Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[JESII]

JES:

But I also don't see that it matters too much.


I also don't see Lou four-putting enough to make this relevant....

TH

I guess it must be hard to understand that which you cannot see.

Any chance you have an answer to my question from about 15 posts back, I believe it was my first on this thread.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom,
Post # 358
I am obviously wasting my time trying to guide you into the light...please dont gamble any money on your fragile belief here.

[THuckaby2]

JES:

I am not trying to be difficult.  I am smiling as I type this, and mean no offense.  I also believe I have answered all of your questions... But if you care to repeat and point out to me what you believe I missed, I will try again.  I'll likely point you to a post I already did as well and we can continue this dance, but hey, swing your partner...  

If this is the question you mean:

"So Tom, are you saying that Lou will fare better than Ben on those second putts when he is further away from the hole after their first putts?"

Then look at the post right after that one... asked and answered, as they say in a court...

TH

[THuckaby2]

Jim, a) I don't gamble on any BS discussed in here; and
b) there is no post #358.

Hey, I want to answer all questions, it's just polite to do so.  My apologies if I failed to do so before.

TH

[JESII]

I'd be curious to hear if there is one other scenario in the entire realm of human endeavor in which a less skilled participant will "gain ground" on the more skilled as the conditions increase in difficulty, or is putting the only one.

This one Tom.

...and circle to the right...

[Jason Topp]

There is an easy way to solve this.  Test it at the next gathering.  Have a putting contest with 9 flat holes and 9 sloped holes and see if the spread between the good and bad scores increases or decreases.

[THuckaby2]

I'd be curious to hear if there is one other scenario in the entire realm of human endeavor in which a less skilled participant will "gain ground" on the more skilled as the conditions increase in difficulty, or is putting the only one.

This one Tom.

...and circle to the right...

Circle to the right?  Gonna have to explain this.

And I did answer this question.  Post #249.  Bottom of page 10.  The point is this isn't a true revealer of skill - total distance from the hole would reveal that.  Ben's skill advantage is negated by the very nature of golf, in that 2 putts equals 2 putts, 3 equals 3, etc.  Or do you think your skillful par earned by splitting the fairway, lacing a 2iron to 20 feet and two putting is somehow better than my skulled drive, topped 3wood, 3wood to the edge of the green and chip in?

 

TH

[JESII]

Tom,

I did not mention total golf skill at all, and frankly was not even thinking it. I was wondering what other activity in the world enables the lesser participant to gain on the superior as the conditions of their activity increase in difficulty.

This question is based on your premise that the difference in total putts from identicle points on the green is lower on the highly contoured green than it is on the flat green. If I have this premise wrong, please feel free to clarify.

The "...circle to the right..." line was in response to your "swing your partner" quote which I assumed was a dance instruction. Oh well.

[JESII]

Tom

In looking a little deeper at your post #249, I see you are somehow making the case that "skill" is not a consideration on the second putts, only the first. Why is that?

[THuckaby2]

JES:

Aha!  Been a long time since I have actually square-danced.  Sorry for missing that.  

As for the rest, it's gotten so convoluted that you have lost me.  I don't know what you are asking, to be perfectly honest.  

In any case, I do think you have my premise wrong.  I am assuming the test comes on putts from many different spots on many different greens, not just putt after putt from the two same spots.  Maybe this helps, maybe not.  I will confess that what seemed simple to me now seems really convoluted.

18 greens putted, various distances.

Ben:  24 total putts on flat greens, 29 on contoured.
Lou:  29 on flat, 35 on contoured.

5 is less than 6.

It need not be more complex than that.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

This thread reminds me of "Argument Clinic" by Monty Python...
-This isn't an argument!
Yes, it is!
-No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
-This is mere contradiction...
No, it isn't!
-Yes, it is, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to make a point, it isn't the mere naysaying of whatever I say..
Yes, it is!
-No, it isn't!

Anywho, I would say that highly contoured greens DO NOT favor bad putters, almost categorically. On a perfectly flat green, the bad putter has to worry about two things: Speed and solid contact.

On a contoured green, break is added to the mixture. I would argue that most bad putters are also bad at reading greens, or more accurately their skill in reading greens is negated by poor mechanics (My opinion really, and from watching people play for a few years, any evidence countering this would be appreciated).

"Now, Promenade!"

[THuckaby2]

Tom

In looking a little deeper at your post #249, I see you are somehow making the case that "skill" is not a consideration on the second putts, only the first. Why is that?

I am not making this case.  Why do you jump to these generalities and the like?  Please, such a case is basically logically wrong, so of course I would not make it.  I implore you to give me a little benefit of the doubt.  I swear to you I do have some intelligence, Jim.  Don't listen to Lou.  

I am simply saying that put them on difficult enough second putts (those with a little distance and a little contour), and Ben is going to miss a few where LOU DOES ALSO.  So 2 equals 2.  Oh Ben will look better doing it, for sure.  But a miss is a miss.

Skill is a consideration.  Ben does come closer.  But a miss is a miss.

TH

[Lou_Duran]

TH,

I was not questioning your or Rihc's intelligence.  Both of you are beyond reproach on this dimension.  I was just noting the counterintuitive phenomenom that really smart people can sometimes be so utterly wrong.  This just happens to be one of those times.

Look at Ben's history at the Masters.  Do you not think that he can handle those big breakers?  In contrast, think of all the whining I did about Black Mesa's greens.  Now, you don't think that I bitched because I putted them so well, do you?

Most poor putters don't like heavily contoured and fast greens.  It is the main reason why my ex-club seldom let the speeds get up to above 9 on Brauer's ridiculously sloped greens.  The high-handicappers would bitch and it would take all day to play.  The best players typically complained about the greens being too slow.

[THuckaby2]

Kyle:

I love ya man, but you are way behind on this - that was covered on page one.  

I now officially HATE George Pazin for bringing this thread back to life.  Man I went through hell trying to convince AG Crockett, who was just as skeptical as Michael W-P and JES are today, and he did come around.  It's all there on pages 8-9 or so.

Patient me, here I go again.... but George is gonna pay for this.

 

[JESII]

Huck

I know what you mean, but re-check your math in post #269.

[THuckaby2]

TH,

I was not questioning your or Rihc's intelligence.  Both of you are beyond reproach on this dimension.  I was just noting the counterintuitive phenomenom that really smart people can sometimes be so utterly wrong.  This just happens to be one of those times.

Look at Ben's history at the Masters.  Do you not think that he can handle those big breakers?  In contrast, think of all the whining I did about Black Mesa's greens.  Now, you don't think that I bitched because I putted them so well, do you?

Most poor putters don't like heavily contoured and fast greens.  It is the main reason why my ex-club seldom let the speeds get up to above 9 on Brauer's ridiculously sloped greens.  The high-handicappers would bitch and it would take all day to play.  The best players typically complained about the greens being too slow.

Lou:

Thanks.  The problem is, we're not wrong.

You keep missing the point... I am not saying Ben can't handle big breakers - of course he can.  He just WILL three-putt from time to time (his Masters record shows this).  He WILL tie you a tiny bit more on those putts, such that the difference between you is greater on the flat ones.

Yes, whining did occur at Black Mesa's greens.  But how many putts did you have?  I'd be shocked if it were over 35.  And if it is, then you are a bad example.  

But perhaps this is the disconnect - we are assuming the bad putter isn't THAT bad - that's why Lou is the example.  Make the bad putter a truly awful one - like my 6 year old son - and of course he's gonna do worse on contoured greens relative to Ben.

My assumption was a certain basic skill level in the "bad" putter.

On the extremes this does fail.

But one could say that about damn near any hypothesis as wacky as this one.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

O.K., I think I've got it now...

Ben Crenshaw is a WAY better putter than I am, UNLESS we play on greens that Crenshaw will find difficult.  Magically, I will NOT find those same greens to be as difficult as BEN FREAKIN' CRENSHAW, at least relative to my normal game.

By extension of this theory, if I can just find greens that are sufficiently difficult, then I will be BETTER than Crenshaw, and will at last be able to contend in a tour event, especially if Rich Goodale is my marker!

Cool!

Of all the threads on God's green earth, I cannot believe that this one ever made it back to the top.  However, see the above, please.

[Kyle Harris]

Huck, et al.,

Does it get more complex than that? I admit I only perused the past dozen pages or so and have Pelz's Putting Bible on my lap right now (Not a fan, but it has some decent data). I would say this argument boils down to "What type of bad putter are we talking about?"

Bad mechanics, bad feel, bad reads
Bad mechanics, good feel, good reads...
Good mechanics, bad feel, good reads...
And all the iterations therein.

I think on a flat green, mechanics is most important with feel being second and reads being negated. On a contoured green, the less tangible skills of feel and reads come more into play, and sometimes bad mechanics can be made up for by the breaks and varying speeds of the green.

[THuckaby2]

AGC:

You think you are in disbelief?  As I say, George Pazin is truly on my shit list.  

Kyle:

It's all in here, it's not complex, I just don't have the strength nor the patience to restate it again.  Your theories are correct.  They just don't account for total putts made.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

No need to restate, just curiosity on my part. I'll look through it more thoroughly, I have a personal interest in this topic as an instructor and teacher.

When I give playing lessons, I try to incorporate as much architecture and strategy into the lesson and focus less on mechanics. This goes into that category for me.

 Mechanics are for the range...

...or Mike Rutherford.

[THuckaby2]

Kyle:

Very cool.  Sorry for the impatience.

And I am about to type something that may well be a first in the august history of this forum:

I could very well have this completely wrong.

 

[JESII]

TH

In post #249 you said:

"Think of this not as the best revealer of skill. For that, one would judge based on total distance from the hole and Ben would prevail.

Golf just doesn't work that way."

Why is total score not the best revealer of skill?
How does golf work? I have unfortunately been under the impression that the people that shoot 72 to my 75 are better "skilled" than me.[/color]

JES:

Maybe this helps:  on the contoured putts, I am envisioning several instances of long ones where they after the first putt, Ben is 8 feet away, Lou is 15.  They both miss, and both tap in the third.  Now Ben was obviously more skillful, but the end result was that 3=3 I wonder if Ben has ever made an 8 footer. I bet he would make moe than half as compared to 0 makes from that 15 feet for Lou.[/color]  Perhaps this would be outweighed by the instances Ben gets it to 2 feet and taps in while Lou gets it to 8 feet and 3jacks, but I don't see that... Remember the assumption also is very highly contoured putts.

TH

[JESII]

Kyle:

Very cool.  Sorry for the impatience.

And I am about to type something that may well be a first in the august history of this forum:

I could very well have this completely wrong.

 

We'll take it and run.

Much like a conceded three footer in an important match, it ain't sittin' there for long.

[THuckaby2]

JES:

Of course bottom line is score.  Remember that request re giving a benefit of the doubt?  Hopefully I won't have to repeat it.  

The point is that if both players miss from any distance, for that one putt they are equals (assuming they tap in the next one).  That's why your questions about "skill" here are invalid, as I see it.

As for your second part in red, well now we are down to brass tacks and come to our disagreement.

Of course Ben is going to make a lot of 8 footers.  Just remember we are talking about 8 footers with contour.  Thus he is going to miss a few also.  My contention remains that their misses will be closer to equal on these than on the flat ones.  That is, Ben will make MORE of the flat ones relative to Lou.  It's going to be close, but that is how I see it.

I expect you disagree with this, which is fine, at least we've come to a point beyond the bs and debate-team rhetoric.

 

TH

ps - re that conceded three-footer, just remember the exact words were I COULD have it wrong.  You'll note I didn't say I DID.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

And so merlin the magician packed up his tools with the understanding that perhaps his first impressions..could..have been wrong..but deep down his mind was still wondering...what if....
Huck..entertaining as ever...your posts are always a source of high value entertainment