[Joe Perches]

I believe 3 putts for high skill players are down dramatically from the 60's.

Some would suggest that over the last couple of decades putter technology has improved the advanced player's ability to both start a ball on a target line and control ball speed.

What if any architectural changes should be made to what might be considered "high level tests of golf" on either existing or new courses to perhaps counteract this?

Wouldn't more numerous small elevation changes on a green surface cause more difficulty in reading breaks?
Wouldn't these elevation changes also require more precision in the 4 and 5 footers that are being made at 90+%?

Could the equipment currently used handle two or more 3 to 4 % elevation changes or undulations within say 10 feet?

[David_Tepper]

Joe P. -

Do you have any statistical evidence to support your theory that 3-putts have declined over the past 40 years?  We regularly see posts here that bunker play has gotten easier, but there is little evidence to support that contention.

In 1997, Dan Pooley led the PGA Tour with 1.718 putts per GIR.  Tim Herron was #75 with 1.78 putts per GIR.

!n 2007, Tim Clark led the PGA Tour with 1.727 putts per GIR. Kevin Na was #74 with 1.78 putts per GIR.

In 2007, Aaron Oberholser led the Tour in putting from 4ft-8ft, holing 78.07%. Henrik Stenson led from 10ft-15ft, holing 45.0%.

Greens have likely gotten smoother and flatter over the years (ask Pat Mucci!). On the other hand, the consensus is is that green speeds are way faster than they used to be. 

The introduction of soft spikes has also likely made greens smoother and a little easier to putt.

DT

[Lou_Duran]

The anecdotal evidence I've seen suggests the opposite, particularly when green speeds get up in the 11' - 13'+ feet range.  On the other hand, it makes sense that scientific advancements and improved green maintenance would have made putting easier for all.

Questions:  Are flatter greens easier to build and maintain?  Do most golfers really want greens like those at Augusta National, National, Crystal Downs? 

[James Bennett]

Joe

I enjoyed seeing Corey Pavin using a bulls-eye putter at Pebble Beach yesterday.  I expect the occasional slower green speed, or steeper sloped green with moderate green speeds (a la Pebble Beach) will make the big 2-ball/counter-weighted putters more difficult to manage and Corey's bullseye a bit more attractive.

Man, it looked like golf when he was tapping in the 4-footer with that bullseye.  No face insert either.

James B

[rjsimper]

I wonder then if I should blame the majority of my three putts on the fact that I use a heel shafted blade...

I used a large modern Ping 2-ball type mallet for a while and was embarrassed to do so.  Like one step on the road to a belly putter, I thought it took all feel out of the process.  Of course, maybe this is a good thing for scoring, but certainly a bad thing for enjoyment of the game (scoring aside)

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe 3 putts for high skill players are down dramatically from the 60's.
Let's say that I accept your premise.[/color]

Some would suggest that over the last couple of decades putter technology has improved the advanced player's ability to both start a ball on a target line and control ball speed.

I would agree, but, it's not just the putter.
The solid ball is ROUNDER than those egg like Maxflis from the 60's and since nothing rolls like a ball, especially a near perfect ball, the combination of hi-tech putters and a rounder ball aid in improving putting.

But, there's another element in play.
Greens have been softened to accomodate higher stimps, thus slope and contour, two key factors that impede putting performance, have been removed.

When you consider all of those elements, and the fact that better athletes are playing golf, that would seem to support your premise.[/color]

What if any architectural changes should be made to what might be considered "high level tests of golf" on either existing or new courses to perhaps counteract this?

Therein lies the conflict.
Stimp versus slope and contour.

As long as high and higher speeds are sought, slope and contour will be muted.[/color]

Wouldn't more numerous small elevation changes on a green surface cause more difficulty in reading breaks?

YES[/color]

Wouldn't these elevation changes also require more precision in the 4 and 5 footers that are being made at 90+% ?

YES[/color]

Could the equipment currently used handle two or more 3 to 4 % elevation changes or undulations within say 10 feet ?

That's a good question, one I was thinking about the last few days.

Could the modern putter, mostly triangular mallets, handle severe slope and contour ?

It would seem that the modern PGA golfer uses a pendulum swing with very little forearm and wrist action.  I wonder, if having to traverse steeper slopes and dramatic contours would alter the putting stroke and the type of putter prefered for those challenges.[/color]

[Peter Nomm]

I think the biggest impact on any player's putting is the speed of the greens. 

Yes, the new putters make it easier to control the speed simply because a larger sweet spot makes it easier to strike each put the same.

But to me, the difference in playing greens in the 8" - 9" range is far easier than in the 10.5" and up, at least from a distance control aspect.  A 15-foot putt on a very fast green is easy to run several feet past the hole, while on the slower green it is going to stop near the hole.  And the improved putters versus an old Bulls-Eye or an 8802 (with which I mess around with regularly) are to me not as significant as the change in difficulty from slow to fast greens.

[Dean Stokes]

4-5 foot putts holed 90+%? WHAT? The tour average from that distance is much closer to 60%. They are the best players in the world on the best surfaces in the world.
I think as course maintenance improves and greens get faster and faster, putting is getting tougher for players who do not putt well.
Many golf courses were not designed for greens that stimp between 10 and 13. I feel that rather than add more undulation to greens we need to lessen it with the modern day maintenance capabilities.
I don't see that putting with a 50 year old putter or a new $400 putter makes any difference at all. It's a simple stroke with a flat blade. McNulty is one of the best putters in the world and he uses an old bullseye.

[Mark Smolens]

Where is Dave Pelz when we need him?  Calling Shotlink.  Dean, I think your number is low.  Pelz used to figure 60% for 6 footers, and my recollection is that Shotlink proved him wrong by a little.  And when you take 2' off the length of the putt, I'll bet the number is much closer to 90 and 60.

If you look at film of the greens of 25 years ago, we see tees today that look better maintained.  That's why it's easier to putt, especially for those guys at the highest level.  If the greens they're putting on aren't perfect, they cry like babies.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't see that putting with a 50 year old putter or a new $400 putter makes any difference at all. It's a simple stroke with a flat blade. McNulty is one of the best putters in the world and he uses an old bullseye.

Then why isn't the TOUR UNIVERSE putting with 50 year old putters ?

You can bet, without fear of losing, that if the PGA Tour Pros are doing something, not endorsement related, that they're doing it for a reason that enhances performance, and, that's the way to go.[/color]

[Garland Bayley]

...
Some would suggest that over the last couple of decades putter technology has improved the advanced player's ability to both start a ball on a target line and control ball speed.
...

Here you guys go again, worshiping at the technology temple again. The old pros could out putt any of you with their bullseye putters yet today. Bob Charles at 70 plus years finished top 25 in the New Zealand Open last year with the bullseye.

If the average handicap hasn't changed in 50 years, then technology is just a bunch of marketing hoo haw. When you guys get to be as good and sensitive as Tiger you might be able to begin to discern differences in technology.

The only reason the touring pros like Knucklehead, er, Mickelson use hi tech putters, is that they either don't have enough confidence in their stroke or are searching for the little edge (which is undoubtedly mental not technical) that might make them some more money.

How often does Tiger switch putters trying to take advantage of silly technology?

[Joe Perches]

The old pros could out putt any of you with their bullseye putters yet today.

I think that's undoubtedly true and not germane.  It's not about me.  I'm not a high skill player and I don't use a high-tech putter.  It's about challenging high skill players using the most advanced implements.

Pat Mucci pointed out, correctly I believe, that improvements in balls have also played a role in the increased % of makes of 4 and 5 footers.

I am curious to know whether, solely or in combination, changes in green shaping and maintenance methods might be used to lower the percentage of 4 and 5 foot putts made by high skill players using these advanced implements.

Perhaps coupling better sand distribution techniques with a ground mapping lidar accurate to a millimeter or so could create very difficult to read greens.

I think existing courses could have very difficult to read greens within a couple of years by using higher-tech maintenance tools.

Would existing mowers would be able to cope with many small, close together, opposing elevation changes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland,

A friend of mine was playing against Phil Mickelson in the U.S. Amateur.

On the first hole he had a 6 footer for a par.
Mickelson had an 8 footer for a birdie.

He told my friend to "pick it up" it was good.

My friend was shocked, he told him that his putt was for a par.
Mickelson said that he was aware of that, then holed his birdie putt.

I'd call that confidence in his stroke.

[Dean Stokes]

Garland,

A friend of mine was playing against Phil Mickelson in the U.S. Amateur.

On the first hole he had a 6 footer for a par.
Mickelson had an 8 footer for a birdie.

He told my friend to "pick it up" it was good.

My friend was shocked, he told him that his putt was for a par.
Mickelson said that he was aware of that, then holed his birdie putt.

I'd call that confidence in his stroke.

Why bring up a story that's got to be 15 years old? Since then he's been through 2/3 coaches and many, many more putters looking for help.
Joe, you want greens with small, close together, opposing elevation changes? Our local putt, putt sounds perfect! No really,  I played on a green last Summer that is exactly like you describe. It had around 12 different levels, all small areas at different elevations. A 30 ft putt was almost a certain three putt. You could miss your line by an inch and end up 25 feet away. Not really a great idea and certainly no fun IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why bring up a story that's got to be 15 years old?

Since then he's been through 2/3 coaches and many, many more putters looking for help.

Because he was, and REMAINS one of the greatest putters on the planet !

Every golfer, from Jones to Nicklaus to Tiger goes through self doubt at one time or another.[/color]

[Lloyd_Cole]

Garland,

A friend of mine was playing against Phil Mickelson in the U.S. Amateur.

On the first hole he had a 6 footer for a par.
Mickelson had an 8 footer for a birdie.

He told my friend to "pick it up" it was good.

My friend was shocked, he told him that his putt was for a par.
Mickelson said that he was aware of that, then holed his birdie putt.

I'd call that confidence in his stroke.

Pat

That was also an exhibition of subtle gamesmanship. It also said "I know I'm going to beat you."  An excellent first hole move, very Hagenesque. I need to remember that one.

Regarding putters and top players - there is no new technology other than the long putters that has substantially changed any thing in the last 20 years. 90% of pros play either anser models, mallets or blades. The Moi putters may indeed work, in theory, but you have to look at them - there's the rub.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

While modern golf balls are supposedly manufactured much more consistently (for distance driving), it's not true that they are rounder.  In fact, I was told by an equipment guru that if you have one of those old metal rings to test for roundness, hardly any modern ball will pass through the ring.  Try it!

So, that's not a reason why putting averages should have improved.

Joe P:

Most greens on new courses are finished with machines and topdressed very frequently.  Both practices tend to take out the minute contours and breaks which make putts more difficult to read and to hole out.  If we went back to finishing greens by hand, it would work -- for a while -- but the topdressing would eventually smooth things out a bit.

[Philippe Binette]

Higher green speeds encourage flatter greens or flatter spot on the green (for some architects, most of them have their courses on Tour) so it's easier to make putts:

look on tour today (on new courses) : from 20 feet they rarely have more than 3 inches of break, which mean that you have more options on the speed of the putt to make it: outside right with no speed will go in,right edge with no speed will go in,  right edge with a bit of speed will go in, inside right with a bit of speed will go in.

On a 20 footer with a 18 inches of break, there is basically one speed/target combination that will make the putt. it is a lot harder

[TEPaul]

"I believe 3 putts for high skill players are down dramatically from the 60's."

Joe:

Although I don't have any statistics to prove it I would not agree with that.

[Tom_Doak]

There has got to be a statistic on three-putts somewhere and it would be extremely useful information to have for debates on the importance of green speed.  Does anyone know where to look?

I know there have been some statistics published about which champions had the fewest three-putts in 72 holes -- do they keep stats for the entire field every year?  How about the US Open?  The Tour's stats don't go back far enough to be useful.

[Joe Perches]

While modern golf balls are supposedly manufactured much more consistently (for distance driving), it's not true that they are rounder.

I think Patrick was referring to wound balls with balata covers being more prone to permanent deformation after a single impact.

Most greens on new courses are finished with machines and topdressed very frequently.  Both practices tend to take out the minute contours and breaks which make putts more difficult to read and to hole out.  If we went back to finishing greens by hand, it would work -- for a while -- but the topdressing would eventually smooth things out a bit.

It seems todays top dressing machines provide a more or less uniform distribution of sand.  I think that a machine that more precisely controlled the application of top dressing could actually create these minute contours over a couple of seasons by varying the amount of sand applied in specific areas.

There has got to be a statistic on three-putts somewhere and it would be extremely useful information to have for debates on the importance of green speed.  Does anyone know where to look?

I briefly looked around before I started the thread without finding anything useful.

[Mike Benham]

There has got to be a statistic on three-putts somewhere and it would be extremely useful information to have for debates on the importance of green speed.  Does anyone know where to look?

I know there have been some statistics published about which champions had the fewest three-putts in 72 holes -- do they keep stats for the entire field every year?  How about the US Open?  The Tour's stats don't go back far enough to be useful.

A statistic on 3-putts would be useless without knowing the average length of the first putt (distance from the hole). 

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

If the statistics were all from the same course (Augusta, or Oakmont in different Open years), I think you could count on random distribution to be close enough to make some conclusions from the statistics.  You're right that they are not really specific enough, but if you want to go to that degree of accuracy then there's obviously nothing out there.

[Richard Choi]

A statistic on 3-putts would be useless without knowing the average length of the first putt (distance from the hole). 

I disagree.

As long as the samples are truly random and the sample size is big enough they should be comparable whether or not it was from 10 years ago or 50 years ago.

Only thing that would significantly alter that is if today's players are hitting much much closer to the pin (say ~30%+ closer). But even if that was the case, the base 3-putt data would tell us a lot.

This discussion is really a moot point without that data. How one "feels" is often incorrect when compared against empirical data. Our brain is just too good at finding patterns where no such thing exists.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the stat would be a lot more meaningful if it only included putts for those that were on Greens in Requlation.  If you are off the green on your approach, these guys are all good enough to be able to chip it close enough to have almost 0% 3 putting instances.

So if a stat based on putts after GIR's were available, that would be the most accurate I think.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()