Pin Placement

[antip]

> @rogolf said:

> See here for info

> http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

 

Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

[Newby]

> @antip said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > See here for info

> > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

>

> Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

 

I agree. A few years ago a senior touring pro said '11 is very fast, 12 is super fast and 13 is stupid fast'. At the time Augusta was stimping at upwards of 13. Shortly after, they stopped publishing their stimp.

The odd thing is that I am always hearing top amateurs saying that fast greens separate the men from the boys and are the right challenge for them but then complaining that slow greens are too difficult to judge and spoil their scores.

"You can't just stroke the ball but have to hit it"

[buckeyefl]

I don't mind a downhill putt that if missed leaves a long uphill putt but the ones where if you miss the uphill from 15 ft you are left with the same or longer can be a pain. My favorite course where I used to live had 3 consecutive holes where front and even middle pins were a no go because this was the issue. They would only put them front for high level am events because someone with that ability should know the proper way to play it.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > See here for info

> > > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

> >

> > Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

>

> I agree. A few years ago a senior touring pro said '11 is very fast, 12 is super fast and 13 is stupid fast'. At the time Augusta was stimping at upwards of 13. Shortly after, they stopped publishing their stimp.

> The odd thing is that I am always hearing top amateurs saying that fast greens separate the men from the boys and are the right challenge for them but then complaining that slow greens are too difficult to judge and spoil their scores.

> "You can't just stroke the ball but have to hit it"

 

I guess they have forgotten how to strike with a putter. We normal golfers cannot forget it as greens are always slow in the beginning of the season as well as in the end. Top amateurs have the privilege to play on courses specifically prepared for them.

 

There is a popular golf resort up there in the northern part of our country where stimp is about 7 feet or less. I never 3-putt there. Such slow and even greens do wonders to pace of play.

[Mr. Bean]

> @antip said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > See here for info

> > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

>

> Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

 

Yes, a good article and fun to read. Although as a referee I do not carry any semi-scientific gear with me but use golf balls, i.e. 'play' the green. IMO that is the most practical way to see where the holes may and may not be located. I wish the staff on the courses used them also...

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > See here for info

> > > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

> >

> > Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

>

> I agree. A few years ago a senior touring pro said '11 is very fast, 12 is super fast and 13 is stupid fast'. At the time Augusta was stimping at upwards of 13. Shortly after, they stopped publishing their stimp.

> The odd thing is that I am always hearing top amateurs saying that fast greens separate the men from the boys and are the right challenge for them but then complaining that slow greens are too difficult to judge and spoil their scores.

> "You can't just stroke the ball but have to hit it"

 

Weird, I've not heard that. Slow greens you can make putts from anywhere. Fast greens can really expose your putting stroke as you can get away with murder on slow greens

[buckeyefl]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > > @rogolf said:

> > > > See here for info

> > > > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

> > >

> > > Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

> >

> > I agree. A few years ago a senior touring pro said '11 is very fast, 12 is super fast and 13 is stupid fast'. At the time Augusta was stimping at upwards of 13. Shortly after, they stopped publishing their stimp.

> > The odd thing is that I am always hearing top amateurs saying that fast greens separate the men from the boys and are the right challenge for them but then complaining that slow greens are too difficult to judge and spoil their scores.

> > "You can't just stroke the ball but have to hit it"

>

> Weird, I've not heard that. Slow greens you can make putts from anywhere. Fast greens can really expose your putting stroke as you can get away with murder on slow greens

 

Slow, smooth greens yes but that isn't the case many times. Fast greens are usually smoother. With fast greens your stroke is smaller and more controlled and the ball roles true. For players that hit the same spot time after time on the face this is a distinct advantage. Even the top players struggle with slow greens although if you are constantly above the hole then slow greens help. Smooth is the key.

[rogolf]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @rogolf said:

> > > See here for info

> > > http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/2000s/2008/080721.pdf

> >

> > Excellent article, thank you. My impression is the faster greens juggernaut has kept on rolling since that 2008 article, pulling more and more 'regular' courses in.

>

> Yes, a good article and fun to read. Although as a referee I do not carry any semi-scientific gear with me but use golf balls, i.e. 'play' the green. IMO that is the most practical way to see where the holes may and may not be located. I wish the staff on the courses used them also...

 

The "level" on the iPhone is only one of the guidelines that I use in choosing hole locations for competitions. I always putt to any and all potential and chosen hole locations - it's some of the best practice putting that I get over the season. Selecting proper and "fair" hole locations for competitions is a very important part of the event - there's not much better times than being out on the course and greens at 6 AM, it's a great time of day to be enjoyed!

[Newby]

Yes, I was out this morning setting the tee positions for the morning and afternoon rounds (This time a colleague and I determined the hole positions yesterday). 6am on a warm sunny morning with only the greenkeepers and wild life for company. Bliss

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> Yes, I was out this morning setting the tee positions for the morning and afternoon rounds **(This time a colleague and I determined the hole positions yesterday).** 6am on a warm sunny morning with only the greenkeepers and wild life for company. Bliss

 

Wouldn't it have been a bit late to do that in the morning for the competition just about to start..? What am I missing here?

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Yes, I was out this morning setting the tee positions for the morning and afternoon rounds **(This time a colleague and I determined the hole positions yesterday).** 6am on a warm sunny morning with only the greenkeepers and wild life for company. Bliss

>

> Wouldn't it have been a bit late to do that in the morning for the competition just about to start..? What am I missing here?

Sorry. Wasn't clear. I meant that I or we usually do them a day or more before the day of play but this time it was just one day.

 

[rogolf]

And when I'm doing them, it's not for that day, always a day ahead, eg, Monday morning marking the hole locations for Tuesday, but also checking that Monday's holes are where I marked had marked them on Sunday.

[QEight]

> @Newby said:

> 6am on a warm sunny morning with only the greenkeepers and wild life for company. Bliss

 

And of course bluetooth speaker blaring Hank Williams from the cart to top it off.

[Mr. Bean]

> @QEight said:

> > @Newby said:

> > 6am on a warm sunny morning with only the greenkeepers and wild life for company. Bliss

>

> And of course bluetooth speaker blaring Hank Williams from the cart to top it off.

 

I doubt Newby would listen to Hank Wiliams. Maybe Pink Floyd or Sting. Or Rolling Stones.

[Newby]

Nope. Erika Lewis & Tuba Skinny or Cleo Brown are my scene

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> Nope. Erika Lewis & Tuba Skinny or Cleo Brown are my scene

 

Never heard of those. Maybe there is a reason. (now that was a joke, just wanted to make sure it is understood as one...)

 

EDIT: I googled those artists and I must say I am impressed! In my youth I studied to be a musician (guitar) and played mostly traditional jazz and I still love it. Good for you, Newby!!

[Newby]

:)

[nsxguy]

> @Newby said:

> Nope. Erika Lewis & Tuba Skinny or Cleo Brown are my **scene**

 

your "jam". LOL (<---- note to @"Mr. Bean" - this is how you tell someone you're joking - saves ya some typing. LOL)

 

[caniac6]

When I worked at the course, we would try to put 6 easy, 6 medium, and 6 tough. We always tried to move the hole far from the previous placement to reduce wear and tear on the green. Oh, our tough ones were tucked, but not on slopes. The crew where I am a member place the hole near old cups a lot, and close to unrepaired ball marks. I'm usually first off, so I know the ball marks are not new.

[Mr. Bean]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Nope. Erika Lewis & Tuba Skinny or Cleo Brown are my **scene**

>

> your "jam". LOL (<---- note to @"Mr. Bean" - this is how you tell someone you're joking - saves ya some typing. LOL)

>

 

I always had the impression people have enough brain to know when someone is joking but I do admit sometimes it is difficult to know for sure on the internet. However, this 'LOL' is like showing the studio audience the sign 'LAUGH' as if they did not get the joke. I just feel it just spoils the joke. I'd rather explain it afterwards.

[Newby]

Explanations usually don't raise a laugh.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> Explanations usually don't raise a laugh.

 

Yes, that is the downside when the audience has not enough wits...

[Newby]

Why not explain it first then

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> Why not explain it first then

 

Like in the kindergarten..?

 

I thought readers here are adults.

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Why not explain it first then

>

> Like in the kindergarten..?

>

> I thought readers here are adults.

 

I thought you were suggesting they were witless

[nsxguy]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > Nope. Erika Lewis & Tuba Skinny or Cleo Brown are my **scene**

> >

> > your "jam". LOL (<---- note to @"Mr. Bean" - this is how you tell someone you're joking - saves ya some typing. LOL)

> >

>

> I always had the impression people have enough brain to know when someone is joking but **I do admit sometimes it is difficult to know for sure on the internet**. However, this 'LOL' is like showing the studio audience the sign 'LAUGH' as if they did not get the joke. I just feel it just spoils the joke. I'd rather explain it afterwards.

 

The LOL isn't the same as the "Laugh" sign for the studio audience. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's simply a sign that you were kidding around. You admit it's "sometimes difficult" and you said earlier "Never heard of those. Maybe there is a reason. (now that was a joke, just wanted to make sure it is understood as one...)"

 

Then again, from reading your posts for quite some time now, somehow I can't picture you using the "LOL".

 

[James the Hogan Fan]

 

Here’s a fun one from our course today. The line of play is from the right. That hole is cut 3 paces on over the bunker, on a 420 yard par 4. (460 from tips) The hole plays longer than advertised into the wind. The lobe of the green behind the bunker is only 10 yards deep.

 

The thread has mostly discussed unputtable locations, this one is unapproachable.

 

[Lefty96]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

>

>

> Here’s a fun one from our course today. The line of play is from the right. That hole is cut 3 paces on over the bunker, on a 420 yard par 4. (460 from tips) The hole plays longer than advertised into the wind. The lobe of the green behind the bunker is only 10 yards deep.

>

> The thread has mostly discussed unputtable locations, this one is unapproachable.

>

 

While that does sound like a tough location, it’s not really unfair. You’re not meant to be able to go right at every pin and stick it. That looks relatively flat around the pin and putts to it from the center of the green would be more than fair. That’s just set up to be a tough par, not a birdie. That being said, I would never set a pin that close to a dead patch on the green.

 

[rogolf]

> @Lefty96 said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> >

> >

> > Here’s a fun one from our course today. The line of play is from the right. That hole is cut 3 paces on over the bunker, on a 420 yard par 4. (460 from tips) The hole plays longer than advertised into the wind. The lobe of the green behind the bunker is only 10 yards deep.

> >

> > The thread has mostly discussed unputtable locations, this one is unapproachable.

> >

>

> While that does sound like a tough location, it’s not really unfair. You’re not meant to be able to go right at every pin and stick it. That looks relatively flat around the pin and putts to it from the center of the green would be more than fair. That’s just set up to be a tough par, not a birdie. That being said, I would never set a pin that close to a dead patch on the green.

>

 

Back it up a pace and a half (away from the dead spot) and it's fine, imo.

Use your IPhone to measure the slope - don't exceed 2 degrees, and be able to stop the ball at the hole.

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @Lefty96 said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> >

> >

> > Here’s a fun one from our course today. The line of play is from the right. That hole is cut 3 paces on over the bunker, on a 420 yard par 4. (460 from tips) The hole plays longer than advertised into the wind. The lobe of the green behind the bunker is only 10 yards deep.

> >

> > The thread has mostly discussed unputtable locations, this one is unapproachable.

> >

>

> While that does sound like a tough location, it’s not really unfair. You’re not meant to be able to go right at every pin and stick it. That looks relatively flat around the pin and putts to it from the center of the green would be more than fair. That’s just set up to be a tough par, not a birdie. That being said, I would never set a pin that close to a dead patch on the green.

>

 

I think I need to move the goal posts. This is a really tough spot and in every way a challenge. If the tour came to town I’d say it’s fine. But for them 450 yards is a 3w for position and a PW.

 

Once on the green it’s not unfair, (except it does create a chipping from green scenario if you’re on the front... that’s not ideal).

 

But since 75% of our players are playing it as a par-5 anyway, and still no one is coming within 25’, and more 6’s/7’s are being made than 4’s, the location might not be unfair, but too hard for general play.