| |
| DOI: | 10.2134/itsrj2016.05.0332 |
|---|
| Web URL(s): | https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/its/articles/13/1/264
Last checked: 10/11/2019
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Refereed |
|---|
| Author(s): | Linde, Douglas T.;
Mitchell, Andrew D.;
Hannan, Brendan |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Linde: Plant Science Dep., Delaware Valley Univ., Doylestown, PA; Mitchell and Hannan: New Zealand Sports Turf Institute, Palmerston North, NZ |
|---|
| Title: | Comparing three methods to measure putting green trueness |
|---|
| Section: | Establishment and maintenance
Other records with the "Establishment and maintenance" Section
|
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | New Brunswick, New Jersey: July 16-21, 2017 |
|---|
| Source: | International Turfgrass Society Research Journal. Vol. 13, 2017, p. 1-11. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | s.l.: International Turfgrass Society |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 11 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Comparisons; Golf greens; Methodology; Surface evenness tests
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "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." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 22 |
|---|
| Note: | TIC-hosted web link available 2 years after publication date.
Pictures, color
Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Linde, D. T., A. D. Mitchell, and B. Hannan. 2017. Comparing three methods to measure putting green trueness. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 13:p. 1-11. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=287780 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 287780. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| DOI: 10.2134/itsrj2016.05.0332 |
| Web URL(s):
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/its/articles/13/1/264
Last checked: 10/11/2019
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website |
| 
MSU catalog number: b2394179 |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
