technology and putting

[Sam Sikes]

I read a statistic the other day that Phil made something like 84% of his putts from 6-7 feet in 2005.  According to Dave Pelz's research, such success is impossible on the greens.  So my question is:  Has the new ball made putting easier?  Is it more frequently perfectly round?  Is this a factor that has lead lower scores that has been overlooked?

[Brent Hutto]

I read a statistic the other day that Phil made something like 84% of his putts from 6-7 feet in 2005.  According to Dave Pelz's research, such success is impossible on the greens.  So my question is:  Has the new ball made putting easier?  Is it more frequently perfectly round?  Is this a factor that has lead lower scores that has been overlooked?

Sam,

That topic has come up a couple times here over the past year. The ShotLink data makes it very clear that Dave Pelz's putting success numbers no longer apply to Tour caliber players. It isn't the ball, IMO. The greens week in and week out on Tour are absolutely perfect for making 10-footers. There's no way the greens today aren't worlds better than when Pelz was gathering data in the mid-to-late 80's.

I think the other factor is evolution of putting strokes. It used to be (say more than 30 years ago) you needed a little "pop" in your putting stroke to get the ball rolling on slowish, grainy greens. Watch some of the old All-Star Golf or early Shell's WWoG matches. Those greens wouldn't make a decent "first cut" at the Masters nowadays.

Pelz has always preached a wristless, "pop"-less putting stroke that just rocks the shoulders back and forth with a neutral putting setup. In a sense he was ahead of his time because when he first started writing that, it was possible to be an extremely effective putter with the older style putting stroke. Nowadays, anyone who puts wrist action and forearm movement into their putting stroke is going to at best get the sort of results that Pelz graphs in his books. But on perfect greens Stimping 10+ you can absolutely make more putts over time with a pure, dead-hands, Pelz-style back-and-through motion. Since the best players spend all their time putting on nigh-perfect, fast greens that style has superceded the older style and the result is greater success in that important six to ten foot range.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the 5 foot distance was 50-50% for average golfers when he wrote his book, and 6 foot was the average break even for Tour pros.  If we assume Phil is above average with the flat stick, his stat is understandable, but still seemingly a bit high.  It appears that the break even point has gone up to at least 8 feet for the top 10% of the putters on Tour.

I tend to agree with Brent in that the major cause is the greens themselves.  However, Wilson did attempt to market the "True" ball which was suppposedly more round and better balancerd than other balls. They failed to capture much high end ball sales (distance still reigns in sales, I suppose) but its not too much of a stretch to think others adopted that technology and now have rounder balls than ever before, that hold shape better, etc.  

Balls might contribute a percentage point or two to the increased accuracy.

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

It must surely be true that a Tour player switching from a Titleist Tour Balata (wound core) to a ProV1 (solid core) is going to make a few extra putts along the line because the ball isn't lumpy. Something like a True Tour (which I've used BTW and it does roll really nicely) is maybe a little rounder and better balanced than a ProV1. But a ProV1 is much rounder and better balanced than any wound ball.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sam,
Add flatter putts to the mix.

[John Keenan]

Does equipment play a role?

The Yes putter with its groves and the technology that Scotty Cameron applies to matching putters to pros. Quite an advancement from the Bulls Eye of days gone by.

Better greens, coupled with new balls and far better equipment may be the equation for the improvement.

So do these change or impact the intent of the architect who designned the greens? Was the design for a slower green?  A ball that was not true?  

[Jim Nugent]

Can anyone confirm for sure that the statistic about Mickelson's putting is real, and not another urban legend?

[JESII]

He kept his own stats and counted as makes any missed putt that lipped out or hit a spike mark.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

I just don't know when Pelz wrote the book.  I didn't read it until after the advent of the Pro VI, so if the time frame is over 10 years or so then balls may figure into it.

Of course, I would think that if you asked Pelz, he would date Mickelsons improvement to the time he took over as his short game guru, citing technique.  And frankly, I do think technique and stroke are still most of it, followed by greens consistency and then ball consistency.

John,

I doubt the gca considered future technology when grading greens.  First, it can't be predicted, and second, even moreso than relative distance of full shots, the players are under equal conditions when putting.  If they make the putts under whatever conditions, they make the putts.

Beyond that, greens in those days were probably more variable in condition from season to season than they are now.

[Jim Nugent]

Jeff -- it surprises me that average golfers make or made 50% of 5 footers.  I would have expected a lower percentage.  

It SHOCKS me that Mickelson made 84% of 6 or 7 footers over a full year.  Not sure if JES' answer is tongue in cheek, but that kind of explanation makes more sense.  

I used to use an all-shoulder stroke.  Felt it really helped me keep the ball on line.    

[Sam Sikes]

I have to believe that someone putting with a pro v 1 is going to make more putts than with a balata.  And, i happen to think that number is significant, even more so than the improved greens factor.  The ball simply rolls better.  

[George Pazin]

I blame John Kavanaugh for propagating the notion that flatter greens are a better test for pros.

I'd love to see it broken out by tournament.

One of the most amazing things to me about watching the '03 Am at Oakmont was that nobody - and I mean nobody - ever left himself with a tap in, regardless of whether it was for birdie, par, bogey or whatever. In fact, it was rare to see someone leave a putt within 2 feet. More often than not, the first putt was either holed or left 3-4 feet away, and those were either holed or they themselves ran 3 feet by. My money says that Phil doesn't hole 84% of his 6 footers at Oakmont.

So, to summarize, I think it's technology, but it's maintenance and design technology, not implements and balls.

[JESII]

John,

I doubt the gca considered future technology when grading greens.  First, it can't be predicted, and second, even moreso than relative distance of full shots, the players are under equal conditions when putting.  If they make the putts under whatever conditions, they make the putts.

Beyond that, greens in those days were probably more variable in condition from season to season than they are now.

That's an interesting quote to me Jeff, beyond the scope of putting alone.

I have always wondered to what extent the gca's of 80 years ago thought about the evolution of the game concerning distance and agronomy. If this takes this particular topic off course I will start another thread along these lines.

What can (or do) you do when building a course today to help it retain its viability 50 or 100 years from now?

[Brent Hutto]

Somewhere or another (can't put my hands on an exact reference) Jaime Diaz quoted a PGA Tour putting study from the 1989 season and compared results on six-foot putts between then and the ShotLink stats from the 2004 season, 15 years later.

Percentage of six-foot putts made on Tour:

1989 55%
2004 70%

So in just a 15-year interval, a Tour players chances of sinking a six-footer increase by almost a third. Over the course of a season, that's a big difference.

[A.G._Crockett]

Whatever Phil did or didn't do, the most remarkable stat from 2005 is Tiger.

From 3 ft. and in:
     Attempts--566
     Made------566

Whether it is technology, green conditions, practice habits, or an act of God, that is an amazing number.

[JESII]

Just on instinct that must be 1/2 - 3/4 of a stroke per round. Many other variables come into play, sure, but how often do they play a round and not have at least a few 6 footers. The same reasons will carry to all length putts so is it fair to think the average number of putts per round is way down from 15 or 20 years ago?

[Jeff_Brauer]

If Phil is 84%, he is well above average.

Geoff Shack quotes a recent Golf World article by Nick Seitz as saying a 1988 Tour study pegged coversion rate at six feet at 54.8%. In a "mulligan" study in 2005, conversions averaged 69.6%.  Putts per greens in regulation went from 1.810 tp 1.779 in that time, averaging about 1.5 shots per tourney.

I seem to recall reading that basically, the difference in average tour scores reflects improvements in putting.

One thing I think we can rule out is human nature of being nervous under pressure. I suspect that doesn't change much, although, with larger second place checks, maybe that has gone down as well.



BTW, my version of Pelz is from 1999 and he did peg Tour Pros 50-50% range as 6 feet, average golfers less, obviously, but no number, at least early in the book where I checked.  So, his data might have been pretty current at time of pulication, midway between those years and midway between conversion rates.

Interesting side note, but I wonder if 6 feet means 6 to 7 feet, or 5.51 feet to 6.5 feet, since they presumably measure in one foot increments.

[john_stiles]

As to the golf ball.......

In the old days, of wound balls, I tested quite a few golf balls using the method defined in Dave Pelz' book.  You have a salt bath in a large cup, with glycerine or something to lube the ball, and spin the ball in the heavy salt bath.  Mark the top when it comes to rest, spin again.  Quite a few balls would have a heavy spot and come to rest in the same position upon spinning again.  

You mark the this spot, and when putting,  you do  not place the heavy spot on the side.

Now,  with the newer ProVs, etc.,  I tested a number and really didn't find a heavy side.  Then a few years ago,  someone started selling that 'fancy' spinning device that did the spin testing, etc.  I think newer balls are better with respect to uniform weighting.

Also, as mentioned in Dave Pelz book,  I imagine the 'volcano' effect around the hole would be very much lessened at tournament courses as compared to ordinary course conditioning.  Volcano effect being that as everyone steps around the hole, a depressed area is formed around the cup and the cup is effectively raised like a volcano.   A tournament course receives much less play (140 rounds) and then about 70 rounds on the weekend.  Hole locations are changed every day.   The area around the cup has to be much smoother given less play and extra attention to cup placement by maintenance crew.   The professionals should putt better if only for course condition.  

Have there been any 'changes' in cup setting to minimize 'volcano' effect even more.    Perhaps, the firmer greens being used today, to 'toughen' course setup,  has helped with respect to minimizing volcano effect.

But, I wonder, with all the special treatment that professionals are offered, do the pros receive 'specially' tested golf balls ?   Golf balls that receive special testing for roundness, weight distribution, etc.  

Does anyone have insight on 'routine' QA/QC testing for golf balls and whether golf balls supplies to professionals receive 'extra testing' ?

[Sam Sikes]

think about the construction of the ball.  A ball with a soft shell and a large hard core MUST roll better than ball with a soft cover, miles of rubber bands, and a liquid core.  

The difference has to be very significant.  I am willing to bet that even with improved green construction, flatter hole location positions, etc...., a tour player would make significantly less putts with a balata ball.

[Sam Sikes]

a great test for this theory would be to test the putting stats from the masters.  The green are no faster or smoother than they were 15 years ago, and the greens are not more severe, nor are the hole locations.  I wonder what the stats say about the percentage of putts holed and if that has impacted scores in the last few years.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that bermuda greens on tour have improved in quality over the past 15 years, which would have a significant impact on the stats.

sam

[Dan Moore]

keep in mind the tour pros would change their balatas every hole or 2 or 3 because the balls would go out of round.  plus i think they would get the best quality balls that could be porovided at the time.  i discount the ball effect as anything more than minor.   the greens are much better and more consistent week to week and newer grass strains have reduced the impact of grain.  

[Sam Sikes]

I think people are forgetting how shi**y the quality of balata balls was when they were in play.  They were rarely round, and Im not convinced they weren't out of round after one full shot.

[Phil Benedict]

This is a quote from an instructional article Phil did in this month's Golf Digest.  His stats are based on Shotlink.

"I made 99 percent of my three-footers. From six feet, I made only 68 percent. This is where you save shots--lag putting or chipping a foot or two closer to the hole--not by making more long putts."

[Jeff_Brauer]

Another way to guage how much is green and how much is ball is to compare the yearly improvement stats from 88 to 05.  I think greens on tour have incrememtally improved every year, so if the rise was gradual, it would be mostly greens.  If there was a big jump the year the ProV started to dominate the tour, and not so much other years, then it was the ball.

Besides yearly Master stats, you could also use other repeating tour sites - but would have to factor in weather and possible greens resurfacing to see how they improved yearly.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's a Moriarty chart of average putts per GIR since 1988 for the Tour, showing the leader and the middle of the pack (50th place).  Not surprisingly the middle of the pack is a smoother line.  Call it the Rinker/Heintz effect.

Putting may have improved by 2 or 3 putts per tournament for the leaders.  For the pack, maybe 1 or 2 per tournament.  

Stats seem to have worsened marginally since 2001 and the V1.  Go figure.