1/2 strokes for putts could save classic courses

[ForkaB]

redanman and FORSTONATOR

Youse guys are so far behind the times it is pathetic!

Bill, your tragic flaw was in only going to one decimal place in your caluclations.  Today with GPS, we can measure each shot to the last millimetre (pace, Bob Huntley).  Under the George Thomas rules of perfect scoring, all shots will have value in relation to distance.  72 shots/round = one shot/100 yards traversed, with the minor adjustment of putts being "valued" at the inverse square root of their distance in feet (a sop to the Imperial School of GCA measurement).

Jeff

You probably do not yet use THE CLAW (tm).  If you did, you would understand that any putt within 20 feet or so is a gimmie, and some sort of adjustment is needed to bring miserable putters back into the game.

[TEPaul]

In fairness to Geroge Thomas's half stroke for a putt proposal it clearly wasn't a situation of Thomas not liking putting but was simply more a mathematical analysis involving analyzing the overall value of a single club's impact on scoring in golf.

And as a consequence of that Thomas believed it could also have some interesting ramifications of how golf courses could be designed. But certainly despite some real validity of all that Thomas was proposing in those two interesting veins, I'm sure he and others realized that just the idea alone that any stroke counting one half shot even that of the percentage dominant putter was probably too radical and untraditional an idea for golf to take seriously enough to impliment.

But anyway, the mathematical analysis of the percentage dominant putter simply went like this;

On a par 72 hole golf course in the strict whole stroke par concept for putting (all strokes), the expected percentage of putting was 36 strokes which equals a percentage use of the putter of 50% per round.

Under Thomas's half stroke for putts proposal given his reconfiguration for whole par and half par holes that overall expected percentage for putting would have been reduced to 33 1/3% for the putter (total par-54, total putts=18, percentage putts 54 divided by 18=33 1/3%). That he thought still gave the putter a very dominant single club roll in scoring.

But his logic from there and how it could have some interesting ramifications on design and construction in architecture is interesting. He viewed it in one sense as a cost saver in both construction and maintenance primarily as he felt not so many bunkers would need to be built and maintained.

But again, to institute a system such as this does create a greater bias toward excellence in golf, certainly on the long shots and full strokes (off the putting green) and does remove to a certain degree the impact of the luck of putting in golf with lesser quality players.

That alone, personally, I think is probably not a good thing in the game as that unexpected "leveling" happenstance of putting in whole strokes is one of the more interesting things about golf and one that a good player must simply get used to mentally and not let bother him!

In golf's old tortoise and hare analogy a half stroke for putts is definitely a real bias toward the hare and against the tortoise!

[ForkaB]

Tom

Under current scoring rules, the tortoise will sometimes beat the hare in match play, but in extended stroke play (e.g. 72 holes) the hare will almost invariably win.  Giving 1/2 strokes for putts would probably make it nearly impossible for the hare to prevail under any form of golf.  I'm not sure whether or not this would be a good thing.  Are you?

[ChasLawler]

Had the 2003 Masters been contested under the 1/2 stroke for putts scenario, the outcome would have been slightly different.

There would not have been a play-off, and Len Mattiace would have won outright with a score of 226.5. Mickelson would have been right behind him at 227.5. Ernie Els would have finished third at 228.5, and Mike Weir would have been fourth with a score of 229.

[THuckaby2]

Where's Huckaby when you need him?

I'm here, at the ready, completely confused by all this, but willing to assist in any way.  

TH

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm not sure how you're figuring that. It seems to me with half strokes for putts the hare (better player) would prevail more often in match play so I can't see why it would be any different in stroke play with half strokes for putts. The larger increments of whole strokes for putts would seem to give a bit of an edge to the weaker player (tortoise) compared to the half stroke for putts concept. It seems the reason being is all things being equal the hare will always be closer to the green in the same amount of strokes compared to the tortoise or on it in fewer strokes than the tortoise before the half stroke concept kicks in. In Thomas's half stroke for putts concept the player has to be on the putting surface before the half stroke concept kicks in--he can't just have a putter in his hand from off the putting surface.

Thomas never actually said or implied that half strokes for putts would create any kind of bias toward better players although he did seem to imply it created a fairer representation of quality in golf. The idea that it probably creates a bit of a bias towards the better player than the way we do it know is my feeling. The increased effect of luck with whole strokes for putts I think may have been Thomas's feeling but it certainly is mine. Thomas appeared to be trying to minimize that "luck" effect for the poorer players with the half stroke for putt concept.

Thomas actually goes into a whole long litany of how on various holes a good player can hit nothing but excellent shots and still be tied by the poorer player who misses a shot or two and then sinks a long putt. The half stroke for putt concept definitely minimizes that given the same set of circumstances.

[TEPaul]

Look at that redanman, he isn't even on some distant planet, he's floating around out there in the ether somewhere!

Earth to redanman, Earth to redanman;

Oh well, can't seem to get through to him--why don't we try to reach him again the same time next year?

[ForkaB]

Tom

If I were cruel, I would "modify" my previous post to change the penultimate sentence to read: "Giving 1/2 strokes for putts would probably make it nearly impossible for the TORTOISE to prevail under any form of golf" which is what I meant to say.  Since I am a softy, I apologise for confusing you.

[TEPaul]

Rich said:

"Since I am a softy, I apologise for confusing you."

Do not concern yourself one mite my good man--it's a daily occurence I've become more than accustomed to.

[Jeff Fortson]

Sorry, I agree with redanman.

There is no reference in the rules of golf about a putting stroke as opposed to a driving stroke.

You make an effort to move the ball, tally one more on the card.  END OF STORY.

Jeff F.