[ForkaB]

On another thread, Jeff Brauer implies this is so.  I would tend to agree with him in that flat and straight putts expose weaknesses in the putting stroke better than anything.  The more that contour comes into the equation, the less important the quality of the putting stroke vs. the ability to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green, and to imagine approach putting angles if you miss that spot.  As I think through writing this post, I think that this is a great argument for highly contoured greens, as it (properly, in my opinion) diminishes the relative importance of a grooved putting stroke to golfing importance.

PS--I would also say that the faster the greens the less they favor the putter with the grooved putting stroke.....

PPS--perhaps this goes some way to explaining why JakaB is so enthusiastic about highly countoured/highly "stimped" greens...........

[Tyler Kearns]

Rich,

When putting, regardless of whether the greens are flat or highly contoured, I choose a line and hit it at a desired speed that is suited for the degree of break being played. Some putts are easier than others, but quite honestly, I think more severly sloped greens pose a greater threat to poor putters because the penalty for poorly controlled putts is much higher, especially if the speed is up, amplifying the existing breaks. The contour adds to the fun and challenge of the game, but I do not think it tends to level the playing field.

Tyler Kearns

[Mike_Sweeney]

Rich,

So is your question about "Putters" or "Putting Strokes", because they are two different things.

Good putter have a good putting stroke + an ability to read greens + and ability to execute. I would rather be a good putter, unfortunately that is not the case.

[Brent Hutto]

PS--I would also say that the faster the greens the less they favor the putter with the grooved putting stroke.....

I suppose by "grooved putting stroke" you might include a repeatable one with a loop in it. But anyway, a teaching pro once made a comment in a clinic I attended about Billy Mayfair, the week he beat Tiger in that playoff. The comment was that Mayfair can get by with that loopy stroke cutting across the ball on the very fast greens the Tour players see every week. On slower and/or grainy greens a stroke with a tighter roll on the ball will win out every time.

I think on very fast and true greens the ability to deliver the putter right down the line and square to the target is less important than nerves, touch and ability to read the slope. Slower greens take the nerves out of the equation but add a requirement for getting the ball rolling end over end consistently. Also, some quirky-but-repeatable putting strokes don't scale up well to the length stroke you'd need for a fifty foot uphill putt on a Bermuda green stimping 4 or 5.

So I think I'm disagreeing with you but I'm not sure.

[BCrosby]

It don't think green contouring matters.

To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a good putter is a good putter is a good putter.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

Good putter have a good putting stroke + an ability to read greens + and ability to execute.

So on that three-dimension scale how would you rate your putting? Let's say 0-10 for each dimension with 10 being Ben Crenshaw and 0 being someone who has never played the game.

I'd say my stroke+read+execute rating is 8+1+4 (totals 13 of 30 possible points).

[TEPaul]

I tend to agree with Tyler Kearn's post that highly contoured greens at good speed definitely favor the better putter as they simply take more imagination and concentration to negotiate successfully. I do stress 'at good speed' though. I saw this yesterday on a few greens at Sunnehanna. If you were in what may be termed the wrong place on the green to the particular pin you sort of had to feel the green and particularly the speed as a race driver might feel the limit of adhesion of his car's tires on the track. One putt looked to me like about a 10 foot break but after hitting a few putts I could see it was more like a 30 foot break to execute successfully. I don't know if this involves a grooved putting stroke as much as it involves imagination to sort of "feel the green" and how the ball will react across it.

However, I would stress that the putts I was trying would've been a 10 foot break if the green was at around 9 but it was around 11+ and the break was therefore exaggerated to make around 30 feet necessary. Some might think this is excessive but I feel that type of speed makes putting greens and all their nuances really come alive.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

In general, Yes.

HIGHLY contoured greens imply that the pace of those greens is slower, and I believe that a slower pace provides greater margins of error for poor putters.

If we view good putters as having the skill to read and execute, possessing that vital component, "touch", I think that HIGHLY contoured greens reduce the benefit of touch due to their slower pace, but increase the required reading ability.

Since some golfers with a good putting stroke can be lousy readers, and some bad putters can be good readers it's hard to address the issue without more individual specifics, but, in general, I'd say that the slower pace necessitated by HIGHLY contoured greens favors the poorer putter.

[TEPaul]

redanman;

I don't know how this is confirmable but someone out at Sunnehanna told me that this year Retief Goosen's has 3-putted so few times as to be almost beyond imagination. I guess that might show something really important about putting and success, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

When it comes to highly contoured greens (whether fast or slow but probably more on the faster side) I always liked Ben Crenshaw's advice that the most prudent thing to do is to always take the highest possible line. This was one of the things he mentioned about his success in winning two Masters.
If a tour pro truly concentrates his course management practices on two putting in all cases of longish or difficult putts at the end of the day he'll probably come out a lot better than a tour pro who actually tries to get more aggressive on longish or difficult putts.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't know how this is confirmable but someone out at Sunnehanna told me that this year Retief Goosen's has 3-putted so few times as to be almost beyond imagination. I guess that might show something really important about putting and success, don't you think?

At the American Express tournament I believe he had his third three-putt of 2004. That's out of probably close to 100 rounds played so call it one three-putt every 500+ holes. Having zero three-putts at Shinnecock (wasn't it?) is amazing enough.

[A_Clay_Man]

If one believes awareness is at the crux of things. What does a golfer need to be aware of on flat putting greens?

Since no one will toot my horn, I will do it myself. The hole was the second at SFGC, on the green prior to TD's softening. I was above the hole 30' on the right side, the pin was left front.  I was in a match with the famous Dan King. He had a caddie, I did not. It was for both of us, our virgin treks. After stalking the putt I struck it much to the surprise of the caddie it trickled to within 18 inches. He (caddie) must've not expected me to feel how much of a fall there was. Funny, because the severe elevation was clearly felt on the walk to the ball. Now, There's no way that green was any more severely sloped than the ninth at CPC, is it?

Point being, this softening concept, allows the less aware to benefit from their ignorance. Is that really golf?

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

I did not find on another thread where Jeff implied this, but I don't understand the logic.

The only thing I would agree is that a really good player, who is not a good putter, might see it this way since he feels he is being denied birdies when hitting it to 15 feet, while his weak-hitting opponent who can putt might save some pars.

But put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed.

[ForkaB]

 I believe that a slower pace provides greater margins of error for poor putters.

Pat

I actually believe the opposite, in that the slower the pace the harder one has to swing and the more the imperfect stroke will be penalized.  Poor putters will 3-putt less on slow  greens (flat or contoured), but they will probably make fewer putts.  On the other hand, good putters will make more putts on slower greens, thus giving them an advantage.

The more slope is introduced to greens, the more that reading and imagination come into the equation.  This (relatively) favors the putter with a poorer stroke, all other things being equal.  If you re-read my initial post, you will see that I was talking about the putting stroke, not overall putting (even though the title might have been misleading).

[TEPaul]

"But put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed."

That seems to be a thought that'd be impossible to disagree with.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

Jeff's comment was in the "Better player, Better architect?" thread, on which he concluded:

"My experience is that the pros have some specific things they like to see (ie, I am a bad putter, more contour will make everyone close to my skills) and a few specific "tweaks" like that above."

My "logic" (such as it is, is posted immediately above).

[JakaB]

Rich nailed this one...

I have never been a very good birdie putter but I can make a decent number of par and bogey putts....The great thing about highly contoured fast greens is that you rarely have to make a birdie putt....lag the bird slam the par and pick up the boge....

[ForkaB]

"But put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed."

That seems to be a thought that'd be impossible to disagree with.

...not entirely impossible, Tom and Tom.  See John K's statement above, with which I agree.

[Paul_Turner]

Fast greens expose small twitchy movements in the stroke much more than slow greens...downhill putts are tougher than uphill.

[THuckaby2]

Surprise surprise but I think you are ALL correct.

"Put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed."

Correct - based on total number of putts.  The bad putter will take less putts on flat greens, because reading won't come into it and it's just plain easier to do.

BUT... relative to the good putter, he will actually fare better on contoured greens, because the good putter also won't make many putts, due to the severity involved.  Since no one is making many putts, the bad putter fares "better" relative to the good putter.

So it just depends on your comparison, or what you mean by "fare better."

TH

[Andy Hughes]

BUT... relative to the good putter, he will actually fare better on contoured greens, because the good putter also won't make many putts, due to the severity involved.  Since no one is making many putts, the bad putter fares "better" relative to the good putter.

There may be a couple of exceptions though I suspect?
1. Heavily countoured greens may make three putts far more likely. The better putter will be better equipped to handle that. So while neither may make the first putt, perhaps the better putter will have an easier time of it with the second putt.
2. The better player can leave his ball in better places on countoured greens.  While both players will be playing heavily contoured greens, the better player will be facing easier putts.

Update: D'Oh! Retract, I see Tom H said if both players were putting from the same place for 18 holes. Sorry  

[ForkaB]

Tom H

Exactly!  That's what I was trying to say, which means, of course, that......

.....I completely disagree with the esteemed Mr. Turner.  Slow greens (leading to "bigger" strokes, or shoves, as the case may be....), in fact, expose the poorer, twitchier putter.  Any idiot can make a fast downhill putt if they can find the line.  Only a really good putter can consistently make slow uphill putts, particularly under pressure.

[THuckaby2]

Andy:  the original premise was by Mr. Doak, going off from Rich's topic starter.  I'm just trying to analyze like everyone else here.  

Re your point 1, that will factor into it for sure.  But I just see so many misses by ALL putters, that in the end this still favors the bad putter... On flat no-countour greens, the good putter makes a lot of putts.  The bad putter never does no matter how the greens are.  So again, relative to each other, the bad putter fares better with more contour.  Or at least that's my take!

Rich - concur with you completely, and thus I too have to disagree with Paul.  Sure twitchiness comes into the equation on a quick downhill putt... but again no matter who you are it's gonna be tough to make, and the stroke is so damn small that it's equalized for everyone, methinks.  Make the green slower and quality of stroke then matters MORE, because there's more to it than a tiny tap... AND the putts are more "makeable" for all, so the good putter can be expected to make a few, thus relative to his bad-putting counterpart he fares better, since the bad putter's just going to miss anyway no matter how it is.

This makes perfect sense to me, though I doubt my explanation helps show that!

 

[Doug_Feeney]

The more that contour comes into the equation, the less important the quality of the putting stroke vs. the ability to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green

Whether a putt is 6" or 60' isn't the goal always to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green (often that spot is the hole)?  I believe contours favor good putters because they place a premium on controlling pace, which a bad putter struggles to do.

[Brent Hutto]

Rich,

I think it's a J-shaped curve of speed (or slope) versus putting ability. On my home course which has fairly sloped greens, often with multiple tiers, poorer putters do relatively best when they're Stimping about 8-9 (which is most of the time).

For events where they roll and shaves the greens to get them really fast poor putters three-putt and four-putt constantly whereas the good putters can make the 6-foot comebackers.

However, during transition seasons and other times when they get too slow and grainy the poor putters can not roll the ball on any semblance of their intended line with those big old strokes plus they leave all the uphill putts way short. It is particularly difficult to get a putt from a lower tier onto the next tier up when the greens are a shaggy 6-ish on the Stimpmeter.

So to even out putting between good and poor putters I think you want true-running greens that are moderate speed on sloping greens or reasonably quick speed on flattish greens. Speeding them up into 3-putt land severely screws the poor putters. Slowing them down also hurts the poor putters but not to as great an extent.

Not surprisingly, I like putting on our greens in the winter where they are short poa triv. running true and around 10-ish.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()