[George Pazin]

Since no one made any putts, I guess those 5 birdies Cabrera made were just pick-ups? His playing partner conceded those holes?

Cabrera's not the first golfer to misinterpret his own game.

[Tom Huckaby]

The point is George that his birdies were made with shots hit so close that making the putts would be expected, by any pro.

Where things got equalized was outside that range.

Cabrera didn't win this with his putter, he won it despite such, as he says... but of course you know his game better than he does, I forget.


 

[George Pazin]

I sure don't know Cabrera's game better than him, but apparently I know how to interpret the results better.

Didn't Chris Cupit just say above that a 20 handicapper would take about 50 putts? Chris seems to feel comfortable speaking for all serious tournament golfers.

Tiger went from his normal 28ish to 34ish - just under a 25% increase?

What does a normal 20 have at a normal course? 38-40? Going to 50 is also about a 25% increase (and I feel very comfortable questioning that 50 number). At best it's a push.

The only way to settle this is you and me and a couple other guys playing at Oakmont, Augusta, and 2 of the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic courses. I'll send out my G-IV shortly.

[Ted Kramer]

2 comments:
1. A 20 handi wouldn't break 150 at Oakmont under Open conditions from the tips.
2. I agree with Huck regarding the idea that really tough greens (like Oakmont during the Open) level out putting differences between players.

-Ted

[Chris Cupit]

I sure don't know Cabrera's game better than him, but apparently I know how to interpret the results better.

Didn't Chris Cupit just say above that a 20 handicapper would take about 50 putts? Chris seems to feel comfortable speaking for all serious tournament golfers.

Tiger went from his normal 28ish to 34ish - just under a 25% increase?

What does a normal 20 have at a normal course? 38-40? Going to 50 is also about a 25% increase (and I feel very comfortable questioning that 50 number). At best it's a push.

The only way to settle this is you and me and a couple other guys playing at Oakmont, Augusta, and 2 of the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic courses. I'll send out my G-IV shortly.

George,

Without re-reading my post, I was trying to say that if I were betting a 20 handicapper, I'd use 50 putts as the "bait".  I really don't think they will 2 putt any greens (well maybe a couple) and even if they did, they will also 4 putt several.

The broader point may be that no 20 handicapper, in fact 99.9% of all golfers have NO IDEA have fast greens are in any national championship, much less Oakmont.  Many people think they could putt or at least lag up and two putt without really having a clue.

Now George, I neve claimed to speak for all serious tournament golfers but I have participated, caddied and been around more serious golf in a tournament setting than 99% of all golfers so I do feel very qualified to speak about that form of play--and it is very different from what most people play.

I also would agree that my 115 number is most likely too low.  But, it would be good bait

I'm not really sure what your point is:  Is it that the average golfer would do just fine at Oakmont?  Is it that they would putt way better than 50 putts?  Is it that I should not have given my opinion on the matter?  It's a DISCUSSION group and I think it's fun to speculate about those type of things.

I can guarrantee you though that the average golfer way underestimates the difficulty of such courses (the narrowness of the fairways, the thickness of the rough and espicially the severity and speed of the greens)--and yes, I am that damn smart

[George Pazin]

I'm not really sure what your point is:  Is it that the average golfer would do just fine at Oakmont?  Is it that they would putt way better than 50 putts?  Is it that I should not have given my opinion on the matter?  It's a DISCUSSION group and I think it's fun to speculate about those type of things.

I can guarrantee you though that the average golfer way underestimates the difficulty of such courses (the narrowness of the fairways, the thickness of the rough and espicially the severity and speed of the greens)--and yes, I am that damn smart

No, I'm on the other end - the average 20 would probably walk off shell-shocked, not having completed a half dozen holes, under an Open setup. And more than 50 putts. I'm with you, at least in terms of the average golfer underestimating the difficulty of these things.

As for my jab, that was just a playful tease in response to your opening comment, that no serious golfer or whatever would doubt the veracity of Cabrera's words. You're more than entitled to voice whatever opinion you desire, I would encourage you to be every bit as boisterous and stubborn as me and Huck. Obviously I think it's fun to speculate on such things as well.

 

[Matthew Hunt]

What does a normal 20 have at a normal course? 38-40?

About 36

[Andy Hughes]

OK, Brent will of course demolish me for venturing into the scary realm of statistics and the fact that my addin' and subtractin' is likely all wrong, but here goes:

On the PGA tour as of Sunday the leader for putts per round was Shikegi Maruyama with 27.71 and the guy in 63rd was Ryan Moore with 28.92. The difference is 1.21

At the Open, the leader was Niclas Fasth with 28.50 and 63rd (last) was Bob Estes with 33.75, a much larger difference of 5.25

[Jim Nugent]

My main point in asking these questions about what a 20 handicapper would shoot is, "what realistically is slope at Oakmont, without the 155 cap and max scoring limits on each hole?"  

If a 200-yard-driving 20 handicapper can't break 125 or 130, slope would actually be in the 210 range or higher.  

Yet it is rated at around 150, I believe.  Why doesn't it reach the 155 cap?

[Tom_Doak]

AHughes:

Your statistical analysis doesn't hold water because of sampling size.

In baseball, lots of guys can hit .400 for a week; the same guys hit .100 some weeks, too.  But nobody hits .400 for a season anymore, and if they hit .100, they're back to the minors pretty fast.

Jim N:

The slope rating doesn't apply because it is only meant to equalize your "adjusted" score after you throw out the big numbers.  Most 20-handicappers would rack up a couple of double-digit scores somewhere over the course of 18 holes, and those would be reduced to 8's.

[Mark Bourgeois]

When you drag this conversation into statistics, you've lost!

Anyway...sample size shouldn't be a problem.  (The baseball analogy fails due to the probable presence of serial correlation; i.e., how a hitter does from one at-bat to the next is likely related and not independent of what came before.)

If you want to test Cabrera's assertion you probably shouldn't be looking at the average but rather the distribution.  His comments suggest that the distro was narrower in the US Open than in a garden-variety Tour event -- at least on the "lower" bound: the "best" weren't much better than the "average."

The question is, relative to a standard Tour event, was the difference in the number of putts taken by the "95th percentile" golfer relative to the "50th percentile" golfer narrower than what you'd find on a Tour event.

And wouldn't you want to look at putts per GIR instead of putts per round? Chips and pitches will pollute the latter statistic.

If that doesn't kill this thread...

[George Pazin]

Actually, I don't even think all that would do it, Mark.

To test the original assertion in the landmark thread (landmark in the sense that it showed how stubborn and persistent we all are ), you'd have to have some sort of test on all greens to develop some sort of objective standard that would identify good and bad putters, and then look at events with flat speedy greens (I always usually the Hope for those) and events with more heavily contoured greens, which, for the sake of the original argument, would have to be slower (really, neither Oakmont nor Augusta fits, in this respect). The original assertion was that flat speedy greens do a better job of identifying the best putters, as opposed to more heavily contoured greens, which others felt must be kept slower for practical reasons (again, I'd argue Oakmont and ANGC imply otherwise, but that's another argument for another day!).

Anyone who has the time and energy to do all that number crunching, well, I almost feel sorry for.

I prefer to simply accept that Huck's an incurably stubborn nutcase. And I suspect he feels likewise about me.

We're probably both right, at least on that last part.

 















Huck's wrong on the other part.

 

P.S. I do like your test, though, that's an interesting way of looking at it.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Blast! "But they just can't.kill.the beast..."

How do your comments relate to line vs. speed putting challenges?

It seems to me that what Cabrera was getting at was that everybody holed out in the same number of putts.  That could mean that:

nobody made certain putts, and
everybody made other putts.

I would guess that the lack of "separation" might boil down as you write to the presence of speed and contour.  Does this mean nobody made any "over the mountain / through the swale" putts (speed putts were impossible) but lagged them close enough to make the shorter putts (line putts doable)?  How many of the holes out there had short crazy breakers, as opposed to the long crazy breakers every hole seemed to have?

My head hurts...

[Michael Moore]

Silly hard greens act as neutralizers, not separators.  I said it way back when, it's rather gratifying to see Cabrera agree.

Tom -

For the purposes of this argument, which considers all levels of golfers, everyone who played in the US Open can be said to have the same level of putting skill, i.e., very very good.

Thus, it is disingenuous for you to interpret Cabrera's remark that he is at the low end of outstandingly great to mean that he is a bad putter.

We all remember that the argument was "good putters vs. bad putters on highly contoured and fast greens".

Check out the reports from the scribblers who played on Monday to see the truth of the matter.

[Tom Huckaby]

"Disingenuous"?  Hey, that's a pretty strong accusation.  I didn't interpret Cabrera to say anything other than exactly what he said.

I'm just taking Cabrera's words as evidence, that's all. I surely don't expect those who called my previous assertions lunacy and idiocy to accept it one bit.

Which of course is proven in this thread.

One way or the other, Cabrera's words make me smile.

[Doug Sobieski]

Huck:

Are you really relying on the comments of a guy that can't even speak English AND smokes on the golf course? And he wasn't even smart enough to keep the driver in the bag. That's one unreliable source. You are really reaching now, my friend  

[Tom Huckaby]

Doug - hey, when you're right you're right.

I even give Mucci credit every so often.


 

[Andy Hughes]

In the 2006 Open, putts per round leader was Jeev Singh with 28.25 and last was Kenny Perry at 33.5.
The difference is 5.25, the exact same number as this year.

[Michael Moore]

I'm just taking Cabrera's words as evidence, that's all.

Tom -

I was just trying to say that the claims that

A. The US Open was won by a poor putter

B. who is determined to be so by the fact that he said "aw shucks, I'm such a lousy putter".

are without merit.

[Matt_Sullivan]

Cabrera was one of the few players who pretty regularly hit the ball close -- he didn't make many bombs; he made quite a few birdies putts from inside 12 feet or so. Lousy putter or not, the tougher the greens, the more important it is to stick your irons close

[Brent Hutto]

The oft-quoted comment from Cabrera was incompletely translated. I believe my Spanish is good enough to know that he prefaced the comment with (paraphrasing loosely) "I'm gonna throw Huck a bone here and say..." or words to that effect.

This leads me to believe he's either a lurker on this forum or, rumor has it, he's actually HamiltonBHearst.

[Martin Del Vecchio]

It would seem to me that Oakmont's greens are no more challenging than Augusta National's.

Is the difference that they get to play Augusta Nat year after year?

Tiger said the difference is that there are some flat spots on Augusta's greens, but, "I'm still looking for the flat spots here [at Oakmont]".

[Tony Ristola]

Perhaps Cabrera isn't as bad as he thinks. Let's see how he does at Augusta.

If quick undulating greens are an equalizer Tiger shouldn't have quite the advantage at Augusta...more golfers should have a shot at winning. Never heard that case made.

Perhaps the guys aren't quite as good around the greens as they think. Too much of a diet of similar-speed flat surfaces?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim N:

The slope rating doesn't apply because it is only meant to equalize your "adjusted" score after you throw out the big numbers.  Most 20-handicappers would rack up a couple of double-digit scores somewhere over the course of 18 holes, and those would be reduced to 8's.

Oakmont's slope is rated 150, I believe, and CR is 78.5.  That means a 200 yard driving 20 handicapper is supposed to shoot around 106 from the tips, under Open conditions.  I realize that includes the adjustments.  With what is being said in this thread, it surprises me that such a short-hitting average golfer could score that well on that course.  

If slope is 155, that same golfer shoots around 111, after adjustments.  

[Jim Nugent]

Cabrera generally is a very poor putter. I looked up his putts per GIR the last several years.  Every year but one he has averaged over 1.8.  That generally leaves him in around 150th or 180th place on the PGA tour.  2006 was the exception to this: he was 28th on tour.  This year, 2007, he's averaging 1.829, which puts him in 158th place.

The putts per round figures at the U.S. Open suggest, strongly I think, that Cabrera was right: not many putts were being made.  The sample size should be big enough for the entire field.  The median figure at Oakmont was nearly 2 putts more per round than the median on tour this year.  Only one person averaged under 29 at Oakmont; on tour this year 68 pro's are averaging under 29.  These putts per round figures are higher at Oakmont, despite the fact that the golfers missed lots more greens.  

Bottom line, sounds like Cabrera is right on both counts.  

Think we can add another point, too: Oakmont neutralized the great scramblers' abilities.  Cabrera generally is awful at scrambling.  He is averaging just 46.9% this year.  I don't have the exact figures at Oakmont, but remember seeing terrible numbers there, too, from guys like Tiger.  Probably the combination of tough greens and heavy rough around them.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()