Are Golfers Better on Faster or Slower Greens?

[mdl]

3 hours ago, klineka said:

Faster greens also present the opportunity to putt the ball at a lower speed which increases the capture size of the hole.

Slower greens require you to putt the ball at a higher speed which decreases the capture size of the hole. 

The ball never has a chance of going in if it doesnt at least reach the hole. I would rather have the putt go 2-3 feet past the hole than leave it 2-3 feet short. 

On slower greens I tend to leave putts short. Tiny sample size and doesnt count for much, but one of my best putting rounds was on a course with probably 2nd fastest greens I've ever putted on. I only needed 28 putts that round.

I'd disagree that this is the main source of difference.  Sure, if you hit a 15 footer at the speed needed to stop the putt 6" after the hole on a slow green, it will be going very minimally faster as it passes the hole than a putt that will stop 6" past the hole on a fast green, thus very slightly decreasing the capture size.

But I'd say the difference is more the tradeoff between accuracy and distance control.  It's easier to control trajectory of the putt when you hit the ball softer.  So on fast greens, you should relatively improve in accuracy.  But there's less margin for error on distance control on a super fast green.  An over-read in needed speed on a slow green might put the ball 3 feet past the hole, but maybe that same putt with the same percentage over-hit on a fast green might put you 8 feet past the hole, a huge difference of course.

Per your example, it seems you just tend to under-read or under-hit distance/power.  So you switched one day to a green faster than you're used to, and your normal under-hit/read suddenly turned into exactly the right distance.

28 minutes ago, Big C said:

Given the choice between two extremes, I'd take the faster putting surface. That said, there are definitely challenges that are unique to fast greens. And particularly if you happen to be playing a course with a lot of slopes or ridges, they can make putting nightmarish on any given day. 

I would say that some of my worst putting rounds have come on very fast greens, but so have some of my better putting rounds. On the other hand, when I play slow green, I feel like my putting is consistently poor.

Ideally, I would love to play all my golf in that middle "sweet spot," with stimps of 9-11. 

For personal experience I agree with this.  Maybe it's just lack of experience, but I've never putted well on pool table greens.  But say we're on a 5 point scale, super slow, slow, mid, fast, super fast.  I prefer to play somewhere in the 3-4 range, edging towards 4.

But I also agree that if the greens were clearly designed for slowish green speeds, with big ridges, steep slopes, etc, then even the 4 range ends up not being very fun.

[Fourputt]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

I suggest you do more than "a quick google search." That quickie statistical thing Pete Sanders did is not the studies I've referred to. That study is basically what happens when you show up and your course has faster greens that day, often because of a tournament. I won't even say that data is junk, but it certainly includes rounds where guys concede second or third putts in casual play that they have to putt out in tournament play (which also often has faster greens).

The studies I've seen, and I'd look for them if I had the time, left a big impression on me at the time so I've not needed to go back and find them again, simply say that golfers, given a brief period of time to acclimate themselves, putt better overall on faster greens (stimp 11/12) than they do on slower greens (stimp 8/9).

The conclusions made sense too: truer lines, flatter slopes, and shorter strokes.

P.S. You may not find the studies I saw. It was maybe a decade or so ago. Initially I'd say it was five or six years ago, but it was either before or right before I began instructing, and that was more than six years ago…

I still think that it makes a big difference based on the ability level of the player.  A 20 handicapper who is used to an 8 stimp, then going to a 12 stimp is going to 3 putt on  pretty regular basis.  A golfer of the same level going from the fast green to the slow one is less likely to 3 putt simply because his misses will not roll as far past the hole.  The faster the green, the more difficult it is to learn to match break and speed.  At first he hits everything too far, then overcompensates and leaves putts 3 or more feet short.  Then he will most likely yip that 3-5 footer because he is scared of the green.  I've seen it too often to believe anything different.  On a slower green you can stroke a short putt with more authority, and thus with more confidence.

If you can show me an actual study with 100 bogey or worse golfers, 50 going each way, and show that me makes no difference, that's about the only thing that will change my mind.  My own experience says that you won't be able to do it.  I don't see your anecdotal opinion as any more valid than mine.  The lower the ability level of the player the harder it is for him to "feel" the line and speed on fast greens.  And those 4 footers on an 11-12 green can be absolutely terrifying, especially if you have already missed a couple.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Fourputt

[criley4way]

Could this be a bell-curve thought? If the greens are very slow it is hard to hit long putts hard enough to get it to the hole and you have to make a bigger stroke to get enough speed. But you can be aggressive on downhill putts and shorter putts will not miss by too much.

On the other hand it is easy to get the ball to the hole on faster greens but you need to be more precise. Speed being off just a little bit can put you 5' past and breaking putts could be a big miss. And it is touchy hitting a 10' downhill putt.

I think  most people would do best on 9-10 and have problems at <8 or >12.

 

Just my thoughts

[Patch]

Question. Can agressive putting, speed wise help with different stimps?

I putt the ball pretty fast. When I miss it's usually a 3-4 return putt. 

[klineka]

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

 A golfer of the same level going from the fast green to the slow one is less likely to 3 putt simply because his misses will not roll as far past the hole. 

You dont know that for a fact that his misses will not roll as far past the hole. He could also leave his misses significantly short and 3 putt that way as well.

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The faster the green, the more difficult it is to learn to match break and speed.  At first he hits everything too far, then overcompensates and leaves putts 3 or more feet short.  Then he will most likely yip that 3-5 footer because he is scared of the green.

I dont agree with this. It is no more difficult to LEARN how to match break and speed on a fast green than it is a slow green. You still have to learn how to match the break and speed on a slow green. If you putted on greens that were 11 and 12 stimp your entire life youll get used to matching the break and speed, just like someone that putts only on 8 to 9 stimp would be used to matching the break and speed on those greens.

 

9 hours ago, Fourputt said:

On a slower green you can stroke a short putt with more authority, and thus with more confidence.

On a slower green you have to hit the ball harder, which increases the length and most likely speed of your backswing, which means theres more room for error in your stroke and less chance you will start the ball precisely on your intended start line.

Think about it, you have a 30 foot putt on an 8 stimp green. Lets pretend that requires a putt that starts with 10 mph of speed to reach the hole.

You have the exact same 30 foot putt but now the green is a 12 stimp. That might only require a putt that starts with 6 mph of speed to reach the hole. 

You can still hit that putt on the 12 stimp green with confidence and authority, the pros do it all the time, but the fact that you dont have to hit the ball as hard means there is less room for error in both the stroke and how far the ball would likely stray from the start line on a straight, level putt. 

If someone told you to hit your driver with 40% less speed than you normally do, so like a half swing, most golfers would make better contact and have less room for errors and their misses would be tighter in dispersion.

10 hours ago, Fourputt said:

If you can show me an actual study with 100 bogey or worse golfers, 

I dont think its fair to exclude the golfers that are better than "bogey golfers" (so those who can break 90) because the number of golfers that are better than bogey golfers account for 20-25% of all golfers. You would have a flawed study if you chose to exclude the golfers that are most likely the best putters. That would be like me saying ok lets do the study but only look at golfers that can shoot under 110. 

Both examples (excluding golfers that shoot under 90 and golfers that shoot over 110) exclude pretty significant portions of the data and by excluding one or the other, you can skew the data to your favor.

 

10 hours ago, Fourputt said:

The lower the ability level of the player the harder it is for him to "feel" the line and speed on fast greens.  

I can easily argue that the lower the ability level of the player the harder it is for him to feel the line and speed on ANY green that he or she is not used to, regardless of the speed.

[JxQx]

With faster greens you get a more true roll and don't need as long of a stroke thus having less potential for error which would make it easier to putt on. The only reason I seen that people cite for faster greens being more difficult is because of distance control, which seems more like bad round prep than actual difficulty. Most people can get relative decent feel of distance control spending 15-20 minutes on the practice green before teeing off. Slower greens inherently have more imperfections and those really can't be practiced for which is why I would say it's more difficult.

[iacas]

12 hours ago, Fourputt said:

A 20 handicapper who is used to an 8 stimp, then going to a 12 stimp is going to 3 putt on  pretty regular basis.

As you said, yes, everyone is going to struggle if they play suddenly on a new arrangement, whether faster or slower.

12 hours ago, Fourputt said:

If you can show me an actual study with 100 bogey or worse golfers…

I suspect that would be a horrible study. Bogey golfers almost never break 90, and are pretty bad putters all around… They'd probably putt poorly on fast greens.

The studies I remember primarily dealt with golfers who shot 90-95 or better.

12 hours ago, Fourputt said:

My own experience says that you won't be able to do it.

Rick, I don't know how you've managed to quote what I wrote and yet misread so much.

• None of the studies I've read talk about my only bogey golfers.
• None of the studies I've read are my anecdotal experiences.

People would get better at a lot of things if they didn't work so hard to preserve their personal biases.

12 hours ago, Fourputt said:

And those 4 footers on an 11-12 green can be absolutely terrifying, especially if you have already missed a couple.

They're also easier to make - the ball rolls truer and they require a shorter, easier stroke that's more likely to start on-line.

39 minutes ago, JxQx said:

With faster greens you get a more true roll and don't need as long of a stroke thus having less potential for error which would make it easier to putt on. The only reason I seen that people cite for faster greens being more difficult is because of distance control, which seems more like bad round prep than actual difficulty.

Exactly - the studies I've read all allowed golfers a period of time to adjust to the various green speeds. This wasn't months, weeks, or even days. It was that same time/day. 30 minutes sticks out in my mind, but I can't say for certain.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, klineka said:

You dont know that for a fact that his misses will not roll as far past the hole. He could also leave his misses significantly short and 3 putt that way as well.

I dont agree with this. It is no more difficult to LEARN how to match break and speed on a fast green than it is a slow green. You still have to learn how to match the break and speed on a slow green. If you putted on greens that were 11 and 12 stimp your entire life youll get used to matching the break and speed, just like someone that putts only on 8 to 9 stimp would be used to matching the break and speed on those greens.

 

On a slower green you have to hit the ball harder, which increases the length and most likely speed of your backswing, which means theres more room for error in your stroke and less chance you will start the ball precisely on your intended start line.

Think about it, you have a 30 foot putt on an 8 stimp green. Lets pretend that requires a putt that starts with 10 mph of speed to reach the hole.

You have the exact same 30 foot putt but now the green is a 12 stimp. That might only require a putt that starts with 6 mph of speed to reach the hole. 

You can still hit that putt on the 12 stimp green with confidence and authority, the pros do it all the time, but the fact that you dont have to hit the ball as hard means there is less room for error in both the stroke and how far the ball would likely stray from the start line on a straight, level putt. 

If someone told you to hit your driver with 40% less speed than you normally do, so like a half swing, most golfers would make better contact and have less room for errors and their misses would be tighter in dispersion.

I dont think its fair to exclude the golfers that are better than "bogey golfers" (so those who can break 90) because the number of golfers that are better than bogey golfers account for 20-25% of all golfers. You would have a flawed study if you chose to exclude the golfers that are most likely the best putters. That would be like me saying ok lets do the study but only look at golfers that can shoot under 110. 

Both examples (excluding golfers that shoot under 90 and golfers that shoot over 110) exclude pretty significant portions of the data and by excluding one or the other, you can skew the data to your favor.

 

I can easily argue that the lower the ability level of the player the harder it is for him to feel the line and speed on ANY green that he or she is not used to, regardless of the speed.

On a slower green, you can hit those shorter putts more aggressively and take most of the break out of the equation without worrying as much about blasting way past the hole.  On a 4 footer where I'd have to start the ball outside of the hole on a fast green, I could aim inside the edge on slow green, hit it firmly, and not worry about it sliding past high or low. 

I'm not saying that it's a guarantee, or that 100% of the players in a given skill level will have the same results, but I know from personal experience that a well kept slow green is easier to putt than a well kept fast one.  I move back and forth all summer long between the local 9 hole course where I play league (slow greens - not measured but can't be more than 8, maybe 7), and my "home course" in Denver (it's 150 miles from where I live) where I play tournaments (faster greens - typically rolling about 11). 

Contrary to some of the statement in this thread, both of the places I play do have well maintained greens, just that the ones here have to be cut a bit higher to keep them from burning out in the intense summer sun.  There is no budget for the extra turf maintenance measures to care for a really fast green - greenskeeper is one man who does almost everything himself, with his kids helping him mow the rough about once a week.  The rest of the time it's just him.  The greens do however roll as true as any greens I've ever putted, just fairly slow, and they do have some significant breaks.  

[klineka]

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

On a slower green, you can hit those shorter putts more aggressively and take most of the break out of the equation without worrying as much about blasting way past the hole.  On a 4 footer where I'd have to start the ball outside of the hole on a fast green, I could aim inside the edge on slow green, hit it firmly, and not worry about it sliding past high or low. 

Why wouldnt you just take the break out of the equation for the same putt on the fast green? Assuming you can start the ball on your line, you shouldnt have to putt that hard to take out break on a four foot putt. 

It seems like when people hear "fast greens" they just assume that refers to greens with ridiculous pin placements on huge slopes meaning every putt outside of a foot will have tons of break.

I havent found that to be the case at all. Regardless of how fast/slow the greens are, I hardly ever have to aim outside the cup on a 4 foot putt. 

From what you said, it seems like you are basing your opinion off of the two courses you frequent. It is my experience, and many others here, that slower greens are not maintained as well as fast greens. Sure you might have an exception to that, but my local 9 hole muni course has greens that are slowish and not that well maintained resulting in frequent bobbles and hops throughout the round. Some of the nicer courses around me have quicker greens but the ball almost always rolls pure with few if any bobbles. 

[MuniGrit]

"I'm gonna take the break out of it!" 

[406pat]

I think the two problems we are struggling with are the sheer number of variables involved and the ambiguity of what "better" means. I would argue that, if all else was equal, physics would say a slower green was better. A higher rate of deceleration means that the distance traveled is less sensitive to initial speed. The faster a green is, the greater the difference between distance traveled will be for a given change per unit of initial speed. This means a slower green is more forgiving distance wise. 

A slower green also allows the player to hit the ball faster, giving less time for gravity to act on the ball on side slopes. Since acceleration is a function of time, the less time the ball is moving, the less it is impacted, the less it breaks. Further, a slower green would have more friction resisting the acceleration force of gravity so the net break would be less. That all says that a slower green will break less and will not require as much correction in initial alignment as a faster green will. Problem solved. Physics says so. Hardly! 

As others have brought up, all else is not equal. Players are of different abilities and comfort ranges and playing surfaces are not uniform through different speeds (i.e. longer usually bumpier). I think that @criley4way is probably on the right track and I would be surprised if all of the "unknowable variables" ended up creating something close to a normal distribution for any metric of "better" that we choose to use. # of 4 putts, # of 3 putts, feet of putting, strokes gained, anything. One thing I am sure of is that any statistical analysis of a population will be accurate for the population, but is hardly ever right for an individual in the population. Even if we find a statistically perfect magical stimp for all of us, I bet just about everyone would want it a little faster or a little slower.

13 hours ago, criley4way said:

Could this be a bell-curve thought? If the greens are very slow it is hard to hit long putts hard enough to get it to the hole and you have to make a bigger stroke to get enough speed. But you can be aggressive on downhill putts and shorter putts will not miss by too much.

On the other hand it is easy to get the ball to the hole on faster greens but you need to be more precise. Speed being off just a little bit can put you 5' past and breaking putts could be a big miss. And it is touchy hitting a 10' downhill putt.

I think  most people would do best on 9-10 and have problems at <8 or >12.

 

Just my thoughts

[Groucho Valentine]

I think differences in green speeds kill most players, regardless of skill. If I'm playing greens that are rolling like 8 for a few rounds, and jump on a course where they are rolling 11, then I'm going to struggle until i adjust. Overall, i feel i hole more putts on faster greens because it shortens my stroke and my tempo tends to be better. 

[dbuck]

It is easier for me to adjust to a faster, better green, than a slower poorer one.

On one course I play, actually my favorite overall, there are often 3 foot putts that will break 1-2 feet with proper speed.

I don't like having to make a full shoulder turn to get the ball to the hole.

[klineka]

6 minutes ago, 406pat said:

I think the two problems we are struggling with are the sheer number of variables involved and the ambiguity of what "better" means. I would argue that, if all else was equal, physics would say a slower green was better. A higher rate of deceleration means that the distance traveled is less sensitive to initial speed. The faster a green is, the greater the difference between distance traveled will be for a given change per unit of initial speed. This means a slower green is more forgiving distance wise. 

A slower green also allows the player to hit the ball faster, giving less time for gravity to act on the ball on side slopes. Since acceleration is a function of time, the less time the ball is moving, the less it is impacted, the less it breaks. Further, a slower green would have more friction resisting the acceleration force of gravity so the net break would be less. That all says that a slower green will break less and will not require as much correction in initial alignment as a faster green will. Problem solved. Physics says so. Hardly! 

The fact that a slower green allows the player to hit the ball faster is not always a good thing. Like I mentioned earlier, the harder you have to hit the ball, the larger the room for error is. 

Lets take a level 4 foot putt. Unless you really suck at putting, pretty much everyone is going to get that putt within 2 feet left or right of the hole. 

Lets take a perfectly level 50 foot putt. I bet the percentage of people that end up outside of 2 feet left or right is significantly higher. Why? Because you have to hit the ball much harder which brings in more room for error.

Lets pretend you have one perfectly level putt and you have to keep it within 2 feet left/right of the whole. Which putt would you choose, the 4 foot putt (top red circle) or the 50 foot putt (bottom red circle) (obviously not to scale). Both of these putts are on the same green with the same green speed, yet because you have to hit the 50 foot putt harder, you have much less room for error and so much more can go wrong with a longer stroke. I'm aware this isnt taking where the ball ends up (short or long of the hole) but in purely looking at left to right dispersion, the slower you have to putt the ball to get it to the hole. the more accurate your putt will be, assuming a flat level putt.

The faster a putt is going to reach the hole (as is the case on slow greens), the capture speed of the hole decreases, which means you need to be more accurate to hole the putt. 

The slower a putt is going to reach the hole (as is the case on fast greens), the capture speed of the hole increases, which means you can be less accurate and still potentially hole the putt.

 

[ballplayer002003]

I simply think that a higher handicap golfer prefers and plays better on slower greens, and a lower handicap golfer plays better on faster greens.  I think it's a confidence issue.  A higher handicapper may not be so sure of his/her putting stroke or may just be trying to not  three putt a hole.  A lower handicapper tends to be more confident in their stroke all while being able to have better distance control.

[NM Golf]

I can only talk from personal experience, but after a period of adjustment, I put MUCH better on faster greens. On my recent trip to Pinehurst I struggled mightily on the first 3 holes then putted absolutely brilliantly the rest of the way. As Erik has said, repeatedly, with fast greens the putting stroke gets shorter and there is less chance for error in a short stroke. I, personally, think the biggest difference for me is inside 5 feet. On faster greens those puts are so much easier as the stroke is so simple all that is needed is to start it on the correct line.

Perhaps if higher handicaps struggle more on fast greens those struggles could come more from their ball striking than their putting; the fact they put themselves in a poor position more often. They get above the hole, they get on the wrong level of a multi-tiered green, heck they just hit it farther from the pin in general. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by NM Golf

[iacas]

Kevin, that’s a really bad example.

On phone so can’t elaborate but think about it please?

[ballplayer002003]

34 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I think differences in green speeds kill most players, regardless of skill. If I'm playing greens that are rolling like 8 for a few rounds, and jump on a course where they are rolling 11, then I'm going to struggle until i adjust. Overall, i feel i hole more putts on faster greens because it shortens my stroke and my tempo tends to be better. 

I agree