Do Hard Greens Help or Hurt Better Putters?

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

I understand the disconnect better.  If you go back and read this thread, you will see that the question I am addressing is different, and hearkens back to the prior thread.  Others started it, not me.  

I maintain that highly contoured greens act as an equalizer, bringing the lesser putter more success relative to the better putter than he achieves on flat greens (for all the reasons stated ad nauseam).  This is a different contention and makes no attempt to answer the question posed in the first post on this thread, for sure.

Just note also that I am not lobbying for anything to be changed, nor opining as to which way is better, nor how greens should be or anything like that.  I am simply making observations as to how I think it works out, in practice.

I'll leave that part to you.  My gut tells me I have spent way too much time in this silly forum today, and real life awaits.

TH

[Phil Benedict]

I maintain that highly contoured greens act as an equalizer, bringing the lesser putter more success relative to the better putter than he achieves on flat greens (for all the reasons stated ad nauseam).  This is a different contention and makes no attempt to answer the question posed in the first post on this thread, for sure.

Tom,

My point in starting the thread was exactly what you say - who benefits in a relative, competitive sense?  In an absolute sense everyone is harmed (as far as scoring) by tougher conditions of any kind.

[JESII]

Phil,

To mean: how is the difference in total putts impacted by green difficulty?

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
I maintain that highly contoured greens act as an equalizer, bringing the lesser putter more success relative to the better putter than he achieves on flat greens (for all the reasons stated ad nauseam).

Okay, we'll deal with more contoured greens.

If you take the same golf course, and give it flat greens, then come in one night and give it heavily contoured greens, which do you think will have a higher scoring average, and why?

I think the heavily countered greens will have a higher scoring average, and the reason would be the field in general will require more putts.

If this is true, then it will make putting a more significant part of the round, in general.

It will be an advantage to the better putters to make putting a more significant part of the game.

I'm not saying every single better putter will prosper and every mediocre putter will suffer. Some better putters are better because they putt well on flat greens and some mediocre putters are mediocre because of difficulty with flat putts. But in general, the more significant you make putting the more it helps talented putters.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is the Esperanto of sport. All over the world golfers talk the same language - much of it nonsense and much unprintable - endure the same frustrations, discover the same infallible secrets of putting, share the same illusory joys.
 --Henry Longhurst

[cary lichtenstein]

a good putter is a good putter is a good putter.

You can take the advantage away from a good ball striker with difficult greens, but on a very difficult tee to green course, the better ball striker has the advantage

[Sean_A]

Somebody mentioned that it depends on the level of players and to some degree I agree.  The difference between the best putters on tour is hard to quantify because the stats can't come close to telling the whole story.  Every single putt is different from any other and the importance of those putts varies widely.  I also read mention of Phil taking ONLY three more putts somewhere else from Augusta.  Well, .75 putts per round makes a huge difference in the life of a pro- that is how close these guys are in their skills.  It is the all the difference in the world between the great palyers and the greatest players of all time.  Ask S Snead about how many times he could have won the US Open if he made a putt here and there. 

Anyway, I believe that the best putters are the best putters regardless of greens if we look at averages.  The problem as I see it is trying to figure out who the best putters are.  Outside of a very few players, the best putters is really about weekly performance.  On any given week who the best putters are changes and usually, the leaderboard reflects this.  Some may believe this has something to do with the difficulty of the greens, but I don't.  For lack of a better term, I think it has much more to do with confidence because all of these guys can putt the lights out on their day and they NEVER have a bad day on the greens like a 9 capper such as myself can have. 

Now if we are talking about guys more at my level, which is to say putters who are much more eratic than any pro, compared to even hgher cappers like a 20 capper, then I think there is a huge advantage to the better player if on hard greens.  I know there are 20 cappers out there who think putting is not their problem, but I have never believed it.  Guys are 20 cappers because they don't play any facet of the game very well and putting is no exception.  That said, as mentioned earlier, any of these mid to high cappers can have bad days on the greens and sometimes the worse player will shine, but if I had to bet, I am taking the better player among cappers and the hot hand among pros.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

OK.  Understood. It may well work as you say.  But as I have stated several times before, my observation is simply about number of putts taken.

Tom:  I dislike pesto.
Dan:  why do you want to kill the growth of basil worldwide?
 

[JESII]

it's really interesting, and pretty evident of the nature of an online discussion group that opinions don't get budged one inch...fortunately this thread/topic is also evidence that it doesn't have to devlove into a Merion style brawl.

If it ever comes time to try to prove out this debate please let me know when and where...and I'll be happy to play the mediocre putter...

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim - I have to believe a few can confirm this, but man I am the anti-Mucci... my opinions change all the time;  I learn a lot and say so when I do.  On this one, well... it's like I say, I want to comment on the quality of the pesto sauce, and others tell me I am trying to kill all basil.  Stick to the quality of pesto and you might teach me a few things, and if so I will thank you!  But try to take it to the basil industry and you lose me.
 

[JESII]

Tom,

Maybe I've been unclear on what your argument was/is.

If I misrepresented your position I didn't intend to. Truthfully, I feel like you've bounced back and forth between first putt result as your primary distinction while conceeding that the second putt will be made by both but the good putter will make less than the lesser putter...

You have said total putts is your focus, but I think you're overestimating how many 15 to 20 footers (or whatever the measuring stick is) Crensahw makes and overestimating the number of second putts the lesser putter will make.

Either way, I've been trying to figure out just what your position is more than trying to argue against some position I might have made up for you. When you say Crenshaw will miss more relative to the lesser putter, it certainly seems like you are focusing on first putts.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here's a well thought out essay that has some interesting stats that are pertinent to this discussion.

One that jumps out: Tiger is much better at making pars at a given distance than he is at making birdies at that same distance.
This is really what separates the chaff from the wheat, and is worth, for Tiger, a savings of just under 4 putting strokes per event against the average of the field.  The numbers include every tournament except the majors over a four year period.

http://www.mathaware.org/mam/2010/essays/MintonTigermetrics.pdf

[Jay Flemma]

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.

I wonder if that's really the right question...might the right question be "do hard greens help or hurt better wedge players?"

[archie_struthers]

 

I'm totally not buying intothe tougher greens level the playing field . I see the argument but my experience is only certain putters / people can handle the really tough greens at lightning fast pace .   This was particularly true at Pine Valley , as on the rare occasion they cranked the greens all the way up in the Crump, half the field was immediately eliminated and only a few of these could really expect to shoot a good score.

Gotta believe it's the same at Oakmont and the like,  no matter what some are proposing here.

Caddied many times for Crenshaw , he almost never three putted , his first putts were so good<

[Wade Schueneman]

IMHO this topic might best be approached through a series of hypothetical case studies.  I suggest comparing how you would anticipate 4 different types of golfers scoring on 4 different kinds of courses.  

Suppose that A and B are great ball strikers who will strategically miss 4 greens on an "average" layout, stick 4 approaches within 12 feet and put the other 10 an average of 25 feet away.  A has a pro quality short game and B has an "average" short game (whatever you think that means).  How would you epect each to score if the greens are alternatively 1) average 2) firm, fast and full of difficult but subtle breaks 3) full of aggressive internal and external contours, but not generally ahrd to read OR 4) firm, fast, hard to read, and aggressively contoured?  

Now, suppose that C and D are average ball strikers who indiscriminately miss 10 greens a round, only put 2 balls within 15 feet and put the rest an average of 35 feet away.  C has the pro quality short game and D has the average short game.  How would you expect each to perform on the 4 sets of greens described above?  

I imagine that no one has the time to devote to this type of analysis, but the point is that the question is posed at such a high level of generality that it is almost inevitable that no consensus can be reached.  Greens can be hard for a number of reasons: speed, large contours, firmness, readability (if that is a term), difficult surrounds etc.  Moreover, many of these factors will influence long game results as well as short game results.  Further, some green complexes are difficult no matter what you do while others can be managed if you miss shots in the right place.  Finally, even if you had two golfers that produced identical results from tee to green (one with a good short game and the other with a poor short game) it is just too difficult to try to imagine how differing green conditions would affect scores until one specifies where they are trying to score from.  Clearly, if you drop two balls 20 feet from every hole and give Crenshaw a putt and me a putt then he is going to be hurt more by difficult greens.  But what if the balls are dropped 50 feet away.  Now I am the big loser.  Crenshaw is still going to two putt almost everything, but I am going to 3 putt all day long on really difficult greens.  Now what if each of us short-sided the green.  Crenshaw may be hurt more again, becuase he would normally get up and down on "easy" greens most of the time whereas I would not.  Now what if we each missed on the correct side? You get the idea.  Details matter.  A more focused question is needed.      

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

Maybe I've been unclear on what your argument was/is.

If I misrepresented your position I didn't intend to. Truthfully, I feel like you've bounced back and forth between first putt result as your primary distinction while conceeding that the second putt will be made by both but the good putter will make less than the lesser putter...

You have said total putts is your focus, but I think you're overestimating how many 15 to 20 footers (or whatever the measuring stick is) Crensahw makes and overestimating the number of second putts the lesser putter will make.

Either way, I've been trying to figure out just what your position is more than trying to argue against some position I might have made up for you. When you say Crenshaw will miss more relative to the lesser putter, it certainly seems like you are focusing on first putts.

Sully, I have not bounced back and forth at all.  I have had one position and one only throughout this, and the other thread.   Where did I ever mention first putts or second putts AT ALL?     It's about total putts taken....I aslo sure as hell never said Crenshaw will miss more putts relative to the lesser putter... I said Crenshaw misses more putts himself on contoured greens than flat... that is, they both TWO-PUTT more often on contoured than on flat...

And I am sure you disagree with it.  That is perfectly fine.

But accusations of flip-flopping on issues one has never taken a stand on one way or the other, well that;s the makings of a Merion thread.  And I'm sure you don't want that.
 

[JESII]

I think you're giving him to many makes on flat greens and yourself too many second putt makes on tough greens.

[Jud_T]

Call me a hacker and a knuckelhead, but isn't this completely obvious?

[JESII]

Call me a hacker and a knuckelhead, but isn't this completely obvious?

Yep...it just dependes on which side of it you're on...17+ pages and counting...

[Tom Huckaby]

Well Sully that is what it comes down to, thanks.  And many do disagree.   I just have seen it play out quite a few times.  But perhaps my experiences are unique, as I have played with the same guys on very flat greens and very contoured quite a few times.  Remember also the comments of Cabrera about the '07 US Open....

So Jud, to me all of this is logical, though it takes a bit of thinking to "get"... so it's of course not obvious.  And again, it comes down to the odd way golf is measured... a 4 foot make counts the same as a 4 inch make... two putts = two putts...  Think about it.

One thing I will admit - taking it to the extremes of me against Crenshaw may well cause it to fail -and it's others who took it to those extremes... I still think it works (and I am stubborn enough to try to defend it even on the extremes), but I can see how it might not.  But that was really never my point... my point was more about how it works for two players closer in ability.  The slightly better one does lose his advantage over the slightly worse one.  Think about Oakmont.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think you're giving him to many makes on flat greens and yourself too many second putt makes on tough greens.

This same thing shows up in the the report I posted earlier. Look at Tiger's performance on clean up putts.
 
 http://www.mathaware.org/mam/2010/essays/MintonTigermetrics.pdf

[JESII]

Tom,

In all honesty, I think actual tournament statistics are nearly worthless in this conversation because we have no idea where they were putting from...which is obviously a function of other parts of the game. Cabrera seemed to hit the ball right next to the hole a few times in that final round for what it's worth.

To avoid extremes, like Crenshaw against either of us let's think about just you against me for 18 holes on the putting green with total putts being the only criteria. I have no idea who would be slightly better on a typical Californis muni green, but it wouldn't likely be by more than a putt or two over 18 identicle starting points...agreed?

In that context, is it your opinion that whomever is worse by one or two putts over 18 holes would actually have a chance to tie the better putter when we moved to a more difficult putting green and redid the same contest?

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm sure many of us here have played some level of tournament golf , or at least watched it from a unique perspective as true student of the game.  As the golf course greens are ratcheted up in speed and pin positions become more treacherous , many players no longer are competitive .  You see this all the time in club championship matches , particularly in the qualifying rounds (medal play)

What may confuse the issue is the quality of one's short game, and talent at chipping , sand shots , et al .   The more talented player typically has easier putts , particularly for par, because of superior short game skills.  It skews any comparison of total putts per round, which are hardly an accurate indicator of putting skill to begin with

However, the  better putter knows that his chances to win go up as greens become more difficult, despite some arguments here to the contrary. Three putts have a way of discouraging all players , no matter how strong their mental health.  Do you really ever remember, with a few exceptions ,  Jack NIcklaus or TIger Woods three putting  or missing many short putts for par?

Another useful analogy might be looking at a scratch players chances of beating a ten-fourteen (10-14) handicappers net score on any given day .  As the greens ramp up in difficulty this job  becomes so much easier, as the higher handicapper just can't get it into the barn . The scratch player will find a way to grind out a score closer to his /her handicap.

 e.g. there are guys at my home club (10-15 handicappers)  who can play pretty good golf ,   they often shoot net 65 or under, which I have very little chance of beating , as it willl require me to shoot 65-67 gross to win.   .  However if you set the greens up for a tournament and crank up the speed , my 70-73 will almost always get the money ...  it's because I putt better than they do  ...by a lot as the greens get more difficult..

If you take them to a place like Pine Valley  or Oakmont when the greens ar souped up forget it.   I totally disagree with the premise that hard greens level the putting edge....it's just not true

[Jud_T]

Archie,

Well said.  It also seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that there are quite a few guys who can bomb the ball and are solid ball strikers, but what really separates the guys at the top is short game, and PUTTING in particular...

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

In all honesty, I think actual tournament statistics are nearly worthless in this conversation because we have no idea where they were putting from...which is obviously a function of other parts of the game. Cabrera seemed to hit the ball right next to the hole a few times in that final round for what it's worth.

To avoid extremes, like Crenshaw against either of us let's think about just you against me for 18 holes on the putting green with total putts being the only criteria. I have no idea who would be slightly better on a typical Californis muni green, but it wouldn't likely be by more than a putt or two over 18 identicle starting points...agreed?

In that context, is it your opinion that whomever is worse by one or two putts over 18 holes would actually have a chance to tie the better putter when we moved to a more difficult putting green and redid the same contest?

Sully:  how I have seen it work out is like this:  on the flat muni greens, the better player makes a lot of those 6-10 foot troublesome putts... the lesser putter makes none or nearly none.  One tends to have a lot of those in an average round, so the better putter's advantage shines through quite a bit.  Now take the same two guys to a place like Pasatiempo, and neither player makes any of those same types of putts (and given chipping is that much tougher too due to the contours, each tends to have more of them).  The better putter comes closer, sure.... but in the end they both two putt all or nearly all of those - maybe the better putter makes 1 or 2 more.  Thus, his advantage is negated.

This is in fact what I think also played out at Oakmont....

So, of course, differences occur in the longer putts, and perhaps in the end the lesser guy three-putts more enough to negate all of this. I just also haven't seen that take place.

So again, this all makes sense to me.... and yes, the result is a very odd one, a very counterintuitive one, and that is, that making the greens more difficult does indeed actually negate the advantage of the better putter.  Now one can't take that and say the things you and many others have... that is, take it totally out of context (ie "golf is the only sport in the world where making something difficult makes it easier for the less-skilled").  If you say that, outside of this context, well of course it makes no sense.

But if you think about it as I have just laid it out, well at least to me it makes a lot of sense.  And I have indeed seen it play out.  And again the reason why this seemingly totally illogical result really does play out is due to the very odd nature in which the results of golf are measured.. two putts equals two putts, no matter how it happens.

I hope this is my last try. 

BTW, I expect you disagree with me and will say that the three-putts do negate all this, or that the advantage of the better player on flat greens is less, or something like that.  That remains totally fine.  Hopefully you can at least understand that if it DOES work as I say, well at least it makes logical sense.

TH

ps to Archie - you are taking this to golf in general and I do not disagree with anything you say.  I am not taking this outside of the putting green.  The only thing I am considering is how it works out FOR PUTTING ITSELF.

[JESII]

Huck,

I apologize for causing so much aggrivation by not knowing the parameters of the discussion...why would we ever debate ONLY 6 - 10 foot putts?

I see that you do acknowledge..."So, of course, differences occur in the longer putts, and perhaps in the end the lesser guy three-putts more enough to negate all of this. I just also haven't seen that take place"...but isn't that the hole point...to talk about the complete putting game in the context of difficult versus not so difficult greens?

Let's also look at your guinea pigs...one putter makes "alot" of 6 - 10 footers. Let's assume that means 6 out of 10, or about where the tour players fall according to Jim Kennedy's link. The other putter makes "none or nearly none" let's call that 1 out of 10. You've got to get to a pretty poor putter to find they make one or less of 10 from an 8 foot average.

So if they can't make a putt from 8 feet, why would you give them the 3 foot second putt so easy?

[Tags:]

Tags: