[George Pazin]

And who said Ben Crenshaw is going to three putt more than you on highly contoured greens?

Disproportionately more. That's what I said, and what you and the others on your side have said as well. If not exactly, that's certainly what you imply. You imply that Ben will go from zero 3 putts to 2 or 4 or whatever, while I will hold relatively steady.

I'm guessing you've never seen either of us putt in person.

 

Sully -

Nothing I love more than made up stats to back up a position!

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Well I don't know exactly what you mean by "disproportionately more", but my position has been pretty clearly and simply laid out today - and several times before.  Choose to disagree, as I say - and that's fine.  But again, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.

As for making up stats to support an argument, well... I'm just giving an example of how I think it would work out.  You're free to disagree with that as well.  But again, it just helps to make sure we're talking about the same things.

TH

ps - I have not seen either you or Crenshaw putt obviously, but I have seen how this plays out at Pasa.  And I continue to believe I am right about this.  But again, reasonable minds will differ.

[George Pazin]

Love the hypothetical guesses.

You consider 35 to be a bad amateur putter on what I'm assuming are relatively bland greens? And this same guy is only increasing to 39 at Pasa, where you and others have boasted of endless putting?

That tells me all I need to know.

We're waaaaaaaaay past agreeing to disagree. I think we need to agree that the other guy is so far gone as to be unfindable.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

I've seen it in action at Pasa.  Have you seen this play out?

And note that my take there is based on normal pins, not the crazy ones they can use which make for the endless putting.  If they use those, the numbers go up for both Crenshaw and the amateur... with the most telling thing being that after the first putt (if missed) both Ben and Am are putting from the same place anyway due to gravity.

If that doesn't prove my point, nothing will.  Two putts that miss the hole end up in the same place, no matter how well they are struck.

BTW I don't think you're far gone at all - I just do believe that as some others are, you are selling short the skill of the good putter on flat putts, and overstating the effects of contour on the bad putter.  Again, we can disagree about that - that is just fine.

TH

[George Pazin]

I'm just needling you on the made up stat-thing - I know it is to illustrate your position, not support it. (I'm not sure about Rich, however.... )

And I've seen lousy putters throw up more than 35 putts on my home muni, I'm guessing they'll have a handful of pickups on tough greens.

[Tom Huckaby]

George - very well.  I can accept the needle.

 

I too have seen lousy putters throw out well more than 35 putts on relatively easy greens - I'm just trying to illustrate an average.

My tournament group tracks putts - prizes are given for the low and a booby-prize is given for high.  Now of course none of us are pros, but when we play flat greens, a low handicapper nearly always wins, with something like 24-27 putts.  The loser rarely goes over 38 or so.  When we play highly contoured greens, the winner rarely gets below 32... and the loser seems to get to 40, but rarely more than that.  So again, the disparity is lower at the flat greens.  Now I know a lot of logic flies in the face of it working out this way, but I really do think it comes down to highly contoured greens leaving all misses in pretty much the same place, at least many times.

Perhaps my group has overly clouded my take here... but the example is powerful, for me anyway.

TH

[George Pazin]

Well, it's nice to have a real world example, even it's a small sample size. I'd have to know a lot more about the golfers and the courses before I accepted it as proof, however.

I don't think I can really say much more to illustrate my side, so I'll bow out from here - reserving the right to rebutt, of course!

[Tom Huckaby]

Well, it's nice to have a real world example, even it's a small sample size. I'd have to know a lot more about the golfers and the courses before I accepted it as proof, however.

I don't think I can really say much more to illustrate my side, so I'll bow out from here - reserving the right to rebutt, of course!

That's cool.  I doubt this topic will ever really end.

And of course my sample gives no proof... I'm just trying to get you to understand why I've adopted a position you find so preposterous.  Simple logic (as Jeff puts it) combined with a real world example is a powerful thing.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

Sully - I doubt Mike Nuzzo meant those as real numbers - note the smilies.

How's this for a real estimate though:

San Jose Muni (flat greens, easy course, take my word for it):

Ben Crenshaw - 26 putts at most.
Bad amateur putter - 35 putts at least.

Pasatiempo (highly contoured greens, sometimes absurd pin placements):

Ben Crenshaw - 31 putts at least.
Bad putter - 39 putts at most.

Thus 9 v. 8.  And I really do think that's how it would tend to work out.  I've seen it in action at Pasa.  Let's just say if the pins are silly enough, it becomes worse for Ben... while the am eventually gets it in pretty much the same... as all misses roll to pretty much the same spot.

TH

Whoa, Tom!  Ben Freaking Crenshaw gets AT LEAST 5 putts worse at Pasa, and I only get 5 or so worse?  39 putts at worst?   Heck, if Crenshaw gets 5 worse, why wouldn't I get way worse than that?  He gets worse faster than I do?

39 putts is 2 putts per green and 3 three putts; a bad putter has 3 three putts on easy greens!  If the bad putter goes to a few more three putts PLUS adds a 4 putt or two, he's WAAAAY over 40 putts for the round with the contours.

You don't play with enough bad putters, Tom.  Bad means bad.  Monday I played in a scramble; our D player (20 handicap) sliced every putt AND couldn't get the speed OR hit the line!  After awhile, I stopped watching his putt at all.  I guarantee you he takes 40 putts easy on his own ball, maybe a lot more.  These were on pretty flat Fazio greens at White Columns; at a Strantz course or a Dye course he would have lost his ball several times!

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC:

Try to think of this in terms of not so much the raw numbers, but how they happen.

You and Crenshaw each face a putt from 30 feet that you each miss.  Crenshaw shave the hole, you miss wildly.  Each putt keeps rolling and due to gravity ends up at the same place!  So how is Ben any better than you, in this instance?  You both keep going until you make the putt.  He does so in fewer strokes overall... but not like he would on flat greens.

That's what it comes down to.  I know the numbers seem odd - hell they do fly in the face of some logic.  But golf does not conform to logic absolutely.

And please, I play with some truly awful putters... and my example of my tournament group holds true.

TH

[George Pazin]

You and Crenshaw each face a putt from 30 feet that you each miss.  Crenshaw shave the hole, you miss wildly.  Each putt keeps rolling and due to gravity ends up at the same place!

This perfectly illustrates the disconnect.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Why?  You can't imagine this?

I've seen it happen.  One putt gets struck way better, with way more skill... and the two balls end up in the same place.

It happens... on highly contoured greens.  Missed putts just gravitate to the common low point.

TH

[JSlonis]

George:

Why?  You can't imagine this?

I've seen it happen.  One putt gets struck way better, with way more skill... and the two balls end up in the same place.

It happens... on highly contoured greens.  Missed putts just gravitate to the common low point.

TH

The common low point??  In my example, I used Pine Valley & Merion, two courses with quick, highly contoured greens.  Neither of which you'll find too many common low points.  Only with the most goofy hole locations, would you see a decent putt and a lousy putt end up in the same spot. A good putter will keep the ball around the hole, it might trickle to 5-6 feet sometimes, but the poor putters "common low point" could very well be totally OFF the green in some cases.  I've played Pine Valley with a couple members of my local club.  I'd say they were average ballstrikers but they weren't particularly good putters, neither of them could sniff 39 putts.  If it weren't for a few "pick em' ups"...we may still be there.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
In some extreme (VERY extreme) hole locations, Crenshaw and I might end up at the same place; I've seen that happen too.  But he'll make the next putt back up the hill because it will be more or less straight and he'll get the speed righ, and mine will roll back to my feet at least once more if the putt was that tough in the first place.

More likely, my first putt rolls off, and his first putt is on a line that lags up safely.  He isn't trying to make it the first one, then taps in.  Meanwhile, I'm 10 feet away, hoping to get down in two more.

There is just no way a tougher green cuts down the difference between me and Ben Crenshaw; it will highlight how good he is every single time.  Think Augusta...

[JSlonis]

AG,

Face it, we are not going to convert those on the "dark side".

No matter how great our thinking may be, or how well we explain our side of the story, we will never get them to see the light.  It is a lost cause, kaput, end of story.

But it's still fun to try...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Agree to disagree.  I have taken all of that into consideration, and I just plain disagree.  And remember, I have seen this play out at Pasatiempo, whose greens make NGLA's look positively tame.

Tom Huckaby,

I doubt you've putted on highly contoured greens that stimp at 11-13, under tournament conditions.

I doubt that most bad putters have ever experienced anything like highly contoured, firm and fast greens at high speeds.

I have seen good to great players interface with those surfaces and the poorer putter doesn't pick up an edge.

It's just the opposite.

And, after a few holes, any confidence they might have had is completely shattered.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGC:

Suffice to say I continue to disagree.  I don't see the volume of 3 and 4putts that you guys do, and I think you sell short the number of made first putts by the better putter on flat greens.

Now ask yourself, who would you really rather have on your side in this?

Tom Huckaby,

The best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour Pros were only
50-50 from six (6) feet during many U.S. Opens.

Another statistic was that they were only 10 % from 20 feet.

So, I think we can discount your statements with respect to how efficient great, let alone good putters are.


AGCrockett,

Huckaby will never concede that his argument is flawed and his conclusions erroneous, but, you and I know better.

[Tom Huckaby]

Nice try gents, but none of you have swayed me one bit.  I understand Jeff's simple logic, and I feel for you that you can't.  I've also seen it play out, which helps.  Enjoy the theories... I'll deal with what my own eyes tell me.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGCrockett,

That's tantamount to a concession, and, we accept

[Doug Sobieski]

Even after many years of this thread, I still can't believe anyone can say that a good putter's advantage decreases on contoured greens. That may be the single most absurd position I've seen in almost 7 years following this site since it started.

Depending upon how much I play, I fluctuate on either side of scratch, and the putter has always been my strong suit. I may be the worst ball striker to ever hit a green in regulation. But when I go play places with highly contoured greens, I end up giving my buddies 2 or 3 shots A SIDE more than their handicap entitles them to. Otherwise, it's not competitive.

Take Arcadia Bluffs, for example. Go talk to the guys in the golf shop, and they'll tell you about the impact the greens have on pace of play. Many groups will have a couple players with 40+ putts! Why is it that when I go there, there is no difference in the typical number of putts I will have? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS IF YOU THINK MY ADVANTAGE ERODES AT A PLACE LIKE THAT!!!! If my advantage decreased, how can I continue to give my friends more shots than their handicaps allow, and still continue to beat them? I will frequently post a number that is one of my lowest differentials, while they struggle to shoot within 10 shots of their handicap. C'mon, I doubt I'm that exceptional. As a matter of fact, I know I suck. I'm the shortest, most crooked driver of the golf ball on the planet. But when the greens get interesting, I am going to beat my buddies (all mid- to low-single digits) like rented mules.

C'mon, people!!! Huckaby, you are insane. You claim to have seen it with your own eyes. I see it play out regularly in my wallet  

[JESII]

Huck,

Has it occurred to you in your tournament group example that those players (low putts and high putts) are not starting each green in the same location? Inevitably, the player with the least putts in a group like that (what 20 players? Maybe more) hits a fairly low number of greens and is able to chip and pitch to decent spots to putt from. What you are witnessing in that group is totally irrelevant to this conversation because it takes the players entire game into consideration as opposed to just putting.

Just a thought.

[Tom Huckaby]

Doug:

It's far from absurd, and it's not just me who sees the simple logic.  Each of Jeff Brauer, Mike Nuzzo, Rich Goodale and yes, Pete Dye see how this plays out.  I'd try to explain it again, for the 100th time, but you won't believe it, so let's just agree to disagree.  Just easy on the exclamations, OK.  I really do believe it plays out this way.  It is far from absurd.

Patrick:

If that's a concession, thank God you don't run our military.  

Sully:

Yes, I understand that.  I still think it plays out like I've said.  The example from my tournament group is far from perfect, but I just gave it so that George - who demanded facts - had something he could at least try to understand.

All of you seem incapable of grasping how golf can be different from all other sports - how a task that's more difficult can possibly favor the lesser player.  Why is that so hard?  Golf is different from other sports in SO many ways, why should this surprise you?  And why does it work out this way?

It comes down - once again - to how golf is measured.  It's not how close you get it to the hole, it's how many strokes are recorded.

Try this:

Two players putting from 25 feet.  One shaves the hole, leaves it on the lip, taps in.  One misses by 4 feet, never coming close to the hole - then makes the second putt.

Who is the better player?

By the way you guys are thinking about this, the first player is necessarily better.  And if we are basing it on style points, he is.

But golf isn't measured by style points.  It's measured by strokes.  Unbelievably, against all logic, the two players are EQUAL.

And that's the basis for why this all plays out as Jeff, Rich, Mike and I have tried to explain.

I understand you don't buy it.  I can live with that.  It comes down to you underselling (as I see it) the skill of the better player on flat putts, and overselling (as I see it) the horrific effects of contour on the bad putter.  We can and do disagree about that.

But our position is FAR from absurd.  It actually makes a lot of sense.

And it comes down to the oddity of a sport where a 2 inch putt also counts the exact same as a 325 yard drive.  That's pretty damn illogical also.  But that's golf.

TH

[JESII]

Tom,

If this discussion is bothering you and you'd prefer the "agree to disagree" route, fine. But I'd like to explore this a bit further if that's OK.

By the way, I am not viewing it in style points I am viewing as you are, in a total putts perspective. that's the only way.

I may well be underselling the better putter, but the Tour stats are not usually as strong as what you suggest. And yo are the one that just conceded every four footer to this mediocre putter. That's the stretch I can't swallow. In every example you guys give the lesser putter seems to overachieve on "second" putts. That's the divide here.

Because the lesser putter leaves their first putts further from the hole and are still lesser putters when it comes time to hole out that putt, the percentages of them missing that one are higher. That is where the exponential nature of the better putters advantage on tough greens comes into play. It's the second and third putts that will be missed.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully - heck I'm happy to keep exploring this - it's only been going on for nearly two years now.    It's people calling our position "absurd" and the like that has me semi-rankled.  It's far from absurd.

So in answer to your questions - obviously my example is just one scenario.  Of course it won't take place EVERY time.  And it's also just a means to get you guys thinking... which seems to succeed, with you anyway.  

Re the tour stats that Patrick quoted - remember those aren't all flat putts.  But more importantly, ask yourself this:  on highly contoured greens, what are even the good putters going to have a lot of for 2nd putts?  Six footers.

So they are going to miss their share of 2nd putts also... by your own reckoning no?

In any case I don't see the lesser putter overachieving.  Heck he's gonna three-wack from time to time on flat putts also.  I just don't see him having the disasters - four and five putts - on contoured greens that would seem to be required for you guys to be correct.

TH

[JESII]

TH,

Let's use 18 as a base line for total putts, and use a putts per hole number as the score, and 20 feet as the distance on both types of greens.

FLAT GREEN:
I cannot see the Tour player doing better than 6 one putts and 12 two putts. That means 1.67.

I see the mediocre putter making as many as they three putt. Is that unrealistic? Score 2.00

DIFFERENTIAL OF .33

CONTOURED GREEN:
Tour players do not three putt from 20 feet very often, and they do make some. Go with 4 makes and 1 three putt for a score of 1.85.

Mediocre putter will three putt this often and make very, very few. Give them 1 make and 9 three putts. for a score of 2.40

DIFFERENTIAL OF .55


Which of those scenarios do you disagree with?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()