Comparing Three Methods to Measure Putting Green Trueness

Abstract

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.