Realistic Expectations on the Putting Green: Within and between Days Trueness of Roll

Koslow, Robert E.; Wenos, David L.

doi:10.2466/pms.1998.87.3f.1441

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A true surface can be described as one that is reliable, unfailing, or sure (http://Dictionary.com). Koslow and Wenos (1998), Baker and Spring (2010), and Windows (2011) described putting green trueness as the amount of lateral deviation a golf ball has from the desired line. In addition, Baker and Spring (2010) and Windows (2011) described smoothness as the amount of vertical deviation the ball has as it rolls across the surface.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike ball roll distance, very little scientific data has been published on trueness. Koslow and Wenos (1998) examined fluctuations in trueness across a golf green by measuring dispersion of a rolled ball as the lateral deviation from a straight line extended from a mechanical putting device to the resting point of the initial roll. They found the least amount of dispersion was in the morning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing Three Methods to Measure Putting Green Trueness

Linde

Mitchell²,

Hannan³

2017

Intl Turfgrass Soc Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since there was not a standard method to measure putting green trueness, a golf course and plot study were conducted to compare three methods to measure putting green trueness. In 2013, the Royal & Ancient (R&A) “Holing Out Test” (HOT), a visual bobble test, and a ball spread test were conducted on 150 greens from 50 New Zealand golf courses. In 2015, a plot study was conducted to compare the methods in a more controlled environment. Ramps were used to roll balls for each method. For the HOT, the number of balls out of 10 rolled from a fixed location that entered a golf hole 2.4 m away were counted. The spread test measured dispersion of the resting positions of a group of balls rolled 2.4 m from a fixed location. The bobble test was a visual rating from 1 to 10 of the amount of bobbling and snaking of balls rolling 2.4 m. The studies had similar results. The bobble test was easiest to administer and detected the widest range of trueness. The HOT was not effective in measuring trueness differences in either study since most balls rolled from 2.4 m went into the hole despite the amount of surface disruption. The HOT did demonstrate that despite the appearance of the putting surface and how the ball visually rolls, balls can still be holed when hit on the proper line with the proper speed. The HOT also demonstrated that humans introduce much error when putting a ball. A survey indicated that golfers assessed trueness by the appearance of the surface and how many times the ball bounced as it rolled.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Three Methods to Measure Putting Green Trueness

Linde

Mitchell²,

Hannan³

2017

Intl Turfgrass Soc Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No peer‐reviewed research has evaluated the impact of annual bluegrass on ball roll directional imprecision. Koslow and Wenos (1998) used a mechanical putting machine to determine that the greatest ball roll distances, and the least amount of dispersion was present when fewer golfers traversed greens. David Pelz (2000) likewise described the area radially from 0.15 to 1.8 m around the golf cup as the “lumpy doughnut” due to golfer foot traffic that reportedly disturbed canopy characteristics and negatively affected putt direction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the objective of a golf putt is both directionally and distally dependent, it is surprising that no to very little scientific data have been published that characterize the influence of putting green surfaces on ball roll direction. Koslow and Wenos (1998) evaluated fluctuations in ball roll trueness across a green using a mechanical putting machine and reported that trueness can vary on a golf green from day to day and within the same day depending on the time of day and traffic patterns. However, Koslow and Wenos (1998) did not assess the actual source of variation for trueness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although several researchers have suggested that surface anomalies on putting greens can influence ball roll behavior, most of the information is either anecdotal or comes from non‐peer‐reviewed trade magazine articles or similar resources (Pelz, 2000; Swash, 2001; Karlsen et al, 2008). The limited peer‐reviewed research that is available addresses mainly ball roll distance or speed, and only one study has been reported to evaluate the influence of surface trueness on ball roll directional precision (Koslow and Wenos, 1998). The marketing and evaluation of devices such as the Greenstester, ParryMeter, Sports Turf Research Institute Trueness Meter, and Sphero Turf App indicate that there is a growing interest in evaluating putting green trueness (Baker and Spring, 2010; R&A Championships, 2012; iGreenKeeper, 2014; McElroy and Marshall, 2015; Linde et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Canopy Anomaly Influence on Golf Putt Kinematics: Does Annual Bluegrass Influence Ball Roll Behavior?

Rana

Askew

2018

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weedy annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) has long been presumed to affect ball roll. However, no peer‐reviewed research has evaluated the impact of annual bluegrass or other putting green surface anomalies on ball roll direction. Results to date suggest that several sources of error must be controlled before influence of annual bluegrass on ball directional imprecision can be measured. By using a mechanical putter to avoid directional errors associated with simulated putt devices, selecting balanced golf balls, eliminating legacy effects of repeated ball rolls, and scoring ball direction 30 cm before terminal motion, we were able to limit ball directional imprecision to 4.9 mm m−1 on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) greens. When a mechanical putter was used to putt balls across 200 transects spanning eight greens at two Virginia golf courses, directional imprecision of ball roll increased from 4.9 mm m−1 on visibly pure creeping bentgrass to 13 mm m−1 when the balls traversed a small patch of annual bluegrass. Directional imprecision of balls rolled by the Greenstester was independent of annual bluegrass presence and ranged from 16 to 17 mm m−1. Ball bounce and acceleration was measured using a high‐speed camera and object‐tracking software. Annual bluegrass did not influence ball acceleration, but when balls were rolling over annual bluegrass or for the first decimeter after encountering annual bluegrass, ball bounce area was significantly increased. The increased ball bounce was presumably due to textural differences between annual bluegrass and creeping bentgrass and could have contributed to increased ball directional imprecision.

show abstract