens ahead of time. I feel I can adjust pretty quickly to the green conditions regardless of if they are fast or slow.

Hah, me too. If you play in the mornings the conditions will change a lot by the 18th.