Do Hard Greens Help or Hurt Better Putters?

[Phil Benedict]

Many on this site refer to "wild" greens which is usually meant as a compliment.  I take it to mean more interesting or fun but it also surely must mean harder to putt on as well. 

From a competitive standpoint, who benefits from difficult greens?  Intuitively one would think the better putter, like the classiification of ski runs.  After all, you don't send a beginner on a black diamond run.

An alternative view is that tough greens level the playing field.  It's interesting that winners at Oakmont have incliuded Angel Cabrera, Johnny Miller and Larry Nelson - good ballstrikers but not the best putters.  Maybe nobody makes putts at Oakmont.

[Sean Leary]

I believe that there was a long thread about this a couple of years ago,

My recollection is that there was no consensus opinion.

[A.G._Crockett]

I believe that there was a long thread about this a couple of years ago,

My recollection is that there was no consensus opinion.

"No consensus opinion" is an understatement with a large exponent.

[Carl Rogers]

My perception of the Oakmont greens during the last US Open and last year at Liberty National is that those greens were profoundly difficult to read on the 6 foot to 12 foot putt (the range of putt the very good putters would make).

The 'difficult' green makes it proportionately harder for the better putter to hole putts.

[Jim Sweeney]

Intuition tells me that if the greens are more difficult due to undulation, the gap between better and worse putters will decrease, but if the increased difficulty is due only to exceedingly high speeds, but with little break, the gap will widen because the pure stroker will keep the ball on line.

By the way, Phil, Happy New Year.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll sit this one out.  I probably posted 20 times, maybe more, on the thread a couple of years ago, which went for pages and pages and pages.  Someone could do a great favor to all and find that link; I don't have the heart.

My final post went something like this, I think:

Ben Crenshaw is a much better putter than me.  However, if the greens are difficult, Ben Crenshaw somehow magically becomes worse more quickly than I do.  Therefore, IF I can find a course with greens that are difficult enough, I could actually putt as well as Ben Crenshaw, maybe even better than he does!

This, of course, is absurd.

[Gary Slatter]

IMHO the best overall putters do the best on challenging greens, whereas the people with the best stroke often do not fare as well on difficult greens.  There is a difference.

Mechanical putters have trouble on challenging greens (LPGA types, those who like the cheater line on their balls, Langer). 

 

[Phil Benedict]

Intuition tells me that if the greens are more difficult due to undulation, the gap between better and worse putters will decrease, but if the increased difficulty is due only to exceedingly high speeds, but with little break, the gap will widen because the pure stroker will keep the ball on line.

By the way, Phil, Happy New Year.

Happy new year to you too Jim.

I think speed is overrated as a difficulty factor for elite players.  Pros always complain if they think the greens are too slow, but you rarely here them whine about overly fast greens.  They might comment about really fast greens at a course like Muirfield Village, but I never get the sense they are unhappy about it.  Fast greens favor guys with pure strokes.

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC:

That may well have been your final post on the issue and of course how you characterize that, it is indeed absurd.

Just do understand that those of us who saw the logic of highly contoured greens being an equalizer never said that you magically became Ben Crenshaw and we sure as hell never said you'd be better than him anywhere...and that was the frustrating part about the argument then (how you and plenty others mischaracterize our position) and it's sad for me to read that that continues. 

In case we really do need to hash this out AGAIN, well... let's at least start by getting the contentions correct, shall we?

My contention (supported by Rich Goodale and a few others, as I recall):  highly contoured greens make Crenshaw miss more putts than he would on flat ones, to a larger extent than they do for you.  That is, he starts missing putts on contoured greens; you miss them anyway, both flat and contoured.  So the DIFFERENCE for him is greater than the DIFFERENCE for you (in terms of total putts required), and thus it does indeed work as an equalizer.  You get no better, that's for sure.  And I am not at all saying you come close to him nor surpass him - of course that's absurd.  He just gets WORSE relative to how he does on flat greens to a larger extent than you do, and so, you do better RELATIVE TO HIM on contoured greens on flat greens.  He still fares much better than you do, of course.  But you come closer to him in total number of putts taken on contoured greens than you do on flat greens.

And if you really think about this and stop trying to reduce it to generalizations and sound bites, you will see the logic, as Goodale did immediately and a few others did either reluctantly or over time.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

I'm afraid Tom H has it completely wrong, his analysis makes no sense. And I am second to no man in my love for Tom H (sorry, buddy)!

Here's the problem. If Crenshaw is truly a better putter than Crockett (let's stipulate that he is indeed much better) then the only relative advantage that can possibly accrue to Crockett is to somehow make putting a smaller contribution to score than it would otherwise be. But difficult greens tend to result in more putts being taken which means putting is a greater component of score than they would be on easier greens. Since we've stipularted that Crenshaw is a better putter, then greens which make you do more putting force each player to do more of the thing that Crenshaw is better at.

Imagine a course with 18 severely punchbowl greens and 18 hole locations right at the bottom of the bowl. The average first putt may end up something like 1-2 feet in length. Even a mediocre putter could imagine taking 20 or 21 putts at most during that round. Ben Crenshaw would probably never miss a 2-3 footer so he could easily end up with 18 putts, maybe 19 if he lips one out. That's not much of an advantage to being a great putter. In fact, this situation is the most extreme example of a relative advantage for Crockett over Crenshaw. Putting skill matters almost not at all, assuming enough basic competence to tap in a 2-footer to a hole sitting at the low spot of the green.

Now imagine greens so contoured that it's almost impossible not to have a 20, 30, 40 foot first putt that has to cross one or more ridge or swales. The best putter in world is going to maybe manage two putts per green. So the number of putts in a round might be 35-40 for Crenshaw. Since we've said Crockett is worse than Crenshaw at putting, that is twice as many opportunities to be worse than in the punchbowl scenario. And that's just for starters...of course once you've missed your second putt you have a third or four putt one which to be worse as well.

The argument Tom H is espousing assuming some weird form of "better putter" in that Crenshaw's superior ability disappears completely after he's missed the first putt or if the contours are really, really, really messed up.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

I disagree with that analysis; you are taking it to extremes, and yes, at those it can fall apart.  I also never said Crenshaw's ability disappears.  We're also not talking punchbowls.  We're talking flattish greens (think basic muni here in CA, if you can), v. say Ballyneal at great speed (or say, another course with wild contours - Pasatiempo works.

My thinking is that at course A (flat):  Crenshaw makes darn near every putt he reasonably can.  Hard to put this into numbers, as it's so going to change on length of putt... but he does not miss many, if any, straight putts of a reasonable distance.  Compare that to the average schmoe putter - he doesn't make many at all on the flat greens.  Large advantage for Crenshaw here.

Then put them on course B:  on those, Crenshaw two-putts a lot of putts he would otherwise make.  He also three-putts from time to time.  Meanwhile average schmoe just continues to miss the medium length putts he missed anyway on the flat (so no change at all for him, two putts equals two putts), and I really don't think that he 3 or 4 putts enough to overcome this....  So Crenshaw's effective advantage, in terms of putts taken, is less.  His skill doesn't disappear - oh far from it, he sure comes closer on those medium length putts than Schmoe - but he misses enough such that the advantage lessens.  They each take two putts there, whereas it would have been 1 for Ben, 2 for Schmoe on the flat greens.

Does that make better sense?  We're not talking punchbowls.  We're talking flat greens v. contoured ones.

In any case, you are a VERY smart man and I shall trust your take for sure.  To me it's pretty simple logic however that it works as I say.  Only if you think the average schmoe is gonna 4 putt a lot does my analysis fail... and I just don't think that's gonna happen.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
If a set of 18 greens is causing Ben Crenshaw to make fewer one putts it will affect the 'other' player in much the same way. For every putt that Ben leaves in easy two putt range the 'other' player will leave in three putt range.
If on an 'average' green, not something wild, Crenshaw averages 28 putts per round and the 'other' player averages 38 per round, I don't believe the 10 stroke differential will change when they meet on a wilder green, Ben will still be 10 putts better (at least).

The less skilled putter will only 'come closer' as a percentage of the total, not in 'numbers of'.

Here's the old thread:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,15142.0/

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim, have I told you lately that I hate you, for resurrecting that.

I give up guys.  I do not have the time nor will to post this much on GCA any more.  My post to Brent is as far as I am going to go.  I just do remain convinced that what I am saying is right; I will admit my explanation may be poor, as that's the only way smart guys like you could fail to see it.  Perhaps some day we get on some greens and work this through.  I'd enjoy that.

But until then.....

UNCLE.

[Michael Moore]

An argument which relies on Ben Crenshaw three-putting is by definition a poor one.

[Tom Huckaby]

An argument which relies on Ben Crenshaw three-putting is by definition a poor one.

Agreed.  My argument does not rely on such.  It relies far more on him two-putting where he wouldn't otherwise.

Dammit I need to have better resistance/avoiding skills.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Dammit I need to have better resistance/avoiding skills.

Yeah, don't we all.

[Kalen Braley]

Just for the record...and its not cause I also have a man crush on him  ....I too completely agree with Tom H.

And to clarify as he did, its not that me KB, gets any better on the greens, its only because Ben C. is making far less putts (think 5 feet and over) that he would normally drill on a flatter surface.  So our gap is closer not because I start making more putts, but only because he stops dropping bombs from everywhere.  From 10-30 feet I'm hanging right with him because we are both two putting everything.  Sure he will still have an advantage in the under 10 feet category, and he likely lags better from over 30 feet....but his advantage of making a bunch of putts in that 10-30 foot range is almost entirely negated.

Tom, fear not you are right on the money on this one.... 

[Michael Moore]

An argument which relies on Ben Crenshaw three-putting is by definition a poor one.

My argument does not rely on such.

Then leave it out of your analysis.

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Meanwhile average schmoe just continues to miss the medium length putts he missed anyway on the flat (so no change at all for him, two putts equals two putts)

This is the problem Tom, you assume average schmoe is only a bad putter because of one type of putt, and you assume Ben Crenshaw is a great putter because of only one type of putt. Therefore, you figure if you make that one type of putt less a part of the game Crenshaw and schmoe's abilities will be closer together.

Bad putters are generally not good at one type of putt and bad at another, they are all around bad putters. And I have seen nothing to support the contention that Crenshaw is only good at medium length putts.

Let's take two imaginary players, both about equal at scoring: one is a great ball striker, bad putter; the other is a bad ball striker, great putter.

If you have two tournaments
1)  putting is roughly 30 percent of the shots
2)  putting is close to 50 percent of the shots

Which golfer would be favored on which type of course?

Wouldn't you agree putting becomes a bigger part of the game when the greens are tougher?

Shame you aren't willing to get sucked back in.

Cheers,
Dan King

The son of a bitch was able to hole a putt over 60 feet of peanut brittle.
 --Lloyd Mangrum (on Bobby Locke)

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - I do not make the assumptions you list, nor do I limit it as you say. The only assumption I do make is that the largest number of putts each will have is in this "Crenshaw makes a lot, Schmoe misses most" range.  If you disagree with that, fair enough.  But if you accept that, my analysis works.

I remain convinced I am right and the explanation I give to Brent, plus this,  is all I have time or energy for.  It is just difficult to time and time again have one's position mis-stated, and leave it at that.  Lord Ran give me strength.   

Bottom line:  average putter two putts nearly all flat greens; Crenshaw one putts many.  Average putter two putts most highly-contoured greens, Crenshaw does also.

That's a huge generalization, but that's what it all boils down to.  And thus Crenshaw's advantage is less on the highly-contoured.  The rest is for you GCA-addicts to parse.  

TH

ps to Michael Moore - does that better please you?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kalen,
I refer you M.Moore's post above. You can join Tom out in left field on this one. 

Reminds me of a conversation several years ago wherein one of the guys (a really good amateur in his late 30s w/a + handicap) was specualting about getting out on the Senior Tour. There was a lot of good natured back and forth that came to an end when one of the guys mentioned that the Am would be hitting the golden age along with Watson and Crenshaw, etc., and did he think he could beat them?

He woke up in time. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 "Average putter two putts most highly-contoured greens, Crenshaw does also." -TH

Tom,
Give up the two martini breakfast. 

[Jerry Kluger]

Phil's question was whether undulating greens make a difference in competitive golf - not the average 20 handicapper versus a scratch golfer.  The answer to his question is really quite simple: Tiger is the best putter on the tour and it doesn't matter what course they are playing or what conditions.  He's the best at ANGC and he's the best at Pebble Beach and so on.  

The question is different with respect to the rest of us.  First of all, unless we are playing with a knowledgeable caddie, our ability to read greens, or lack thereof, can determine how well we putt on undulating greens.  Second, putting requires "feel" to become a really good putter and the more difficult the greens, the more "feel" you must have to deal with them.  You not only have to be able to read the putt but you must also be able to have a sense of how hard to hit it.  If anything, a bad putter is going to be a worse putter when the greens get tougher.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
I refer you M.Moore's post above. You can join Tom out in left field on this one. 

Reminds me of a conversation several years ago wherein one of the guys (a really good amateur in his late 30s w/a + handicap) was specualting about getting out on the Senior Tour. There was a lot of good natured back and forth that came to an end when one of the guys mentioned that the Am would be hitting the golden age along with Watson and Crenshaw, etc., and did he think he could beat them?

He woke up in time. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 "Average putter two putts most highly-contoured greens, Crenshaw does also." -TH

Tom,
Give up the two martini breakfast. 

Jim,

I never said Crenshaw 3 putts at all....all I said is he makes a lot less 1 putts, and he's now two putting a lot more greens that he would be otherwise. Overall of course he's still doing better than me because I have a couple of 3 putts and less 1 putts too..but for the most part, we are both 2 putting most of the greens....and that is the difference.

[Jud_T]

You would think that the more difficult the green the bigger the disparity between 2 guys would be, just as on a course with a very high slope/rating...I think the point about feel and mechanics is really at the heart of the issue with regard to greens with a lot of slope.  For instance, I consider myself a pretty good feel/lag putter, but on a straight 5-footer, i.e. a putt without much "feel", I suck...

[Brent Hutto]

Kalen,

Any green hard enough to turn a bunch of Crenshaw one-putts into two-putts is also going to turn a bunch of your two-putts into three-putts and four-putts. That's the crux of the argument that you and Tom are advancing. You're imaging a situation that makes it hard for Crenshaw to play his usual game (eight one-putts and ten two-putts per round) yet somehow, magically does not keep you from playing your usual game (three one-putts, fourteen two-putts and a three-putt per round).

There is no such configuration of greens. It's going to take super, super, really amazingly tricky greens to cost Crenshaw more than a couple of putts per round. Any green hard enough to keep him having a single one-putt per round is going to take you 45+ putts if you even finish. It's pure bloody-mindedness to keep asserting that no matter how hard the greens might be, hackers like us will somehow manage to just waltz through with 18 two-putts, ho-hum.

[Tags:]

Tags: