Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[JESII]

Damn, what is the penalty for prematurely picking up a misunderstood concession when your opponent pulls the rug out from under you?

To let you off the hook, I must allow that you are overestimating Ben's prowess on flat putts, and underestimating it on highly contoured.

[DMoriarty]

Anything that makes the game more difficult affects the lesser player more than the better player.

Not true, George

Bunkers at 280 off the tee have virtually no effect on the average player.

 Bunkers at 280 (or 250 or 310) have a profound effect on the average player, on their second or third shots.  In contrast, the better player generally has much more control of their distance, and will either hit over or lay up with not much chance of trouble at all.  

The above is a perfect example of why better players ought to leave golf design to the hacks, or at least gain a better understanding of their perspective.   So is your theory expressed in this thread.   Go play on tough greens with someone who is off their putting game and tell me you still believe this hypothetical mumbo jumbo.   I've rarely seen a bad putters putt off flat greens.   The same cannot be said of a bad putters on contoured greens.  

Tom H.  

So difficult greens lessen the gap between the Scratch and a Bogey?   This explains alot about how slopes are determined in Ca.

[THuckaby2]

[Tom H.  

So difficult greens lessen the gap between the Scratch and a Bogey?   This explains alot about how slopes are determined in Ca.

Dave M.  That is obviously not the case.  In fact it's the opposite.  Bogey gets a +1 on severe contour where the scratch does not.

Which of course flies right in the face of my contentions here, so I am most definitely CAUGHT.

Well done.  You ought to be a lawyer.

My only possible retort:  I love the course rating system and do believe in it completely... but I never said it was PERFECT.  This is an area where if I were Course Rating Czar I would make a change.  Oh, I wouldn't reverse the direction of the adjustment... but I would eliminate the +1 we give.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Michael W-P and JES:

Great stuff, I do appreciate the sentiment.  And here's another concession:  my knowledge of how great putters like Ben work is rudimentary at best.  If indeed they are not as great on flat putts, and better on contour, than I think....

Well then pick it up both of you, it's good.  Huckaby goes to the 2nd tee one down.

 

One thing though:  I know a LOT LOT LOT about bad putters.

TH

[JESII]

Tom

You're the best.

[THuckaby2]

JES:  thanks man, right back at ya.

I do still want to see this proven somehow, though!

 

[JESII]

There goes the rug again...

[THuckaby2]

No no, the rug remains in place.  I trust you guys.  Really I do.  Just remember how my name fits into the New Testament... I have always been quite the doubting Thomas... but I shall not deny you guys thrice before the cock crows twice....

Why is it that I have always loved that verse?

 

[George Pazin]

One thing though:  I know a LOT LOT LOT about bad putters.

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly DON'T!

And you didn't convince AG of anything, as evinced by his post above. That is sarcasm, not acceptance.

The notion that contours will have a more deleterious effect on Ben than me, relative or otherwise, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen on this site. Just think about it for awhile.If you think you are not going to 4 putt a lot of greens at ANGC, you are either wrong, or you are not a bad putter.

[ForkaB]

Anything that makes the game more difficult affects the lesser player more than the better player.

Not true, George

Bunkers at 280 off the tee have virtually no effect on the average player.

 Bunkers at 280 (or 250 or 310) have a profound effect on the average player, on their second or third shots.  In contrast, the better player generally has much more control of their distance, and will either hit over or lay up with not much chance of trouble at all.  

The above is a perfect example of why better players ought to leave golf design to the hacks, or at least gain a better understanding of their perspective.   So is your theory expressed in this thread.   Go play on tough greens with someone who is off their putting game and tell me you still believe this hypothetical mumbo jumbo.   I've rarely seen a bad putters putt off flat greens.   The same cannot be said of a bad putters on contoured greens.  

Tom H.  

So difficult greens lessen the gap between the Scratch and a Bogey?   This explains alot about how slopes are determined in Ca.

Dave, you have to be an awful lot worse than an "average" player to worry about bunkers at 280 for your 2nd or 3rd shots.  Try again.

PS--Just because I say something doesn't mean you have to disagree with it, or maybe it does......

[THuckaby2]

One thing though:  I know a LOT LOT LOT about bad putters.

I hate to break it to you, but you clearly DON'T!

And you didn't convince AG of anything, as evinced by his post above. That is sarcasm, not acceptance.

The notion that contours will have a more deleterious effect on Ben than me, relative or otherwise, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen on this site. Just think about it for awhile.If you think you are not going to 4 putt a lot of greens at ANGC, you are either wrong, or you are not a bad putter.

George, now please.  Here we had come to a peaceful acceptance, and you call this the dumbest thing ever posted on this site?  Come on, that's not true, not even close.  Remember all the lunacy posted on here from time to time.

And you have no clue about my history if you think I have no knowledge of bad putters.  I have been one, am still at times but more importantly play 95% of my golf with partners of such ilk.  Careful with the assumptions, my friend.

In any case, it does come down to how JES and I settled it.  I do think that the great putters are VERY good on flat greens and closer to mortals on contour, for many reasons.  I could well have this wrong and given those guys have personal access to putters like Crenshaw that I can never have, I am willing to punt and concede this to them.

But if I have it right, well then the theory holds.  It remains far from dumb.  It could well be based in lack of information, sure.  But it is not dumb.

You know what's a new contender for the dumbest thing ever posted on here?  Your statement.  But of course I'd never say that, I'm not into casting aspersions.

 

[JSlonis]

I know I'm late to this party, BUT...

For those of you that are trying to argue "that highly contoured(ie:more difficult) greens favor bad putters"...

would you also try to argue that...

A hole like the 17th at TPC Sawgrass would tend to favor poor iron players.

In a relative sense, you are agreeing with the statement I made above.

JES II has stated numerous times...Increased difficulty would tend to widen the gap between a skilled player and a poor player, not make them closer.

[THuckaby2]

Jamie:

That's a leap of logic that none of us are trying to make, not even close.  We are also not taking this to any general levels, just leaving it at the very odd specific re putting.

If you care to read 12 pages of some pretty entertaining drivel (if I do say so myself) then you would see this.

It's a very interesting theory.  Having conceded based on lack of facts to JES, I will say no more.

But it is all in there if you care for some entertainment.  Note I didn't say enlightenment.  Oh, I'd hope for that, but I make no assumptions.

 

[George Pazin]

Rich -

Re: your little example -

First of all, Dave is right about average golfers having to confront this on 2nd or 3rd shots. You clearly don't know many average golfers. We hit the ball all over the place, at all sorts of inconvenient times.

Second, bunkers placed at 280 are usually placed at 280 for the back markers. They are usually 180-240 from various forward markers.

If you wish to continue with this particular silly example, I will concede that you can create specific features that will only penalize the better player. An easy one: make it a 250 yard carry to reach the fairway from the back tee, and then place the forward markers right up at the fairway, or maybe 20 yards back. So what? So this trivial example is supposed to negate the silliness of Ben struggling with contoured greens? EVERYONE has to play the green, the tees you choose to play are another story entirely.

Huck -

Sorry, the truth hurts in this instance. I honestly can't think of a sillier notion than the idea that contoured greens bring Ben back closer to my level.

Here is a possible way to test the theory, in a different sense:

Take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at any Tour stop with flat speedy greens (the Hope comes to mind) versus the average player that week. Then take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at ANGC during the Masters versus the average entrant. I'm willing to bet the difference is less at the Hope than the Masters. And in this example, we are comparing 150 guys who are all phenomenal putters by normal player standards. The worst Tour pro is a better putter than every average golfer on the planet, no matter what you hear about how bad some pros are at putting. I guarantee you the Scott McCarron with a normal short putter is a better putter than me. He went to the long putter because he was lacking putting skills in a relative sense. You don't get to his level putting like me.

Sorry I dragged this up, but the sooner you abandon your foolish notion the sooner the pain will go away.

 

[ForkaB]

Jamie

You have made the fatal mistake of assuming that something the evil Dr. Moriarty said was relevant to this discussion.  Disregard him in the future, please.  We are not talking about 280 yard bunkers or tee shots to island greens, we are talking about putting.

Until proven otherwise, I will continue to contend that, RELATIVELY, a poorer putter will score better than a good putter on more highly contoured greens.

Let me offer this hypothetical.  I'm playing Crenshaw, and we each end up with 18 8-foot  flat putts.  He'll sink 16 or 17, I'll sink 8 or 9.  Ben is 8 up (counting putts only).  Alternatively, Ben and I end up with 18 25-foot breaking putts.  Ben will sink 3-4 of them with at most one 3-putt.  I'll sink at least one with at most 3-4 3-putts.  Ben is 6 up (counting putts only).  Case closed.

PS--I love how my baby has come to life with such a vengeanc ;)e!

[ForkaB]

Rich -

Re: your little example -

First of all, Dave is right about average golfers having to confront this on 2nd or 3rd shots. You clearly don't know many average golfers. We hit the ball all over the place, at all sorts of inconvenient times.

Second, bunkers placed at 280 are usually placed at 280 for the back markers. They are usually 180-240 from various forward markers.

If you wish to continue with this particular silly example, I will concede that you can create specific features that will only penalize the better player. An easy one: make it a 250 yard carry to reach the fairway from the back tee, and then place the forward markers right up at the fairway, or maybe 20 yards back. So what? So this trivial example is supposed to negate the silliness of Ben struggling with contoured greens? EVERYONE has to play the green, the tees you choose to play are another story entirely.

Huck -

Sorry, the truth hurts in this instance. I honestly can't think of a sillier notion than the idea that contoured greens bring Ben back closer to my level.

Here is a possible way to test the theory, in a different sense:

Take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at any Tour stop with flat speedy greens (the Hope comes to mind) versus the average player that week. Then take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at ANGC during the Masters versus the average entrant. I'm willing to bet the difference is less at the Hope than the Masters. And in this example, we are comparing 150 guys who are all phenomenal putters by normal player standards. The worst Tour pro is a better putter than every average golfer on the planet, no matter what you hear about how bad some pros are at putting. I guarantee you the Scott McCarron with a normal short putter is a better putter than me. He went to the long putter because he was lacking putting skills in a relative sense. You don't get to his level putting like me.

Sorry I dragged this up, but the sooner you abandon your foolish notion the sooner the pain will go away.

 

George

What codswallop!

OK, if you get to play the forward tees (although you tell us you can carry the ball farther than shivas tells us he can.... ), I'm going to let my hypotheical putter move his ball 10 feet closer to the hole on the contoured greens when he is playing Crenshaw.  Speaking of crenshaws, lets compare melons with melons, please.......

[THuckaby2]

George:

Well then I shall have to just disagree.  I still believe this is very far from foolish and absolutely not dumb, but whatever, you can say what you will and there's not much I can do about it.  To me it continues to make very good sense.

As I say, I may overestimate the prowess of great putters on flat greens and underestimate such on contour.  If that is the case the theory fails.  But if I am right about that the theory holds.

So it might be wrong based on misinformation, but again, it is not dumb.  Give me a break.   You can disagree with it, sure.  But that doesn't make the theory a dumb one.

Because the mistake you, and many others here, keep making is that you keep taking it to absurd levels and making leaps of logic and stating contentions that I for one am not trying to state in any way... No, this does not "bring Ben back to your level" - he is always going to be WAY better than you, no matter what.  If my estimations of BEN'S abilities are correct (and remember I am punting on that, I may well have that wrong and trust JES and MWP about it), you are just going to come slightly closer to him in total putts on contoured greens, for the many reasons I've stated, many times.

He's still gonna kick your ass - that is a given.

You just might take one or two putts in total closer to the number he takes, over 18 holes, on the contoured greens.

Dumb?  No way.  There are many reasons why this is actually among the SMARTEST theories ever posted on here.

TH

ps - you may blow right by post #299, in which Rich says:

Until proven otherwise, I will continue to contend that, RELATIVELY, a poorer putter will score better than a good putter on more highly contoured greens.

Let me offer this hypothetical.  I'm playing Crenshaw, and we each end up with 18 8-foot  flat putts.  He'll sink 16 or 17, I'll sink 8 or 9.  Ben is 8 up (counting putts only).  Alternatively, Ben and I end up with 18 25-foot breaking putts.  Ben will sink 3-4 of them with at most one 3-putt.  I'll sink at least one with at most 3-4 3-putts.  Ben is 6 up (counting putts only).  Case closed.

This is my contention as well.  Or WAS, until JES set me straight about Ben's abilities.  If we have Ben's abilities right, this works.  If we don't, it doesn't.  I'm willing to punt that I have Ben's abilities wrong.  Rich may not make this concession.  

[JSlonis]

Tom,

I did read through alot of the pages...

NOW my head hurts.

My statement was strictly to make a point.  Like JES II , MWP, George, etc...I don't understand how making something more difficult, in this specific case, putting, would in any way favor a poor putter in comparison to a skilled putter.

[George Pazin]

Fine, if you are offended with dumb, simply insert misguided. I really don't think you or Rich have the experience with bad putters that you think you do. You are both single digit handicaps.

And I was in fact wrong, at least in one sense - the idea that anyone can create his own ficticious numbers to provide the evidence to support a theory is far sillier than the actual theory itself.

Ask Jeff Brauer about his putting experience at Oakmont sometime.

[THuckaby2]

Jamie:

Read post #299, or the one I just did in which I quote Rich.  That states the contention far better than any of my drivel.

Now we may have Ben's abilities miscalculated, but if we don't, the theory holds.

And in no way do we take this beyond the specific putting example.  It also should not be generalized on the skill level - that too has been covered.  

But since this is a fun thing to do... riddle me this:  in golf, is SKILL ALWAYS PERFECTLY REWARDED?

TH

[George Pazin]

Jamie -

It's pretty tough arguing with people who make up numbers and then use them as evidence to support their theory, no?

[THuckaby2]

Fine, if you are offended with dumb, simply insert misguided. I really don't think you or Rich have the experience with bad putters that you think you do. You are both single digit handicaps.

And I was in fact wrong, at least in one sense - the idea that anyone can create his own ficticious numbers to provide the evidence to support a theory is far sillier than the actual theory itself.

Ask Jeff Brauer about his putting experience at Oakmont sometime.

George:  being a single digit player makes me somehow unqualified to assess poor putting?  Now we have a new leader in the "misguided" statement category.  

Please.  I play nearly all of my golf with players over 15 handicap.  You think I have my eyes closed?

And you also assume that being a single digit somehow makes me a GOOD putter?  Good lord how I wish that were true....

As for the rest, the numbers were cited just as a way of explanation.  Go read Rich's hypo in #299, or my recent quote of it.  That is the contention.  The numbers are not meant to be "evidence", they just illustrate the contention numerically.  And my explanation to Jamie fleshes it out, hopefully.

You can choose to disagree, fine.  

TH

[JSlonis]

From what I have witnessed in putting over the years, here are a few thoughts that you may or may not agree with:

Good putters tend to have- good mechanics, good feel/touch, confidence, and the ability to read greens well.

Poor putters tend to have- poor mechanics, poor feel, lack confidence, and do not read greens as well.

In my understanding of specifically PUTTING, given what I have stated above, I fail to see how the increased difficulty of contoured greens would favor a less skilled putter.  I can't break it down into more simpler terms.  More difficult conditions would increasingly affect negatively, the overall performance of the less skilled putter.

That's my Theory...and I'm stickin' to it.

In this theory, are we talking about highly contoured greens that also have a fairly fast pace or are we talking about slower greens with contour?

[ForkaB]

Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.

Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004).  Full complement of fielders, batting practice pitcher.  The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings.  Barry probably hits .860.  I hit .160 it I'm lucky.  Barry leads by .700.  Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson.  Barry hits .340.  I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line).  Barry leads by .320.

So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .380.  Is this too hard to understand?

[THuckaby2]

Jamie:

That's a darn good theory.  And I agree with every word of it.  It makes perfect sense.

Ah... but here's the rub... one can buy all of that, and still maintain that IN TERMS OF TOTAL PUTTS HOLED bad putters come closer to good putters on highly contoured greens.  We've tried to explain why.  To me the explanations are good.  Basically it boils down to putts made as the indicator (instead of how close they get to the hole)... and it's really not all that complex....

But it's all here, in any case.  It's ok if you missed it.  Being expected to read 12 pages of theory and arguing and childish drivel is beyond the pale without a doubt.

TH