Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: ForkaB on October 08, 2004, 12:28:09 AM
-
On another thread, Jeff Brauer implies this is so. I would tend to agree with him in that flat and straight putts expose weaknesses in the putting stroke better than anything. The more that contour comes into the equation, the less important the quality of the putting stroke vs. the ability to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green, and to imagine approach putting angles if you miss that spot. As I think through writing this post, I think that this is a great argument for highly contoured greens, as it (properly, in my opinion) diminishes the relative importance of a grooved putting stroke to golfing importance.
PS--I would also say that the faster the greens the less they favor the putter with the grooved putting stroke.....
PPS--perhaps this goes some way to explaining why JakaB is so enthusiastic about highly countoured/highly "stimped" greens...........
-
Rich,
When putting, regardless of whether the greens are flat or highly contoured, I choose a line and hit it at a desired speed that is suited for the degree of break being played. Some putts are easier than others, but quite honestly, I think more severly sloped greens pose a greater threat to poor putters because the penalty for poorly controlled putts is much higher, especially if the speed is up, amplifying the existing breaks. The contour adds to the fun and challenge of the game, but I do not think it tends to level the playing field.
Tyler Kearns
-
Rich,
So is your question about "Putters" or "Putting Strokes", because they are two different things.
Good putter have a good putting stroke + an ability to read greens + and ability to execute. I would rather be a good putter, unfortunately that is not the case.
-
PS--I would also say that the faster the greens the less they favor the putter with the grooved putting stroke.....
I suppose by "grooved putting stroke" you might include a repeatable one with a loop in it. But anyway, a teaching pro once made a comment in a clinic I attended about Billy Mayfair, the week he beat Tiger in that playoff. The comment was that Mayfair can get by with that loopy stroke cutting across the ball on the very fast greens the Tour players see every week. On slower and/or grainy greens a stroke with a tighter roll on the ball will win out every time.
I think on very fast and true greens the ability to deliver the putter right down the line and square to the target is less important than nerves, touch and ability to read the slope. Slower greens take the nerves out of the equation but add a requirement for getting the ball rolling end over end consistently. Also, some quirky-but-repeatable putting strokes don't scale up well to the length stroke you'd need for a fifty foot uphill putt on a Bermuda green stimping 4 or 5.
So I think I'm disagreeing with you but I'm not sure.
-
It don't think green contouring matters.
To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a good putter is a good putter is a good putter.
Bob
-
Good putter have a good putting stroke + an ability to read greens + and ability to execute.
So on that three-dimension scale how would you rate your putting? Let's say 0-10 for each dimension with 10 being Ben Crenshaw and 0 being someone who has never played the game.
I'd say my stroke+read+execute rating is 8+1+4 (totals 13 of 30 possible points).
-
I tend to agree with Tyler Kearn's post that highly contoured greens at good speed definitely favor the better putter as they simply take more imagination and concentration to negotiate successfully. I do stress 'at good speed' though. I saw this yesterday on a few greens at Sunnehanna. If you were in what may be termed the wrong place on the green to the particular pin you sort of had to feel the green and particularly the speed as a race driver might feel the limit of adhesion of his car's tires on the track. One putt looked to me like about a 10 foot break but after hitting a few putts I could see it was more like a 30 foot break to execute successfully. I don't know if this involves a grooved putting stroke as much as it involves imagination to sort of "feel the green" and how the ball will react across it.
However, I would stress that the putts I was trying would've been a 10 foot break if the green was at around 9 but it was around 11+ and the break was therefore exaggerated to make around 30 feet necessary. Some might think this is excessive but I feel that type of speed makes putting greens and all their nuances really come alive.
-
Rich,
In general, Yes.
HIGHLY contoured greens imply that the pace of those greens is slower, and I believe that a slower pace provides greater margins of error for poor putters.
If we view good putters as having the skill to read and execute, possessing that vital component, "touch", I think that HIGHLY contoured greens reduce the benefit of touch due to their slower pace, but increase the required reading ability.
Since some golfers with a good putting stroke can be lousy readers, and some bad putters can be good readers it's hard to address the issue without more individual specifics, but, in general, I'd say that the slower pace necessitated by HIGHLY contoured greens favors the poorer putter.
-
redanman;
I don't know how this is confirmable but someone out at Sunnehanna told me that this year Retief Goosen's has 3-putted so few times as to be almost beyond imagination. I guess that might show something really important about putting and success, don't you think?
-
When it comes to highly contoured greens (whether fast or slow but probably more on the faster side) I always liked Ben Crenshaw's advice that the most prudent thing to do is to always take the highest possible line. This was one of the things he mentioned about his success in winning two Masters.
If a tour pro truly concentrates his course management practices on two putting in all cases of longish or difficult putts at the end of the day he'll probably come out a lot better than a tour pro who actually tries to get more aggressive on longish or difficult putts.
-
I don't know how this is confirmable but someone out at Sunnehanna told me that this year Retief Goosen's has 3-putted so few times as to be almost beyond imagination. I guess that might show something really important about putting and success, don't you think?
At the American Express tournament I believe he had his third three-putt of 2004. That's out of probably close to 100 rounds played so call it one three-putt every 500+ holes. Having zero three-putts at Shinnecock (wasn't it?) is amazing enough.
-
If one believes awareness is at the crux of things. What does a golfer need to be aware of on flat putting greens?
Since no one will toot my horn, I will do it myself. The hole was the second at SFGC, on the green prior to TD's softening. I was above the hole 30' on the right side, the pin was left front. I was in a match with the famous Dan King. He had a caddie, I did not. It was for both of us, our virgin treks. After stalking the putt I struck it much to the surprise of the caddie it trickled to within 18 inches. He (caddie) must've not expected me to feel how much of a fall there was. Funny, because the severe elevation was clearly felt on the walk to the ball. Now, There's no way that green was any more severely sloped than the ninth at CPC, is it?
Point being, this softening concept, allows the less aware to benefit from their ignorance. Is that really golf?
-
Rich:
I did not find on another thread where Jeff implied this, but I don't understand the logic.
The only thing I would agree is that a really good player, who is not a good putter, might see it this way since he feels he is being denied birdies when hitting it to 15 feet, while his weak-hitting opponent who can putt might save some pars.
But put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed.
-
I believe that a slower pace provides greater margins of error for poor putters.
Pat
I actually believe the opposite, in that the slower the pace the harder one has to swing and the more the imperfect stroke will be penalized. Poor putters will 3-putt less on slow greens (flat or contoured), but they will probably make fewer putts. On the other hand, good putters will make more putts on slower greens, thus giving them an advantage.
The more slope is introduced to greens, the more that reading and imagination come into the equation. This (relatively) favors the putter with a poorer stroke, all other things being equal. If you re-read my initial post, you will see that I was talking about the putting stroke, not overall putting (even though the title might have been misleading).
-
"But put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed."
That seems to be a thought that'd be impossible to disagree with.
-
Tom D
Jeff's comment was in the "Better player, Better architect?" thread, on which he concluded:
"My experience is that the pros have some specific things they like to see (ie, I am a bad putter, more contour will make everyone close to my skills) and a few specific "tweaks" like that above."
My "logic" (such as it is, is posted immediately above).
-
Rich nailed this one...
I have never been a very good birdie putter but I can make a decent number of par and bogey putts....The great thing about highly contoured fast greens is that you rarely have to make a birdie putt....lag the bird slam the par and pick up the boge....
-
"But put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed."
That seems to be a thought that'd be impossible to disagree with.
...not entirely impossible, Tom and Tom. See John K's statement above, with which I agree.
-
Fast greens expose small twitchy movements in the stroke much more than slow greens...downhill putts are tougher than uphill.
-
Surprise surprise but I think you are ALL correct.
"Put the two players on the greens in the same places for 18 holes, and the bad putter will fare better on flat greens than on severe ones, at any speed."
Correct - based on total number of putts. The bad putter will take less putts on flat greens, because reading won't come into it and it's just plain easier to do.
BUT... relative to the good putter, he will actually fare better on contoured greens, because the good putter also won't make many putts, due to the severity involved. Since no one is making many putts, the bad putter fares "better" relative to the good putter.
So it just depends on your comparison, or what you mean by "fare better."
TH
-
BUT... relative to the good putter, he will actually fare better on contoured greens, because the good putter also won't make many putts, due to the severity involved. Since no one is making many putts, the bad putter fares "better" relative to the good putter.
There may be a couple of exceptions though I suspect?
1. Heavily countoured greens may make three putts far more likely. The better putter will be better equipped to handle that. So while neither may make the first putt, perhaps the better putter will have an easier time of it with the second putt.
2. The better player can leave his ball in better places on countoured greens. While both players will be playing heavily contoured greens, the better player will be facing easier putts.
Update: D'Oh! Retract, I see Tom H said if both players were putting from the same place for 18 holes. Sorry :-\
-
Tom H
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say, which means, of course, that......
.....I completely disagree with the esteemed Mr. Turner. Slow greens (leading to "bigger" strokes, or shoves, as the case may be....), in fact, expose the poorer, twitchier putter. Any idiot can make a fast downhill putt if they can find the line. Only a really good putter can consistently make slow uphill putts, particularly under pressure.
-
Andy: the original premise was by Mr. Doak, going off from Rich's topic starter. I'm just trying to analyze like everyone else here. ;D
Re your point 1, that will factor into it for sure. But I just see so many misses by ALL putters, that in the end this still favors the bad putter... On flat no-countour greens, the good putter makes a lot of putts. The bad putter never does no matter how the greens are. So again, relative to each other, the bad putter fares better with more contour. Or at least that's my take!
Rich - concur with you completely, and thus I too have to disagree with Paul. Sure twitchiness comes into the equation on a quick downhill putt... but again no matter who you are it's gonna be tough to make, and the stroke is so damn small that it's equalized for everyone, methinks. Make the green slower and quality of stroke then matters MORE, because there's more to it than a tiny tap... AND the putts are more "makeable" for all, so the good putter can be expected to make a few, thus relative to his bad-putting counterpart he fares better, since the bad putter's just going to miss anyway no matter how it is.
This makes perfect sense to me, though I doubt my explanation helps show that!
;D
-
The more that contour comes into the equation, the less important the quality of the putting stroke vs. the ability to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green
Whether a putt is 6" or 60' isn't the goal always to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green (often that spot is the hole)? I believe contours favor good putters because they place a premium on controlling pace, which a bad putter struggles to do.
-
Rich,
I think it's a J-shaped curve of speed (or slope) versus putting ability. On my home course which has fairly sloped greens, often with multiple tiers, poorer putters do relatively best when they're Stimping about 8-9 (which is most of the time).
For events where they roll and shaves the greens to get them really fast poor putters three-putt and four-putt constantly whereas the good putters can make the 6-foot comebackers.
However, during transition seasons and other times when they get too slow and grainy the poor putters can not roll the ball on any semblance of their intended line with those big old strokes plus they leave all the uphill putts way short. It is particularly difficult to get a putt from a lower tier onto the next tier up when the greens are a shaggy 6-ish on the Stimpmeter.
So to even out putting between good and poor putters I think you want true-running greens that are moderate speed on sloping greens or reasonably quick speed on flattish greens. Speeding them up into 3-putt land severely screws the poor putters. Slowing them down also hurts the poor putters but not to as great an extent.
Not surprisingly, I like putting on our greens in the winter where they are short poa triv. running true and around 10-ish.
-
I'd like to understand the "pro's" rationale from Rich's original post. Let's assume that if they are professionals, that they have reasonably good putting strokes. Putting comes down to two things.....Line and Speed. If line is dictated by the contours of the green, then less contours means the line becomes less of a challenge to think about. So how in the world does he rationalize that more contour is going to bring more putters into the mix? Do they not say...every year...that The Masters ultimately comes down to identifying the best putter because the greens are so severe?
You guys can argue all day long about good putter, speed putter, blah, blah, blah.....but I think the initial premise is wrong.
-
Ask any tour pro who's been through the yips which they find exposes their stroke more...and they'll definitely reply fast greens.
It's not the length of the stroke, it's the pace. A slow stroke needed for fast greens is much more prone to the yips and small twitchy movements in the hands.
-
Here we go again....the same people who said that the luckiest golfer was winning at Shinnecock now say that the skilled golfer makes his own luck.
-
I consider myself a bad putter. Issues I face.
1. Pace is the #1 issue regardless of green speed (within reason).
2. If a green is absolutely flat and the task is to hit it straight, an element of complexity is removed and I can usually hit it pretty straight.
3. Heavily contoured greens are easier to read than subtly contoured greens. Subtle contours are always the most difficult - ie: I'm more prone to misread than a scratch player.
-
Re your point 1, that will factor into it for sure. But I just see so many misses by ALL putters, that in the end this still favors the bad putter... On flat no-countour greens, the good putter makes a lot of putts. The bad putter never does no matter how the greens are. So again, relative to each other, the bad putter fares better with more contour. Or at least that's my take!
Tom, first, I missed the part about everyone putting from the same place, and that is a big issue.
But for the rest, it hit home for me because last week I saw this up close and personal. We visited the RTJ Trail, and there are a LOT of greens there that have very large ridges, swoops and undulations, the proverbial green-within-a-green concept separated by big, pronounced slopes.
It doesn't say much for my friends, but I probably putt better than the other 3 I was with and on some of those greens I just knew I had an edge. It wasn't so much the first putt because as you say, none of us had much chance with many of the pins. But I knew I had a better chance of getting down in two, and I also knew that I had a better chance of successfully reading the greens with wild undulations.
-
If you polled all of the golfers in America as to which greens on their home course were the most "difficult" (whatever that might mean to various individuals) I think the near-total majority would choose the most contoured greens on the course every time! Can you imagine players choosing a flat green as the hardest green?
-
Andy: I understand that. I still think that in the end, the bad putter is better off. Look at it this way: how many putts in the 10-20 foot range did you make? If you are a superior putter, on flat greens you're going to make far more of those than the bad putter, who won't make ANY no matter what the contour. Add contour, and you don't make any either, so your advantage is diminished.
I think this also works in with the long putts also... on flat greens, the superior putter won't ever 3 putt really - or not hardly ever anyway. On contoured greens, even the best putter will 3 putt from time to time, because he's going to be left all too often with another contoured 5-10 footer, no matter what his best effort is!
So sure, put you against your buddies on a long contoured putt, and I'd bet on you to get it closer, and 3 putt less often. But that's not really the sum total comparison here....
The correct comparison is where do you have a truly better advantage - flat or contoured greens, overall?
And because of all of the above, I'll take you on flat greens, over the long haul. You're going to make far more putts than they do, from all distances.... far more I think than the advantage in long 2putts over their 3putts on contoured greens.... keeping in mind that the more contoured the greens are, the less putts you make also.
TH
-
Ask any tour pro who's been through the yips which they find exposes their stroke more...and they'll definitely reply fast greens.
It's not the length of the stroke, it's the pace. A slow stroke needed for fast greens is much more prone to the yips and small twitchy movements in the hands.
Paul
I'm not a pro, but I've had the yips, and it's always been the "easier" putts that most affected my "stroke." Part of being a bad putter is the mental anguish of the self-fulfilling prophecy of "knowing" that you are going to miss putts that you are supposed to make. When the putt is harder (i.e. more slope, more speed) it becomes "easier" because you aren't expected to make it, and you relax, and putt (relatively) better. At least that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it!
-
So Tom, you don't subscribe to the theory that if the good putter (who usually 2-putts) ends up three-putting on contoured greens, that the bad-putter (2.5-3putts) won't have more than 3 putts very often? Or do we not find this out on a regular basis because we given the short-putter those short putts because we don't want to constantly see the agony of 4-putts or excessive 3-putts?
I'm also trying to see how this argument would apply to a difficult course vs. an easy course?
-
Ditto on the yips, Rich. They are in remission right now (I'm pounding on my wooden desk as I type this!), but when they are raging, I have found a slow uphill or flat 3 footer to be my personal MLTY (Most Likely to Yip) putt. Counter-intuitively, the faster the putt, the better my chances when yipping, because I just have to get it started instead of actually making a stroke.
The putts that you yip are the ones you are supposed to make, NOT the really hard putts.
For purposes of this discussion, I don't think yips should be included. They are a different critter, and can't be handled in a rational manner.
-
This seems to me to be a classic case of overthinking.
A good putter is better off than a bad putter on anything, pretty much by definition. If you are better on highly contoured greens than someone who is better on flat speedy greens, then, surprise, surprise, you are a better putter on contoured greens and the other guy is a better putter on fast greens.
Ayn used to say "A is A".
The rest is just excuses.
If you want to try to argue that a higher handicap golfer is better off on highly contoured greens, that is something entirely different. I'd still argue against it, because, generally speaking, the lower handicap golfer is better at everything, short of maybe the luck involved with holing 50 footers. Even there, the lower handicapper will likely have a better grasp of the proper speed, so he has a better chance there as well.
I'm a pretty good putter, as compared to many golfers who are mid to higher handicappers. It's probably because I have very good vision and am okay at reading greens. I'd bet a lot of money that Scott McCarron, pre long putter, having quit playing after his career at UCLA due to his frustration with the flatstick, was still a much better putter at that time than I am now. Flat greens, highly contoured greens, whatever. Maybe - maybe - I might be better at 5 footers if he was yipping or something, but I doubt it. He was a lousy putter compared to his peers, not compared to bad golfers or bad putters.
-
Brian:
I think they're both going to 3putt from time to time on contoured greens, so the good putter's advantage is diminished. Put them on flat greens and the good putter never 3putts, while the bad putter still does. Factoring in 4putts and worse just seems to me to be taking this to extremes of unliklihood that don't matter much for the comparison. Or to put it another way, the fact the good putter is 3putting - which he would never do on a flat green - outweighs the instances of the bad putter 4putting.
Add to it that on flat greens the good putter is going to MAKE far more putts outside 6 feet than the bad putter - who just plain never makes them no matter what the contour - and the advantages get plainer to see.
For me anyway.
;D
-
George:
We ARE trying to argue that the lesser putter is better off - relative to the good putter - on contoured greens than on flat greens.
I've explained it a bunch of times already.
Yes, a good putter is better than a bad putter - that's just plain logic. A does equal A.
But what we're trying to determine here is where the good putter has the LEAST advantage, and it seems to me that occurs on highly contoured greens.
TH
-
I think you guys are mistakenly assuming that highly contoured greens are automatically slow. I disagree - they may achieve speed through contour rather than mowing height, but they can be fast nonetheless.
I'll tell you one thing. Tom P has a reputation for being a great putter. I'd bet a lot of money that I could do A LOT better against him on flat speedy greens than greens with a lot of contour and any kind of speed whatsoever. Even bad putters can learn to control speed eventually - controlling speed within contours is another matter entirely.
-
Dave Pelz makes a good scientific explanation of why downhill putts are harder than uphill, in his putting book. Any misjudgement in stroke pace/length is magnified when the putt is downhill.
However, contour is exagerrated with uphill putts because of gravity.
It would be interesting to see the stats of The Masters vs USOpen at Bethpage. Could show influence of green contour.
I cannot see how Augusta would be harder, for anyone, if the greens stimped at 7.
-
I think you guys are mistakenly assuming that highly contoured greens are automatically slow. I disagree - they may achieve speed through contour rather than mowing height, but they can be fast nonetheless.
I'm not making that assumption at all. Add speed and the difficulty increases, so BOTH putters miss more, and my comparisons remain valid.
I'll tell you one thing. Tom P has a reputation for being a great putter. I'd bet a lot of money that I could do A LOT better against him on flat speedy greens than greens with a lot of contour and any kind of speed whatsoever. Even bad putters can learn to control speed eventually - controlling speed within contours is another matter entirely.
I'll take that bet. Tom won't make any on the contoured greens and both of you will have a few 3putts, with you having a few more. On the flat greens, you still won't make anything (assuming you are a bad putter, which I gather is the assumption here), Tom will make a bunch from the 6-20 foot range, and you won't make any. He's gonna beat you either way, but in the end, the total putts you take will be closer to him on the contoured greens than on the flat greens.
TH
-
"I'll tell you one thing. Tom P has a reputation for being a great putter."
I do? Maybe I did once upon a time but that should be considered in the same category as ancient history. If I still am a great putter I wish somebody would try and convince my golf ball of that because right now it doesn't seem to be getting that message very well!
-
Wow, here's a completely subjective, data-free discussion! Fun!
One problem I have with these arguments is that you are really talking about "bad" putters versus mediocre putters. Good and great putters are at a tremendous advantage on highly contoured greens. Why? They are much better at reading greens and controlling pace - by definition! George P is absolutely right that controlling pace on greens with contour is not in the repetoire of bad putters - regardless of how fast/slow they are.
Bad putters don't just 3-putt on highly contoured greens - they do a lot worse than that! Mediocre putters, however can usually limit the damage, assuming they aren't already picking up those 2-cup break 4-footers...
Once you start using stroke quality as part of your argument, you are dealing with the general populace of bad and mediocre putters. Totally subjective analysis mostly, based on your own putting...
-
Good and great putters are at a tremendous advantage on highly contoured greens. Why? They are much better at reading greens and controlling pace - by definition! George P is absolutely right that controlling pace on greens with contour is not in the repetoire of bad putters - regardless of how fast/slow they are.
Of course good and great putters are at a basic advantage on highly contoured greens - that's a given. They'll be better no matter what the conditions are, because as George says, A=A.
Once again though, I just do think they a lesser advantage there then they are on flat greens, and no one has said anything to dissuade me from this.
Speed really doesn't change this, either.
I really want to do George's bet, using the GOOD Tom Paul. And Tom, he will return - you know how putting comes and goes.
TH
-
I don't get your assumptions, Huck.
Neither of us make a putt on highly contoured greens? I'd say a good putter is certainly going to make more than a bad putter.
I'd also say the bad putter is going to 3 putt way more often on highly contoured greens than flat speedy greens, whereas a good putter will 2 putt more often no matter what. The good putter will probably 3 putt more on the highly contoured greens, but not way more.
-
I don't get your assumptions, Huck.
Neither of us make a putt on highly contoured greens? I'd say a good putter is certainly going to make more than a bad putter.
Disagree. With severe contours, even the good putter isn't going to make ANY putts outside 15 feet, and he's also going to miss a bunch inside that distance. Make the greens flat and that isn't the case. The good putter's advantage is therefore diminished.
I'd also say the bad putter is going to 3 putt way more often on highly contoured greens than flat speedy greens, whereas a good putter will 2 putt more often no matter what. The good putter will probably 3 putt more on the highly contoured greens, but not way more.
Concur that the bad putter will 3putt more on contoured greens than he would on flat. BUT - and this is the key - SO WILL THE GOOD PUTTER. That's the difference here. You think the good putter is gonna two-putt no matter what? No way. I'll take Ben freakin' Crenshaw to some places at St. Andrews and he's not gonna 2putt (think 2nd green, wrong side of the entry mound). On flat greens his two putt is a given though... whereas the bad putter's 2putt is never a given no matter what the green is like.
Again, we're talking HIGHLY contoured greens v. flat greens, for this comparison.
-
Good and great putters are at a tremendous advantage on highly contoured greens. Why? They are much better at reading greens and controlling pace - by definition! George P is absolutely right that controlling pace on greens with contour is not in the repetoire of bad putters - regardless of how fast/slow they are.
Of course good and great putters are at a basic advantage on highly contoured greens - that's a given. They'll be better no matter what the conditions are, because as George says, A=A.
Once again though, I just do think they a lesser advantage there then they are on flat greens, and no one has said anything to dissuade me from this.
Good putters are at a lesser advantage at Pasatiempo or Augusta than they are at say Poplar Creek?!? What is a bad putter then? A 24hcp player, or a 4hcp who once had the yips?
Here's a real test, not based on one data point:
Take 20 golfers from The bottom 15% of putters, skill-wise. (I'd use handicap as a proxy, but decide however you like).
Take 20 from the top 15% of putters.
For each one, place a ball in the middle of each green at Pasatiempo, and a ball in the middle of each green at Poplar Creek (or whatever represents "flattish" to you).
Count how many putts it takes them to hole the ball for 72 holes. Sum all the numbers for the good players on flat and contour and the bad players on flat vs contour. Get 4 numbers:
i.e.: good/flat = the sum of the 20 players strokes over 72 flat holes
Calculate the deltas: good/flat - bad/flat, and good/contour - bad/contour
Then tell me which delta is bigger. The flat or the contour?
-
Neither of us make a putt on highly contoured greens? I'd say a good putter is certainly going to make more than a bad putter.
This is what I keep bumping up against as well. I understand the basic premise TomH is making, but I believe this assumption he is making (that nobody makes putts on contoured greens) is where it gets dicey. The pros make lots of putts at the Masters, and good putters don't 3 putt much at the Open. Of course, the variety of golfers being discussed (from the best of the best down to the worst of us) makes this rather wide-ranging.
-
I think highly contoured greens couldn't possibly favor a bad putter over a good one. Matter of fact let's just say a good putter is twice the putter a poor putter is on flat greens with little break. Now you give that poor putter two things to think about (break and speed instead of just speed) and he'll probably be about four times worse than the good putter instead of just twice as bad on flat greens! ;)
-
Concur that the bad putter will 3putt more on contoured greens than he would on flat. BUT - and this is the key - SO WILL THE GOOD PUTTER. That's the difference here. You think the good putter is gonna two-putt no matter what? No way. I'll take Ben freakin' Crenshaw to some places at St. Andrews and he's not gonna 2putt (think 2nd green, wrong side of the entry mound). On flat greens his two putt is a given though... whereas the bad putter's 2putt is never a given no matter what the green is like.
So how do you explain the fact that winners at ANGC often times don't 3 putt? Or do you think these greens aren't highlyy contoured? Heck, a bad putter might - check that, will 4 or more putt some of these greens.
I don't think a good putter is going to 2 putt no matter what, but he's going to do it WAY more often than the bad putter on highly contoured greens. I don't think 3 putting on flat speedy greens is nearly as prevalent for the bad putter, and for the good golfer it's almost non existent.
I also disagree that even the good putter isn't going to make ANY putts outside 15 feet. I've made plenty of putts outside of 15 feet that have a lot of break to them.
As I said before, I think the key assumption that I disagree with is that the highly contoured greens are slow. I think Paul Turner is right in that virtually all greens putt easier stimping at 7 than much higher. But I also agree with John Krystynak - bad putters frequently do worse than 3 putt on highly contoured greens. I don't think they frequently do worse than that on flat speedy greens.
-
John K.:
Now that is a good test. My feeling is that the delta will be greater on the flat greens, for all the reasons I've mentioned too many times already.
But of course I could be wrong, and I have a lot of faith that the good putters will make putts on flat, and NOT make putts on HIGHLY contoured, and that the bad putter just misses no matter what.
If you disagree with any of that, than you disagree with my overall assessment. And that is just fine!
I feel pretty confident in this, though. ;D
-
George:
Just how many people have gone through an entire Masters with no three putts? Isn't that an EXTREMELY rare occurrence? And we're talking the best putters in the world here... If anything the results of the Masters proves my point that even the best do 3putt when contour is severe enough. And sure, a bad putter might 4putt.... but not more than the good putter 3putts. Contour remains an equalizer.
I've also never made the assumption that highly contoured greens are slow. I just don't think speed changes any of the factors here relevant to the overall assessment.
TH
-
The proof lies in the fact that great ball strikers win the Majors all most exclusively every year while great putters can win on tour any day of the week....Nicklaus and Palmer own the Masters because the great greens put a higher premium on ball striking than putting...
-
Damn good putters make slightly fewer long first putts on highly contoured greens. They do not double their 3-putt quotient, however (maybe more like 1.3X).
Disagree. Damn good putters damn near NEVER 3putt on flat greens, whereas they sure as hell do on contoured greens. That's a very key point in my argument here.
So I'd say their 3putt quotient goes up at about a 10x clip. That is, one 3jack for every 100 on flat, 10 for every hundred on HIGHLY contoured (think #8, 11, 16 Pasa).
Perhaps I've seen too few truly great putters to make this statement based on observation, though. I just do know that I surely have seen plenty of players who THINK they are great putters 3jack all over Pasa, for example.
;D
-
And ANGC is hardly the place to make any intelligent conclusions regarding putting, generally.
Concur with that. Use of extremes in arguments never really works. I'm sure putting on the moon changes all this due to the absence of gravity, but what does that matter?
So take Pasa as a worthwhile example. I like John K's proposed test. I think it comes out one way, I gather he thinks it comes out another, fair enough.
TH
-
I'm actually one of those people who thinks the green and green-end and complicated play on and around the green is a wonderful thing---one of the real essences of golf and architecture actually. Why? Because I see the green and green end as what I've called that democratic area of golf and architecture.
On and around the green is that area the Tortoise can catch back up to the Hare. The green and green-end doesn't take the strength and the athletic ability "through the green" does. And as such I look at the green and green-end as the potential great leveler.
Some good golfers and even very good architects thought putting should be minimized because it allowed the tortoise to potentially catch the hare and some thought that wasn't right or wasn't fair, or something?
Why isn't it fair? Matter of fact it makes golf that much more interesting as it really is the place where imagination and concentration not just strength and athletic ability can allow perhaps even a little old lady to catch up to a good player. The other interesting thing is this actually adds to the frustration of the good player and has a net negative effect on him simply because he can't handle it psychologically.
What could be better?
-
Speaking of the moon....Shivas says he is a good putter...a damn good putter sometimes....If he were a bad putter where would his first putt at Pasa ended up on 17....the moon..
-
Concur with all of that, TEP. That's what makes this all fun to conjecture about, as well.
Could we have a discussion of who's better off, the longer hitter or the shorter, assuming they both hit it equally straight? Seems pretty bloody obvious (though I wouldn't bet against SOMEONE here trying to say the shorter hitter has the advantage). ;)
Putting and short-game play is a great equalizer indeed, and that's what makes it fascinating. It doesn't take strength particularly, so no body type has an advantage. The tortoise can catch up to the hare for sure on the greens. And yes, that is one of the things that makes the game great. Sans that, we wouldn't really need to leave the range.
TH
-
TomH;
On the other hand, George Thomas's "half strokes for putts" really was an interesting proposal. It wasn't that Thomas didn't like putting, just that he could see with half strokes for putts was a way of minimizing the fact that the tortoise could sneak up and catch the hare on the greens so easily---and that could produce an interesting consequence----eg allow architects to design more holes in that so-called "half par" range and with a lot less bunkers and such---all resulting in Thomas's real goal--to build less expensive and less costly to maintain golf architecture.
-
Concur with that. Use of extremes in arguments never really works. I'm sure putting on the moon changes all this due to the absence of gravity, but what does that matter?
Generally that may make sense, but using ANGC allows us all to have a common baseline. We all have either been there or watched the Masters a zillion times. When you mention a putt at Pasa, well, some of us have played there, and many others have not so it loses some relevance.
But we can all imagine and think back to great putters at the Masters, and then try and imagine lousy putters trying to cope with those same greens. It could easily be very ugly and 3, 4 and 5 putts are very believable (granted, ANGC just may be a bit on the extreme side ;D)
-
Tom Huckaby,
I agree with you that the good putter will three putt more often on the contoured green. However, doesn't that mean that:
1. the contoured green MUST, by definitition, be more difficult than the flat green
2. the more difficult contoured green would cause the poor putter to increase his/her 3 putts at an even greater rate than the good putter
If number 1 is true and number 2 isn't, then the contoured green would have to be harder for the good putter and easier for the poor putter at the same time! I can't imagine this being possible.
-
TEP -
Your post #59 is superb.
There have been a lot of brain cells killed today on the main thread topic. I'm not sure I get it.
Good putters have better strokes, more imagination and better vision than less good putters. That is true without regard to green speeds, contours or putting surfaces. In my experience, the gap between good putters and not so good putters does not vary much with conditions.
At least that seems to be true in the narrow little world I live in.
Fast greens, slow greens, flat greens, sloped greens - it doesn't matter - good putters always beat me up and take my money.
Bob
-
TEP:
Good point. There are no easy answers in this life, my friend. ;D
Andy - also good point re Augusta. We all do know it. I just do know that Dave S. and both John K's know Pasa as well, thus the preference for that, especially when one considers the relatively absurd extremes the Augusta greens reach. But it is a good common ground, anyway.
AGC: I'm not sure I agree with point 2. The bad putter 3putts no matter how the green is. Sure he'd 3putt MORE on a contoured green, but not enough more to overcome the fact that the good putter 3putts on a contoured green whereas he nearly never will on a flat green.
Whew! This is rather difficult to quantify and try to explain.
;D
-
If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..
-
Fast greens, slow greens, flat greens, sloped greens - it doesn't matter - good putters always beat me up and take my money.
Bob
Of course that's true, Bob. But the killing of brain cells here is in trying to determine where it happens more often. I'm convinced it happens more often on flat greens. So save some money and play Augusta more often, betting solely on the putts. ;D
-
If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..
RIGHT ON!
That explains it perfectly. If it's me against Brad, shit yeah put me on Augusta and I have a chance, just due to the luck factor. Put me on a flat piece of turf and it's game over.
-
Shivas,
My point being that even a bad putter could have kept up with you on that near impossible putt.....he might have even four putted and waxed your ass...
-
The premise of this question to me is a little like saying a complicated race track favors a bad driver over a race driver compared to a staight country road. To me that premise just makes no sense at all---it's totally illogical.
-
If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..
RIGHT ON!
That explains it perfectly. If it's me against Brad, shit yeah put me on Augusta and I have a chance, just due to the luck factor. Put me on a flat piece of turf and it's game over.
But the problem with this is that golf is scored on total strokes! It isn't just how many long, twisting putts you make out of luck; it's how many strokes you take TOTAL! Faxon will 2 putt you to death on the contoured greens, and if he three putts, you will probably be 4 putting! That's reality.
-
Tom Huckaby:
If it's you against Faxon and it's just about making a putt vs two putting I could see your point about a luck factor but if you roll in the likelihood of you 3 putting too on complex greens vs Faxon 3 putting the luck factor of you one putting would be more than completely nixxed. Plus when it comes to the luck factor of Faxon one putting you just might find day in and day out he might be a whole lot luckier than you are! ;)
-
AGC:
Disagree. Brad's gonna 3 jack from time to time on the long contoured putts, as will I... and I don't think I'm gonna 4 putt more than he 3putts.
Put us on straight flat putts and he's gonna make a bunch, whereas I never will until it gets inside 10 feet... and even inside 10 feet he's gonna make way more than me... and he's never gonna 3jack a long one, whereas I will.
So total putts are what I am considering, and I still say put us on the twisters where I will have a fighting chance.
TH
-
Think of this another way:
You seem to be saying that contours make it harder for the good putter to maximize his advantage.
Extend this to golf courses. Do harder courses make it harder for the better player to maximize his advantage? There is a lower bound to what Tiger could shoot at my rather easy home muni, even at his absolute best. There is probably close to no upper bound as to what I would shoot at Shinnecock under this year's conditions.
You have a much better chance at a 10 hole match against Faxon with 10 flat putts than 10 putts at ANGC, Huck. No way you beat him at ANGC. You might get lucky with 10 straight flat putts.
-
Guys. I'm telling you, from a bad putter's perspective (I 3-putted 4 holes yesterday!) I can read a highly contoured green. I might not execute the put as well as a good putter, but at least I'll get it to within 3 to 5 feet. Subtle contours are often much harder to read. Misread a put and forget it - the put will never fall.
If a green is perfectly flat, then you don't have to read it at all. If it's highly contoured, most can read the line. If the contours are subtle, you better have a good caddy.
-
A brief story -
When I was at Sand Hills several weeks ago, Ben Crenshaw was there too with a group of friends from Dallas/Ft. Worth, some of whom I knew. They had a putting contest on the practice green at SH. As many of you may know, that green redefines the concept of "contoured". Wild slopes, ridges, bumps, etc. Crazy stuff.
Crenshaw was incredible. A couple of times he took lines that made me wonder whether he had misunderstood where the next hole was. Boom, lip-out. He putted like a god. His imagination and feel for slopes and speed is beyond anything I had thought possible. He inhabits a different putting universe from mere mortals.
One thing is now clear to me. There is not a putting surface in the world - contoured or flat - where my skills even begin to nudge up closer to Crenshaw's skills. He sees and feels things that are simply not part of my mental equipment. I was deeply humbled.
Good putters are good putters are good putters. The rest of us just do the best we can.
The types of greens we putt on doesn't shrink or widen in any meaningful way the gulf that separates good putters from mediocre putters.
Bob
-
But Bob, what you are really saying here is that the abyss DOES widen on contoured greens! You were much, much more impressed by what you saw Crenshaw do on that particular green than you would have been on a flat green somewhere else, weren't you?
Tom H,
Again, you are saying that the contoured green is harder for the better putter, but not for the bad putter. This is very, very difficult for me to get my small head around! The hypothetical contest between you and Faxon ONLY gives you a better chance on contoured greens IF you are talking about ONE putt! The longer the contest goes on (say 18 holes, for instance), the worse you get your butt kicked. Otherwise, you are saying difficult greens are more difficult for good putters than bad putters, which just can't be. That's what "difficult" means!
-
Ok guys, it's me against the world here so at least for now I am worn down. I am not backing off from my position here, I just have no more good rebuttals.
To AGC, though, I will say this: my basic premise is indeed that 3 putts = 3 putts, and the bad putter just plain won't 4 putt often enough to make it relevant. So yes, if we are going to base this on distance putts are left from the hole, the good putter wins out regardless, you are right to have a hard time grasping it. But that's not what we're measuring... which is total putts holed! Based on that, I stand firm in my assertions.
So I'll still take my chances against Faxon on twisting putts, and Bob's story notwithstanding, I'd sure as hell rather face Crenshaw on the twisting putts at Sand Hills as opposed to a bunch of flat 15 footers. I could get lucky on the twisting ones - but his skill surely shows through much greater on the flat ones. Oh, he'd kick my ass at both, but I gotta believe he's not gonna make any of the twisting ones, and I can get lucky and two-putt and tie him far easier than I can get lucky and make a dozen 15 footers in a row like he may well.
But I could be completely wrong, and that surely wouldn't be the first time.
;D
-
Huck,
If you had a one stroke lead on Crenshaw at the Masters and wanted to close him out on 18 to prevent a playoff you would most assuredly lose....would you want for both of you to be above the hole or both below the hole 20 feet away.....of course you would choose above the hole as you would simply have to just get the ball started for a two putt. Now if you were tied coming into 18 wouldn't you also want the most difficult putt possible.....I believe that at Augusta....the finest greens in existence so not out of the realm of discussion....you can muster many a two putt but rarely a hole out. I don't know why these guys can't get it....bad putters that shoot in the mid seventies can two putt a place to death....good putters that shoot mid seventies make everything they see.....otherwise they wouldn't be good putters or they would be shooting in the sixties...
-
Huck,
If you had a one stroke lead on Crenshaw at the Masters and wanted to close him out on 18 to prevent a playoff you would most assuredly lose....would you want for both of you to be above the hole or both below the hole 20 feet away.....of course you would choose above the hole as you would simply have to just get the ball started for a two putt. Now if you were tied coming into 18 wouldn't you also want the most difficult putt possible.....I believe that at Augusta....the finest greens in existence so not out of the realm of discussion....you can muster many a two putt but rarely a hole out. I don't know why these guys can't get it....bad putters that shoot in the mid seventies can two putt a place to death....good putters that shoot mid seventies make everything they see.....otherwise they wouldn't be good putters or they would be shooting in the sixties...
Absolute concurrence here. You are great at these examples, which make perfect sense to me!
TH
-
Sorry, guys, but NOBODY makes everything they see. Good putters are those that two-putt you to death. The guys on tour make less that 40% from 10 feet on flat putts, and you and I make even less. You are going from the instance to the generalization, which just doesn't work.
Now, school is almost out, and I'm heading to the golf course on a beautiful, beautiful fall day here in the south.
-
Sorry, guys, but NOBODY makes everything they see. Good putters are those that two-putt you to death. The guys on tour make less that 40% from 10 feet on flat putts, and you and I make even less. You are going from the instance to the generalization, which just doesn't work.
Now, school is almost out, and I'm heading to the golf course on a beautiful, beautiful fall day here in the south.
Have a great round, AGC!
I still think I'm right, btw. Oh yes, not even the great Ben himself makes everything. But give us each 25 flat 10 footers, and he's gonna make 22 or so, wouldn't you think? I don't buy that 40% stat at all, because on tour they just plain don't get flat putts. Every putt has some sort of break. So yes, on tour, the best putters may well be 40% from 10 feet. But for this example we're talking flat pancake putts.
Meanwhile even on such pancake I'm gonna be lucky to make 10. That's a pretty big advantage for ole Ben. 12 shots.
Now give us 25 twisters on say #9 at Augusta, from 40-50 feet. I'm liking my chances to get within 12 shots of him on the total. He's gonna end up around 52 total putts (23 2putts + 2 3putts), and I like my chances to get 63 or less. I really don't think I'm gonna 3 putt or more half the time - not on putts he only 3putts twice, anyway. Make them harder and I just get closer, also.
TH
-
The problem with a straight flat putt is that you have one choice to make it....at the hole not too fast. With a contoured putt the poor putter has three choices to make it....perfect line/perfect speed.....high line/slow speed or....low line/hard speed.....the bad putter has three chances to catch it on the right jerk thus increasing his chances..
-
Tom, you and I both know that average putters can hit straight 30 footers roughly on line. At least within a foot either way. That just isn't true on high contour. The only way they could do it would be if someone showed them the line, exactly. Brad Faxon sees that line. The average putter doesn't. Faxon misses by a little. The average putter blows it off the green. It adds up to the great putter's advantage, big time.
I think this is the key incorrect assumption that Tom is making. He keeps describing four-putting as such a rare event that it's negligible. On flat greens that's true. At Augusta or Pasa when the greens are Stimping anywhere above 9 or so you can not neglect four-putting for the bad putter. A typical amateur is quite capable of putting that first putt either off the green altogether or 50 feet away from the hole. And then it's multiplicative and not just additive. If you don't get the second putt/chip close then it's entirely possible to send the third putt far from the hole and three-putting from there.
Even if the bad putter has one green every other round where it takes 5+ strokes to get in the hole starting from 30 feet above the hole that's a huge difference that more than evens out the fact that Brad Faxon won't one-putt as often at Augusta as he does on a flat green.
-
So straight putts are skill and twisty putts are luck? That might just be the silliest thing I've ever read on here.
I will generalize my thesis even further.
ANYTHING that makes the game more difficult will make it incrementally more difficult for the lesser golfer.
If you are saying that a highly contoured green makes the game more difficult for the good golfer (measuring stick being more 3 putts), then I believe it will affect the lesser golfer even more.
Even when Oakmont's greens were not super fast (by today's standards) stimpmeter-wise, back when Pete Dye estimated them to be stimping 6 or 8 or whatever, they were still considered a terror to putt. The slopes created the speed and difficulty.
P.S. Brent is right on with his last post.
P.P.S. If JakaB's last post is correct, then every club looking to host a major shouldn't just lessen contours, they should remove them.
-
Lets say you take a monkey out on the 16th green at Augusta National and give him 100 attempts at 20 foot putts....don't you agree that the near infinite ways to combine slope and speed will result in him making more putts than if you gave the same monkey 100 attempts on a perfectly flat green.....If you don't believe me just remember the circus chip in Davis Love hit a couple of years ago....by definition the contoured green creats funnels that introduce luck over skill...
-
A.G.
I can sink the same three foot putt that Crenshaw sinks. But he will sink lots more longer putts. And the gap in our skills will be even more evident on longer, contoured putts.
Similarly, I can write a sentence as good as a sentence by William Faulkner. But try writing anything longer and harder than that - like a novel - and his superior writing skills will soon become apparent.
I think we are in agreement about all of that.
My point is that this thread was premised on the oppposite view - that harder putts somehow narrow the gap between good and bad putters. That strikes me a not just wrong, but - as my teenage son might say - waaay wrong.
(Or, to use the Faulkner analogy, it can not be the case that the more each of us writes, the closer the quality of our writing becomes.)
Again, my view is that this thread has killed a lot of brain cells agonizing about a premise I think was counterfactual from the get-go.
Bob
-
George
You're a self-confessed Math geek, so let me give you some data (well, it's actually a hyopthesis, but as Ayn once said what's a little disinformation amongst freinds.... :))
Ben Crenshaw vs. Average GCA Guy. 18 greens each
Situation A--Slow ( 7) green, 12 foot slightly uphill, slightly (one ball) breaking putt.
Results: Crenshaw holes 12, down in two on the other 6. Total score: 24. GCA Guy holes 3, 3-putts 3, 2-putts the rest. Total score: 36.
Situation B--Fast (11) green, 25 foot downhill side hill (breaks 2 feet) putt.
Results: Crenshaw holes 2, 2-putts 10, 3-putts 2. Total score, 36. GCA Guy holes 0, 2 putts 8 times, 3 putts 10 times. Total score 46.
QED
-
Thank God Rich returned. His numerical example there illustrates perfectly what I've been trying to get at all day. That is why contoured greens narrow the gap between good and bad putters.
George, that is one hell of an overgeneralization, one that no one here has said, when you say "straight putts are skill and twisty putts are luck." That is not at all what any of us are saying. What we are saying is that luck is entered into the equation on twisty putts, more so than on straight putts. That seems quite obvious to me - more variables means more things that can go wrong, more difficulty in actually holing the putt. So yes, the good putter is also more adept at assessing these variables, but not to the extent that it overcomes the fact that he's just plain not going to make the putt... which brings him back down to the level of the bad putter.
So if you want to say the good putter will always get it closer, I'm right with you. But if you're going to say he takes less total putts, to the extent that Rich's equation doesn't hold true, I have to disagree.
And Brent, I never said 4putts would NEVER happen. I just do believe they happen infrequently enough as to not matter in the equation... or if they do happen, it's going to be on a putt where the good putter 3putts himself, and also might 4putt if it gets too wacky.
TH
-
I dunno Dave, I think Rich has this correct. Just make it the average GOLFER instead of the average person in here. We all know that people in here are quite highly-skilled players and putters. ;D
Seriously though, I do believe his numbers. In situation A, he's giving the average hack 3 one-putts, which I think is stretching it!... while allowing for 3 three-jacks, which I do find believable, as he will run it by the hole enough to miss the comebacker. So what the heck, a compromise might be two of each, and the numbers come out the same. You seem to have a lot more faith in the average hack than I do, likely because you play with good golfers for the most part. Come join my groups some day. ;D
In situation B, he said stimp 11 which means FAST. Jeez that number has become commonplace in parlance but in reality that is one REALLY fast green. Back to our common example, understand that Pasa NEVER gets to 11 (and thank God for that). But anyway, I absolutely believe the average hack could 3-jack that putt 10 out of 18 times, as he's not going to get the speed/break combo right basically ever, and he's gonna leave quite a few 10+ feet away. Meanwhile it remains one devilishly tough putt for good ole Ben, so I believe the numbers Rich has for him also.
And regarding: "Do you realize that what you're saying is that an average GCA'er averages 2.55 putts per green in regulation, since he sure as hell doesn't hit it to an average of better than 25 feet on every hole. That's absurd."
That is absurd, but that's not at all what he said. He's just using very believable numbers for two very believable situations, without generalizing this to golf overall, which would include a lot of putts nowhere near this easy or this tough.
TH
-
Well spotted, Shivas!
I had a few glasses of wine with dinner at the golf club and my long-suffering bride let me wander into a few of the 4 pubs along the way on the walk home from the clubhouse, and then I posted that post that I had written earlier and recognizing that some of my numbers were not exactly perfect went back and edited it, but thank god Huckaby understands me, and now I'm going to bed, and you are wrong. ;)
-
I've read as much of this thread as I can manage -- and humbly submit that anytime Messrs. Goodale and Huckaby agree on something, it calls for an investigation. (Especially when they disagree with the estimable Messrs. Paul, Schmidt, Crosby, Pazin and Crockett.)
(I, too, loved your Post #59, Tom I.)
I volunteer to be one of the investigators. Ben Crenshaw can be the other. We'll meet at Sand Hills and have putt-offs all over the place -- long putts, short putts, straight putts, contoured putts, uphill putts, downhill putts, fast putts, slow putts (if any) -- putts of all sorts, in every combination. I have no doubt at all that the combination of contour and speed would, while decreasing the number of Ben's holed putts, increase his overall putts-per-hole advantage over me ... but, even so, I would happily devote several days to this experiment -- just to get all of your questions answered.
-
The whole comparison of Crenshaw (+2) to Huckaby (-4) is a comparison of a great putter to a very good putter. Both are in the 90th percentile and above of all golfers.
I thought we were talking about bad putters? If we want an ad hoc test, let's pit Huckaby against my Mom (32hcp) at Pasatiempo. She thinks she's a great putter, but is actually safely in the very bad zone. Then tell me who does better at Pasatiempo, and how much advantage they got versus San Mateo Muni. Actually, even then, my Mom is pretty random - so who knows!
It's a good discussion, but it's all been at the 4 beer level, math-wise. No need to define what you are talking about, or use any stastical approach, cause we're just talkin' here!
-
BTW,
If we want to transform this into an extended bout of Huckaby vs Goodale, we could start with this article that's slightly related and then segue into a patented Congu vs Ghin love-fest!
Is The USGA Golf Handicap System Equitable?
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~chance99/141.kupper.pdf
Barkeep, another pint please!
-
Some on this thread seem to be trying to break this discussion down to what they call 'good putting strokes' vs not good putting stroke. What's a good putting stroke? A few of the golfers I've known have some fairly bizarre putting strokes---one notable example who makes a massive outside in stroke but he's been an excellent putter for years (watch the practice stroke vs the actual stroke of Billy Mayfair sometime!!). They say Bobby Locke had a noticeable hooking stroke. I notice most all the pros today have very similar strokes in that the putter goes straight back and the blade stays very square right on through into the finish. In the end it really doesn't matter what you do with the stroke as long as you understand your own stroke and how to apply it well to any given situation.
-
A good putting stroke is not defined by the method but by the results. A good putting stroke starts the ball on a tight, end-over-end roll on the desired line at the desired pace and does it repeatably.
-
There is no question that contoured greens favor the better putter. NO QUESTION! Putting is one of my strong points and when we are playing amateur events on greens with stronger contours, I definitely have an advantage on the greens. If you take a very good putter and give him a 10 footer that breaks 6 inches, he will make far more than average or poor putter. If you put them both on a 10 foot relatively flat putt, the average to poor putter will close the gap. This is for two reasons. 1st - a putt that breaks requires a feel that all good putters have and very few average to poor putters have. 2nd - a good putter would rather have a putt with break because it allows them to use the slope to effectively make the hole bigger, because a putt with more break allows a good player to use any number of speeds to feed the ball in the hole. I also have news for you all. Not too many great putters putt over spots as an absolute. Feel is much more important, because if you hit it over a spot at the wrong speed, it will not go in, unless it is a straight putt (assuming you get it to the hole at less than Mach 1). When I am looking at a putt from 10 feet with about what looks like 6 inches of break, I realize I can hit firm at 4 inches or die it in at 8 inches. That is a variance of 4 inches and all I am trying to do is get a feel for the speed somewhere in there. While a sound stroke helps with consistency, feel is more important. Putting is an art not a science.
While I have been talking about a 10 foot putt, the advantage a good putter has over an average to poor putter on sloping greens gets even greater when you put them both at 30 feet plus. From 30 feet plus on a sloping green, the average to poor putter is likely to 3 putt on a sloping green whereas a good putter is still trying to give the ball a chance to go in. An average to poor putter is more likely to make a 30 plus footer that is flat, whereas a flat 30 footer for a good putter is often times tougher to make because speed is not as important and they lose the advantage of using slope to feel the ball into the hole.
However, while I did not read every post, I did not see anyone point out that you first have to get to the green. If an average to poor putter is hitting it 10 feet all day and Ben Crenshaw is hitting it 40 feet all day, Ben's putting is not going to overcome poor ball striking.
-
Brent,
I ask this in jest:
Does any sphere rotate with a "tight" or a "loose" rotation? Does the ball expand and contract? I hear the baseball guys say the same thing about ptches with a "tight rotation" and it drives me nuts. A putt probably skids for a short distance, then rotates in the direction of the roll and at the pace it happens to be rolling. To spin any more than just "rolling" would next to impossible and a disaster to the ability to putt!
Perhaps I'm wrong though,
Joe
-
Tripp,
You don't understand the premise of the argument...I know some guys that play at your level and you are a good putter and I am a bad putter....Guys who play in the Northeast Am and the Anderson Cup and such should give me approx 10 shots at a course like Torrey Pines South because of the number of putts you think are easy that I'm just lagging...now if we go up to Pasa I'm gonna need only 8 shots because you are going to be missing the same putts I am.....I'm sure I'm not getting enough strokes at either course but I am confident I can win or tie more holes at Pasa than Torrey just because of the greens...(I'm a 4.0 index and know the guys who play in those tournaments are better than scratch..so don't even..)
edit note: I re-read Tripp's record and gave myself more shots...I think the 10 at Torrey compared to the 8 at Pasa represents the basis of this argument pretty well.....I just don't know if I can back it up..
-
O.K., I think I've got it now...
Ben Crenshaw is a WAY better putter than I am, UNLESS we play on greens that Crenshaw will find difficult. Magically, I will NOT find those same greens to be as difficult as BEN FREAKIN' CRENSHAW, at least relative to my normal game.
By extension of this theory, if I can just find greens that are sufficiently difficult, then I will be BETTER than Crenshaw, and will at last be able to contend in a tour event, especially if Rich Goodale is my marker!
Cool!
-
A putt probably skids for a short distance, then rotates in the direction of the roll and at the pace it happens to be rolling. To spin any more than just "rolling" would next to impossible and a disaster to the ability to putt!
I think I picked up that terminology from seeing putts on videotape. Eventually any putt on a smooth green will settle down into a pure roll. What I call a "tight" roll refers to the putts that do that little skip for just an inch or two after they leave the putter and then get rolling right away. On a practice green I can make putt after putt roll absolutely perfectly with that quick-starting roll.
Some putts if you don't catch them squarely with a smooth stroke will hop in the air or wobble about for much much longer before settling down. They tend to wobble slightly off the original line they were intended to start on and never really have a chance of staying on line.
In the clinics I've attended, the putts being videotaped are of balls with a red line painted around them. I think the term "tight" comes from the fact that even during the initial skidding phase the red line stays straight whereas on poorly struck putts the line momentarily looks like a smear the whole width of the ball. But as you say, eventually any putt will do nothing but roll. It's all about getting it started straight on line those first few inches.
-
Okay, I'm going to do a double-reverse here and agree with Rich's and Tom H's examples.
And then I will ask the question, isn't this the desired result?
We want our golf courses to reward thought and touch and be interesting. We don't want the golf course to be easy for the good player; in fact, the whole goal of golf course design is to make the golf course as challenging as possible for the great player while making it RELATIVELY less challenging for the hacker.
So, you're telling me that contoured greens are the answer! Great, because I was already leaning in that direction!
-
Tripp Davis,
You're confusing a putt that breaks 6 inches in 10 feet with the term, "HIGHLY CONTOURED".
-
Tom Huckaby:
If I recall correctly, you serve one of your state golf associations in establishing course ratings. So based upon your assertion, the more contoured the greens are, the more the Slope Rating should go down. Is that per the manual?
Makes sense to me!! ;D By that logic, I suppose the Slope Rating at Crystal Downs (some of the most severe greens anywhere!) should be about 105 ;)
All the best,
Doug
-
Thoughts after reading post:
1. Highly contoured greens favor the better iron player as the contouring tends to expose directional or distance errors as they decrease the possibility for success on next shot, putt, from one or more sides of the cup.
2. Some strokes on or around highly contoured greens, though performed with the putter, are recovery shots with success expectations that should be closer to chips, pitches, flops, etc…
3. The better recovery putter has a better chance of success than the weaker recovery putter. Mostly due to ability to read and execute the "speed putt".
4. Some strokes performed with the putter on highly contoured greens are not makeable and the object is to get in the position one desired after prior shot.
5. Doug Sobieski had very little chance of making his putt on number six and would have been glad to get within four feet and be below the hole ;)
6. Giant greens are not easier than average or small greens if they follow the green within a green approach and the USGA rating system does not fully address this issue.
Cheers!
JT
-
Tom Doak:
EUREKA! Thankfully someone gets this, which really shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp. And damn right that's what you should be doing - keep up the good work.
Doug S.:
I am indeed a course rating volunteer. Note that on very highly contoured greens, the surface rating just maxes out, both for scratch and bogey - and doesn't account for the loss of strokes well enough, methinks. The system does however give the bogey an extra point - so you have me there! In both of these cases, I believe the system is wrong and should be tweaked. This shall be my new crusade.
AGC:
Once again, you're only chance that Ben will 3jack will be on the contoured greens. It's not that you won't find those greens diffcult - its that HE WILL.
;D
-
Dave:
We crossed. I addressed Doug's point - I think the course rating system fails in this. One way or the other though, please do understand it's always going to be just one of many criteria, so it's never going to make a HUGE difference in the number. Sorry guys, Crystal Downs is never going to be 105. But come to think of it, just like Tom Doak implies, don't we WANT lower slopes? Or are you all into punishing the bogey golfer?
As for AGC, he remains wrong, as do you. But you're getting closer, which is nice to see.
;D
TH
-
Thoughts after reading post:
1. Highly contoured greens favor the better iron player as the contouring tends to expose directional or distance errors as they decrease the possibility for success on next shot, putt, from one or more sides of the cup.
I'm glad to have inpired a five page theoretical thread that has stayed theroetical - with no architect bashing anywhere to be found! ;D This is the type of discussion I like here.....
Since that comment came from Larry Nelson, who was one of the more accurate players of all time, I think Jim caught the essence of his argument for highly contoured greens. In addition to his putting skills - he is probably a great lag putter, but doesn't often putt the lights out. In the late 80's to mid 90's I recall him being in contention at four straight US Opens, all requiring accuracy. He made every tough par save putt he looked at, but never made enough birdies to win his second open.
At Brookstone, he wanted greens flattish in the middle, but with dramatic "spikes" or ridges working in from the edges of the greens to present the most challenge to iron play when going for the tucked pins. He felt that if you played to the middle of the green you should have a 30 foot putt, and playing for the pins, you would either clear the ridge and have a short putt, or have it reject your ball back to a longer putt.
Thus, the high contours reward accuracy as much as putting skill. And when you think about it, decreasing the percentage importance of putting compared to accuracy isn't all that bad a thing......
-
What's a crock is that you find that a valid example. Come on Dave, where the ball ends up has only a LITTLE to do with total number of putts. Ole Ben is gonna get the ball only a bit closer than the average hack.
Please. You are penalized 15 yards for invalid example and are now forced to admit to going to the Northern Illinois instead of Northwestern.
;D
The greens Ben putts on on the rest of the Sr. Tour are never going to be all that flat. His stats at Augusta relative to the rest of the tour are not very helpful for this discussion, because how Ben plays the courses has SO much to do with his total number of putts. He might end up having LESS at Augusta just due to his approach... constant care to miss on the proper side, etc.
Now here's an example worthy of someone with an actual college education, which I thought you had until this morning:
Put a ball in the middle of each green at Augusta, and a ball in the middle of each green at San Jose Muni (pancake flat and medium speed greens, for the most part). Average Hack against Ben. Normal, not crazy pin positions at Augusta (but understand the wilder you make the pins, the better chance AH has relative to Ben, cause Ben willl never make any and will 3jack more). Pin positions meaningless at SJ Muni. Range the putt distances from 10 feet to 60 feet.
I'm betting AH comes closer to Ben over 18 holes at Augusta than AH does at SJ Muni, in total putts. I've said why at least a dozen times already.
You will likely choose to disagree, and that is fine. At least we'd be working from a proper example.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby said;
"But come to think of it, just like Tom Doak implies, don't we WANT lower slopes? Or are you all into punishing the bogey golfer?"
I believe this is probably the most important and the underlying point here. Generally speaking most golf courses and clubs probably should want lower slope ratings on their courses. If they also want high courses ratings then so be it. One might even look at a course with a high course rating and a low slope to be the "ideal" golf course (both testing the good player and relatively accomodating the less good player).
But the fact is that some courses were very purposefully not intended to be that way. PVGC may be the best and the original example of that---it's always had a high course rating and a very high slope rating. That's completely apropos to the design intent of the golf course by Crump---eg to really test the very best and to discourage the not good player from even coming there.
There's no question that the highly contoured greens of PVGC are simply part of that equation. While "course rating" is app 80-85% derived from raw distance obviously the difficulty in scoring at PVGC is largely derived from the "obstacle rating" of the course which makes up the other 15-20%----and that definitely includes the difficulty of the greens.
-
I say this:
We can each go on all day making up examples that support our positions. I don't buy yours, you don't buy mine.
I'm gonna stop now. You have not convinced me - even with this - and in the spirt of exasperation, the time has come for me to give up trying to convince you.
I'm pretty happy with Goodale, Doak and John Cavanaugh (an eclectic group to say the least) on my side here. Nothing against you and the others who miss this very easy to understand point, but well... maybe someday you'll all come around. I do have hope for you.
;D
TH
-
Sorry Dave, but I don't buy that as a fair example to settle this issue.
Take my example a few posts back, which is what I do accept as valid to settle this.
I do believe AH comes closer to Ben at Augusta than he does at SAN JOSE muni. (Jeez, get it right, will you? The insult is tough to bear as you keep mistaking my beloved home for the dog-track I am using for this example. And if you are gonna perpetuate this insult, at least spell the name of my beloved home correctly. Thomas gets an h. Teresa does not. Santa Teresa also has a LOT of contour on many greens. I'd love to make Ben putt #10 to a front pin from past the hole, for example.).
I'm sure you will disagree. As I say, that is fine. You remain misguided and wrong.
;D
-
No way you guys are right. And Tom D doesn't agree with you, he's just humoring you to justify his rollercoaster greens. :)
I'm not wasting anymore time on this silliness.
-
George:
How much time have you wasted? Jeez, your time must be damn precious.
OK, leave Doak out. I'll take Goodale and Kavanaugh and feel very good about this. Some concepts are just best understood by geniuses and eccentrics and those who stumble upon their wisdom.
I'll let you figure out who's who.
;D
-
Tom Huckaby said;
"But come to think of it, just like Tom Doak implies, don't we WANT lower slopes? Or are you all into punishing the bogey golfer?"
I believe this is probably the most important and the underlying point here. Generally speaking most golf courses and clubs probably should want lower slope ratings on their courses. If they also want high courses ratings then so be it. One might even look at a course with a high course rating and a low slope to be the "ideal" golf course (both testing the good player and relatively accomodating the less good player).
But the fact is that some courses were very purposefully not intended to be that way. PVGC may be the best and the original example of that---it's always had a high course rating and a very high slope rating. That's completely apropos to the design intent of the golf course by Crump---eg to really test the very best and to discourage the not good player from even coming there.
There's no question that the highly contoured greens of PVGC are simply part of that equation. While "course rating" is app 80-85% derived from raw distance obviously the difficulty in scoring at PVGC is largely derived from the "obstacle rating" of the course which makes up the other 15-20%----and that definitely includes the difficulty of the greens.
Now THIS is getting into the architectural crux of things, and really should have it's own separate topic.
I'd agree that at a very few courses, the intent is for ALL golfers to be tested/punished, and giving the bogey golfer a chance at success is irrelevant. Pine Valley is certainly one of these, and I'd put Oakmont, PGA-West Stadium, and the lesser-known Fort Ord-Bayonet (as it used to be) in this category. These courses are meant to be supreme tests and really aren't meant to be played by bogey golfers, except for masochistic purposes.
But courses such as these certainly must be the tiny exception.
In general, wouldn't the perfect golf course have a high course rating and a low slope? That would mean, obviously, challenging for the scratch but doable for the bogey. We've discussed this before. Seems to me to be hard to disagree with this as a goal - HOW to make it happen is where it gets tricky.
Unfortunately, based on the way things are computed now, making highly-contoured greens is not going to achieve this end - because as Doug S. so artfully pointed out, the numbers don't work out this way the way they are computed now. Tough green = tough green for the scratch, tougher green for the bogey, unfortunately. However, I really do believe that in reality it does achieve this end, to some extent... so I am all for highly contoured greens, so long as they don't go off the deep end of absurdity.
In any case, this is a very interesting principle... to me anyway!
TH
-
Dave:
My marbles remain intact, but I appreciate the concern. ;)
I disagree with your numbers and conclusions, to a huge extent.
Not much more to say.
TH
-
Jeez you are a bulldog.
But I'm gonna exasperate the hell out of you and refuse to play this game. Whatever number I say, you are just gonna tell me how wrong I am.
I have said already I give up. You will not convince me, and I will not convince you.
But I have become convinced of one thing: if I ever need a lawyer in a situation where you believe in our common cause, I know where to turn.
;D
-
Dave,
I thought I nailed this when I offered to play Tripp at Torrey Pines getting 10 strokes while only needing 8 at Pasa....If you had to bet your left nut in a game against a tour pro....wouldn't you want to play at Pasa over Torrey everytime because of the many, many birdies a tour pro would make at Torrey because of the flat greens.....Most especially in match play you will win or tie more holes at Pasa everyday of the week due to the difficult putts which will equalize out your poorer ball striking...
-
Dave:
OK, you win. You're right. I'm absolutely wrong.
And if you believe that, I've also got some swampland for you.
Exasperated yet?
;D
Dave, it's very simple. First, you neglected to include the longer putts, where Ben will 3jack. Second, no matter how you do this, I'm gonna give numbers that make my theory correct, and I refuse to do so because I know you're just going to tell me how wrong I am. So why bother?
TH
-
Dave:
That's very cool. I do appreciate the effort. The example remains invalid though because you neglected to include the longer putts where Ben will three-jack.
But just because you will not give up, and you are a former (and likely future) golf partner, I guess I will give you the satisfaction.
I just ran through this and I came out with a difference at Augusta of 32, and a difference at Random Hills at 38. Include the longer putts and the differences will be greater, more in favor of Random Hills.
Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
I believe we just look at the relative skills quite differently. I just seem to believe Ben will make more on flat greens and miss more on contoured, and AH won't change much regardless of the greens. That's the crux of our difference.
TH
-
Dave:
Did it. Go ahead and tell me how wrong I am. Sorry I didn't give you the entire thing hole by hole, but I just erased it and dammit I am not gonna go through that pain again. I gave you my totals. As you can see, we disagree pretty completely.
Adding in the longer putts required by my original scenario just makes it favor me more, btw - at least in MY thinking.
TH
-
Tom,
One reason Dave can not understand this is that he refused to admit that he is a bad putter..... a guy who has to putt great to have 36 putts a round is not a bad putter, he is a terrible putter.
-
don't give me totals. Break it out. That's the only way to compare apples to apples. I want to see how many putts you think the random loser will take at ANGC and Random Hills. I also want to see what you think he does from 20, 30 and 40 feet, which I suspect is where our differences probably lie. If you think he's going to mysteriously start making 40 footers that he probably makes 2-3 times in an ENTIRE SEASON at Random Hills, I want to know that.
Do you REALLY want to make me go through that pain again?
Have a heart.
;D
-
Barney, I am speaking of the average muni player out there, the proverbial twice-a-month Joe Sixpack golfer. Joe Sixpack whiffs every other putt. He three whacks 3-4 times a round AT LEAST on a normal course. He never makes jack squat from more than 20 feet.
Dave,
In case you have not noticed...this is a board about golf architecture....there has never been a topic discussed that pertains to architecture that has any value to the golfer you describe above....Even Hutto makes jack squat from 20 feet now and then and doesn't three jack 3 to 4 times every round. Tell me....if you had the short game of D.A. Points would you be one of the top Mid Ams in the Midwest...and that guy can't even make the big show.....you my friend are either a bad putter or have been exagerating your ball striking prowness of late. Tell me....when or where do you choke...and if it is on the green why....it can't be because you don't have the physical ability to putt...or that you don't understand how to putt...it is because you can't putt...you are a bad putter..
-
Dave:
I can see this has some intrinsic importance to you. But dammit, you owe me THREE beers plus a jigger of whatever single malt we can find, come Cuscowilla, for going through this pain and subjecting myself to your wrath.
OK, I did it again, and it came out the same. Here's what I come up with. Caveats: I am NOT, repeat NOT, going to hash over every freakin' number, with you telling me how wrong I am. We just plain look at this very differently. So I'll accept ONE message where you can tell me what an idiot I am and why, but all you are going to get back is "I told you we look at this differently." References to current putting stats on tours are irrelevant, because Ben never plays the kind of pancake flat greens I am talking about for this, and he also treats Augusta quite differently in approach, I am certain.
So with all those caveats out of the way, keeping in mind I am on the stand being treated as a hostile witness by a very skilled lawyer, here goes:
ANGC:
20 ten footers: total putts: AH 44 Ben 36
20 twenty footers: total putts: AH 46 Ben 39
20 thrity footers: total putts: AH 51 Ben 42
6 five footers: total putts: AH 11 Ben 8
6 forty footers: total putts: AH 18 Ben 13
Now, let's do this at a Random Course with boring greens.
20 ten footers: total putts: AH 39 Ben 28
20 twenty footers: total putts: AH 42 Ben 34
20 thrity footers: total putts: AH 48 Ben 37
6 five footers: total putts: AH 10 Ben 6
6 forty footers: total putts: AH 16 Ben 12
My numbers are not jiggered at all. I just filled 'em in based on what I know, and here's how it played out:
ANGC: AH – 170
Ben – 138
Random Hills: AH: 155
Ben: 117
Difference at ANGC: 32
Difference at Random Hills: 38.
TH, bracing for impact.
;D ;D ;D
-
I just seem to believe Ben will make more on flat greens and miss more on contoured, and AH won't change much regardless of the greens. That's the crux of our difference.
That's a heck of a crux. Anyone who misses a bunch of putts on flat greens will be three-putting, four-putting or worse practically every hole at ANGC.
Did you perchance happen to start out thinking only about made first putts? Because the real problem is that when Crenshaw misses, his next putts will be way closer to the hole on highly-contoured greens. Ben will be missing by two feet and the bad putter will be missing by twenty feet. Even if they both miss by ten feet, Ben is much more likely to make the 10-footer and if he misses he'll be within inches whereas the bad putter will have another three or five or eight footer still to go. And so forth as long as it takes to get the ball in the hole. No gimmes, right?
-
Brent:
Unbelievably given my many posts in this thread, I actually haven't given this the vast amount of thought and preparation I normally put into an appearance as a witness (which I sometimes do as part of my job, ironically enough).
So every single nuance of it likely escapes me.
I just do think that yes, Ben will get his closer. And yes, he is damn unlikely to ever four-putt. But I don't think the average hack will either, as much as many of you do. I just plain don't think he'll do THAT bad at Augusta, as the painful exercise my (former) friend made me go through shows. ;D Just a fundamental difference.
TH
-
Shivas,
On that three or four times a year people who don't golf much and come up and ask you if you are a good golfer what do you say.....The answer has to be no.....One funny thing about the 17 handicap you mention....most of those guys who respect the game are guys who got started playing late in life and are better putters than guys like you and me who have been playing our whole lives....I know I'm a bad putter, the people who play with me know I am a bad putter, my wife and children know I am a bad putter.....I can't imagine ever shooting over 75 if I was a good putter...and if I never shot over 75 I would have no trouble saying I was a good golfer...of course my press clippings would say that for me...When you described your game if you had D.A. Points short game you described what would be one of the top Mid Ams in the Midwest....throw some even par rounds around at the State Am and USGA qualifiers and see where it gets ya...69, 72, 74, 75 might not win but it gets you a free pass back year after year...
-
And yes, he is damn unlikely to ever four-putt. But I don't think the average hack will either, as much as many of you do. I just plain don't think he'll do THAT bad at Augusta, as the painful exercise my (former) friend made me go through shows. ;D Just a fundamental difference.
TH
And that perfectly explains to me why you don't understand why you're wrong. :)
I take great comfort in the fact that Barney & Rich agree with you. ;D
Just wasting a little more time....
-
To say that amateur golfers, generally speaking, even including probably most relatively low handicap amateur golfers, are going to be anywhere near a good tour pro and excellent tour pro putter like a Crenshaw or a Mickelson on highly sloped and contoured greens at really good speed is "Walter Mittyism" at its finest, in my opinion.
That certainly doesn't mean there haven't been some amateurs who are known to have putted really well and putted well in high level tournament golf just as well as a really good tour pro putter.
His name escapes me now, but there was a golfer who used to play in the Crump Cup who had a very successful amateur career (Opens and Walker Cups) who was a reknowned putter like that. Once he was walking into the lockerroom at Merion right behind Ben Hogan who he'd just played a round at the US Open with and when someone asked Hogan how it went he said (unaware this amateur was right behind him);
"I just played with an amateur who might be about the best putter I've ever seen."
-
George:
That is very cool with me. Your statement there illustrates perfectly for me why you don't understand how wrong you are.
;D
Now if only Dave S. could accept this type of situation, we'd save a lot of bandwith.
;D ;D ;D
BTW, I am very interested in your take on Tom Paul's post on slope, etc. and my reply thereto... forget this hypothetical putting stuff - that issue seems to me to be important. Whaddya think?
TH
-
Shivas,
Fill out your little chart with you against Ben....this in no way is admitting you are a bad putter...but just for giggles anyway. Rich could change the title of the thread to "Do highly contoured greens favor low handicapers over touring pros..." Its really the same thing just different.
-
To say that amateur golfers, generally speaking, even including probably most relatively low handicap amateur golfers, are going to be anywhere near a good tour pro and excellent tour pro putter like a Crenshaw or a Mickelson on highly sloped and contoured greens at really good speed is "Walter Mittyism" at its finest, in my opinion.
TEP - no Walter Mitty here. I don't have the amateur coming close, no matter what greens. That's not the issue anyway, which is where does he come closer: contoured or flat. If you wish to wade through 125+ posts of nonsense, somewhere herein you can find why I think he comes closer on the contour. If not, well then I respect your judgment even more.
;D
-
"If not, well then I respect your judgment even more."
TomH:
Thank you---I appreciate that because I have no intention of wading back through 125+ posts on this thread. Furthermore, I have something much more important to do now which is to clip my cat's claws! ;)
-
Dave:
As promised:
I told you we look at this differently.
That's all you get. Oh that, and I still think I'm right and you're wrong, reading every single word of your analysis of my stats. See, what you seem to miss is I have AH doing pretty damn bad at Random Hills... so yep, he's not gonna do that much worse at Augusta, as tough as those greens are. Bad is bad and there is a limit to it. I just really don't think he's gonna deviate that much no matter what greens he plays at, because again, bad is bad and eventually he does get the bal into the hole. Remember also the assumption is normal speeds and normal pins - this may well be our disconnect. Make it during the Masters, those crazy pins, and the assessment may well be different. And no, I am not gonna do it again based on that.
We do look at this very differently. I have seen bad putters do horribly at San Jose Muni, and the same type of horribly at Pasa. In my experience, they truly do come out pretty much the same. It's the GOOD putters who do far worse at Pasa, not the bad.
You now owe me four beers and two jiggers, if you have any honor at all.
;D ;D ;D
Tom P.:
If I had a cat I'd favor that exercise over this as well. Your place in my pantheon of heroes is cemented.
;D
-
Wow, this fusillade of posts is even more entertaining than the average Congu vs GHIN Goodale/Huckaby slugfest!
I'm not going to be at Cuscowilla, however, I think a duel is in order, and it'd be nice if someone could film it and put it up.
BTW, one thing it does prove is that there is such a thing as addiction to the internet. :)
-
John Kry:
Glad you are enjoying it. Of course I am as absolutely correct in the handicapping discussions as I am here. I don't tend to care enough to post this much unless I am convinced I am correct, and otherwise intelligent friends somehow have gone astray.
No duel is necessary - this remains all in good fun and humor. However, I gather Cuscowilla does have some good contour in the greens. Rest assured note will be taken of how putters of various levels of skill fare there.
;D
-
"No duel is necessary - this remains all in good fun and humor."
TomH:
What're you talking about? A duel between you and Shivas certainly is necessary! Amongst men of honour duels have taken place for a whole lot less than just good fun and humor, so what will it be---guns or sabers tomorrow morning at sunrise? Since this is a golf and architecture website perhaps this one time we could make an exception and permit 1 irons iinstead but if so both of you must act like gentlemen and promise to only go for the nuts. If either of you really is injured and in life threatening pain, though, the other must do the honorable thing and put the downed man out of his misery with a well struck hooked or faded blow to the temple!
-
TEP:
There have been other times where I would have gone for a duel, where I have been genuinely annoyed, and where 1irons would have been fine but I'd rather have hit drivers. This is certainly not one of those times (nor were such in the handicapping discussions, btw - I'd leave the duel against Goodale to YOU in that one, in any case).
One other thing also - shhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone. OK, just between you and me - as I read Dave analyze the numbers I came up with, I found myself saying "damn, when you look at it that way, he does make some great points." But of course that's due to faulty, unthinking numbers on my part and not because he might be right or anything. But anyway, I can't even let him know that at this point. So mum's the word, ok?
;D ;D ;D
-
I suggest 1 irons at 235 yards! How's that for loading the deck? ;D
Wedges from 60 yards, I say. I believe I'd be safe.
;D
-
Mr. Huckaby:
I would submit to you that you are in grave peril if we choose wedges from 60 yards. I can blade a wedge with the best of 'em. You, on the other hand, almost assurdly hit all of your wedges with feather-like precision. Be careful what you wish for....
Oh shit, that is a good point. Actual lofted shots won't hurt at all. Laser-skulls mean maiming or death or worse.
;D
-
This is more like it!
Shivas mentioned the word "deck" which makes me think:
"Drivers off the deck at 200 yards would be fun to watch"
Even if you got hit, you still could play later that day.
-
TomH:
Don't worry---these discussions are not much more than amusing---no one really needs to lose their life over them. The statisitical assumptions that Shivas and others come up with on here are both time consuming and laughable and so are you're rationalizations to contrary of what he says. The truth is Crenshaw and Mickelson could putt the brains out of both of you on flat or contoured greens and no one really needs to know or even cares if they could do more damage to either of you on one type vs the other type.
-
Well, Barn, in truth, I tell them that I AM a pretty good golfer. The reason? I understand exactly how BAD most people are! Somehow, i get the feeling that you think everybody is a single digit. And in that world, an 8 hdcp. sucks. But you and I know that that ain't the case.
I believe there is something qualitatively different between what I'd label "good golfers" and all the other people you see on a golf course. A person who can shoot around par on a tough course in competition (my definition of a "good golfer") is completely different from a 6-handicapper who can shoot anywhere from 72 to 82 when there's no pressure but couldn't break 80 in a stroke-play tournament one time in twenty.
There are all kinds of ways to get a 6-handicap even with major holes in your game. A "good golfer" just about has to be at least decent at everything and also have at least a couple major strengths (awesome short game, mental toughness, great imagination and creativity or some other unusually good part of his game). That's what makes them "good". All IMO, of course.
You seem to be suggesting that the existence of a people like me who struggle to play bogey golf somehow minimizes the difference between a guy who play well in the Mid-Am versus a guy who finishes second in the B flight of his club championship. There are millions of people playing golf any Saturday who couldn't break 120 playing the ball down and putting it out. Does that make me a pretty-good golfer? No, it just means you can always point out someone worse.
I also draw a distinction between a "real golfer" versus someone who just plays golf. A "real golfer" can play at a reasonable pace, knows how to avoid destroying the course or annoying his playing companions, can at least occasionally string together two or three good golf shots and can handle bad conditions, bad breaks or bad weather without whining about the game being "unfair". Anyone can learn to be a "real golfer" but for some people becoming a "good golfer" might be an impossible dream.
-
Thanks for that response Shivas.....I would say that after reading your posts for the last couple of years that you are an eternal optimist on the golf course.....and after living with myself as a golfer for the last 36 years I am an eternal pessimist.....I can not stand in front of a person or people who I hardly know and calmly state I am a good golfer....I need to work on that. As a matter of fact I am the only golfer I know who continually overclubs...I kills me. Anybody just try to score when you airmail three to four greens a round....from now on I'm gonna be like you my friend and believe I can hit the shot and take less club....no wonder I suck...I'm sitting here in my office worried about what club I'm going to hit on a shot I don't even have yet...
One thing I would like to know...how come guys like you and me that had every opportunity in the world never got any good...or really good...or great or however you want to put it....
-
Shivas said;
"Well, Tom, if I may say so, that's a downright silly thing to say.
This discussion has import. Doak nailed why. If we really want courses to be easier for the weak player and challenging to the good player, we should be very interested in whether heavy contour hurts the bad putter less than the good putter."
Shivas:
I don't agree that this discussion or this specific subject has import, not the least reason being the fact that you and Huckaby and some others can't even remotely agree on it. The upshot of that is that it's consequently incredibly unlikely that anyone else will agree as well and so therefore what could possibly be the utility of it short term or long term?
But if one wanted to basically accomplish perhaps the same effect here's another way it may be accomplished. Again, the idea here is to create more highly contoured greens in the future to create greater interest and perhaps simultaneously create a situation where the good player is more challenged in relation to the less good player.
What really limits the creation of more highly contoured greens in this day and age? Obviously increased green speed does but what's so wrong with increased green speed and highly contoured greens? Clearly the prospect of 3 putting or worse more often and for everyone. What's so wrong with 3 putting or worse in the real world? Nothing much more than the fact that everyone has been saddled with the PERCEPTION that 2 putting is the thing that's expected of everyone once their ball arrives at a green. Who created and fostered that perception of the expectation of 2 putting for everyone? Obviously the regulators of golf did somewhere along the line. Why did they do that? Probably to create what they thought was effective and efficient handicapping by hanging it totally on the concept of "par". Par tells us what to strive for---X amount of expected shots to reach various par holes and once on every green the expectation of 2 putting!
I say---what would happen if the regulators of golf would truly try to abolish the expectation of two putting at every green?
I think what would happen is the green end of golf would truly become that "democratic" area of golf and architecture where everyone really did have a better change against anyone else compared to the area of golf called "through the green"?
Why is that? Because the green and green-end is the only area of golf architecture that doesn't absolutely require strength to be ultimately successful. It requires only imagination and concentration, something that anyone should be able to do if they practiced it. Therefore the green and green-end really is that democratic area of golf and architecture and as such it should be fostered with more highly contoured greens to test everyone even strategically!
Have you ever thought of putting as a strategic thing to do Shivas? I bet you haven't. All you ever thought about putting was to make a putt or at the very least to get down in two putts. I bet that's even a locked-in expectation to you too.
Well remove that expectation---create highly sloped and contoured greens and the expectation of getting down in two putts would cease to be almost a requirment of golf due to the barometer of par and the expectation of all architecture and the idea of putting almost strategically to ensure getting down in three putts would take over as the ultimate goal not to be exceeded!
Think about it. If that could happen---the abolishment of the over-riding expectaion of two putting on every green by all golfers golf could be a lot more fun and a lot more potentially leveling amongst the entire spectrum of golfing abilities.
"Greens with a green" could become more of a reality instead of something to be avoided and something that's considered an architectural abomination!
-
Just a wee note from the middle of my vacation to thank all of you who have been keeping this thread alive, and a special thank you to Dave S. for all the data he has complied on relative putting abilities on various courses. I shall promise to think of analysing these data if and when I get the time.
Keep at it, guys. If we work hard it even might grow to be the longest non-Rees bashing thread in the history of GCA!
PS-on Sunday I was beaten (giving 4 strokes) by an inferior player but better putter on greens which are highly contoured but were runnning slow and bumpy due to recent scarification. My opponenty was not putting as well as I have seen him do, and I managed to slot two missable birdie putts, now that I think of it. Does this not prove my thesis?
-
PS-on Sunday I was beaten (giving 4 strokes) by an inferior player but better putter on greens which are highly contoured but were runnning slow and bumpy due to recent scarification. My opponenty was not putting as well as I have seen him do, and I managed to slot two missable birdie putts, now that I think of it. Does this not prove my thesis?
How is he an "inferior player" if he beat you? This example only proves that putting is a vital part of golf, and Harvey Penick's statement that a good putter is a match for any man. In fact, you say that he wasn't putting as well as you have seen, and that you made two you might otherwise have missed!
If he putted below his best level, and you made a couple extra, and HE STILL BEAT YOU, then he is a superior player. Further, I take it that you are saying that he would have putted even better on flat greens, thereby beating you by even more!
Thanks for disproving your own thesis. Its way less trouble for the rest of us that way!
-
AG
If Vijay gives me 18 shots and I shoot 79 to his 62 and "beat" himone up, am I the superior player? I think not, which is just one of the many reasons why my thesis remains foolproof.
-
AG
If Vijay gives me 18 shots and I shoot 79 to his 62 and "beat" himone up, am I the superior player? I think not, which is just one of the many reasons why my thesis remains foolproof.
Either that, or fool-proved!
-
Never thought I'd see the day when anecdotal evidence and made up numbers were cited as proof of a theory.
Apparently my professors were way off in what they were teaching. Must be the new math.
-
Rich Goodale,
Your loss, giving 4 shots, to an "inferior" players might just as well prove any of the following:
1. Your opponent is a amoral sandbagger.
2. You carry a vanity handicap that you cannot play to under pressure.
3. He had a good day.
4. You had a bad day.
5. Golf is a funny game.
6. Golf is often not a fun game.
7. Giving strokes wasn't a great idea.
8. Fill in the blanks with your own pet theory.
I think, however, that if you want your Sunday afternoon match to be used to prove, once and for all, a particular thesis about golf course architecture, you are going from the instance to the generalization a bit more than is generally permissable in research. :)
By this standard of research, for instance, Florida could be expected to be hit by two hurricances in a two-week period EVERY September, when in reality this year was the first time in 85 years that two had hit so close together. Or, that in American presidential elections the winner is that candidate that finishes second in the popular voting.
Possibly a bit more academic rigor is called for here before I jump off the bridge...
-
Good post A.G., and a good example of how easily some on here try to turn some assumption into a proven conclusion. The vagaries of golf and golfers will probably always resist such things! ;)
-
TP,
Speaking of that..it just hit me this morning that your advocacy of slow greens will force courses into the lengthening mode due to their inability to defend at the greens...thanks guy..
-
John B;
Generally it's gotten fairly pointless to respond to some of the things you've said to me about slow greens but I can pretty much guarantee you that greens running around 11 are definitely not slow in any context for any level of player no matter how much or for whatever reason you may choose to think they are.
-
Tom,
I'm just trying to help you prepare if the cocktail hour runs a little long before one of your presentations.....I can't imagine anybody coming up with something stupider than some of my arguments. Even though they are based in fact....
-
"I can't imagine anybody coming up with something stupider than some of my arguments."
Barney:
Oh, I don't know---I've seen some pretty stupid arguments. While your arguments are pretty stupid you surely should never expect to win the prize. ;)
-
Shivas,
I remember standing next to the first green at Augusta wondering if I could ever be done putting on that hole...I think once I got to a comfortable 11 or 12 over I could putt them pretty well.....so....it is how I get to 11 or 12 over that would determine my total putts......don't tell anybody but I'm a headcase.. to put it lightly...
-
Barney:
One of the stupidest arguments happened with me when I was once presenting the logic of some of our Master Plan to practically the entire membership.
When I got to the 18th hole I proposed that perhaps the 11th and 18th tees should be melded together and played occasionally from the front of either right across the front of the other. Those two holes happen to go exactly opposite directions. As soon as I said that about 25 people all jumped up together and started saying things like--"What? Are you crazy? Members will be killed!"
So I said; "Do we really have members around here who will stand wthin plain view of each other separated by perhaps 50 or 60 yards and fire drives from opposite directions directly at each other?"
There was some general mumbling to the effect of "Oh, yeah, I guess not" and they all sat down.
-
But you can never be too sure what some member might do. I was once playing Seminole with my Dad and a friend of his called Dizzy Benson. Dizzy's name came about apparently for somewhat obvious reasons.
Anyway, we were on the 17th hole and we were waiting on the tee for the group ahead of us to clear the green. The green of Seminole's #17 is in plain view slightly below the tee about 175 yds away.
Dizzy sauntered over and teed up his ball (it wasn't even his honor, I don't think) and we figured he was just getting antsy waiting for the green to clear. No, that wasn't it at all! Dizzy rather quickly hit a great shot right in the middle of the green and right into the middle of all the golfers and caddies on it without even looking!
Dad yelled; "Dizzy what the hell did you do that for?", and Dizzy said; "Oh Jesus, I didn't see anyone on the green!"
So you never know!
-
That may've been the last time it ever happened since it may've taught the membership that failing to stay well ahead of a guy like Dizzy Benson could be positively life threatening!
-
Dave;
I've seen worse than Dizzy, though! One time down the road at Gulf Stream G.C. (which has a lot of the same type of members as does Seminole) I was playing a little Tuesday tournament with my Dad and the old members. There was a thunderstorm delay right around lunch time. About a hundred members were sitting on the covered patio adjacent to the pro shop where an elaborate buffet had been set up.
Along comes this old guy in his cart, right up near the patio, turns his cart around slowly so the rear of it is facing the patio and proceeds to stomp on the accelerator to get his rear tires over a small step on the patio and backs his cart into the patio crashing into chairs and tables with people at them and knocks over the entire buffet!
And just like Dizzy when everyone screamed at him; "What the Hell are you doing?", he said; "Oh Jesus, I didn't see anyone on the patio!"
-
Tom Paul,
Great Florida stories, where the sound of a car horn in a parking lot often means that a aged person who can no longer turn their head is about to back out of a parking place, regardless of what might be behind them!
-
AG
I personally believe that the frequency of hurricanes in Florida this year is a direct result of the swinging chads from the 2000 election. It is only the "butterfly effect" from chaos theory which caused it to be delayed by nearly 4 years. It is fallacious to think that "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy.
As to my golf game, my opponent was not only a friend but also a GCA, which means that he putts like god but often strikes the ball like dog. As he is a 10 and I am a 6 he is an inferior golfer to me, ipso facto. Sorry, but that's the way it is.....
You should also know that my "smileys" have been disabled by Ran ever since drove his brother off this site by refusing to agree with him that the view from the 13th hole at Lundin Links was "one of the Top Ten views in Scottish golf."
So, some of my posts are serious and some are less so. Take them all cum grana salis.
Semper ubi, sub ubi
Rich
-
AG
I personally believe that the frequency of hurricanes in Florida this year is a direct result of the swinging chads from the 2000 election. It is only the "butterfly effect" from chaos theory which caused it to be delayed by nearly 4 years. It is fallacious to think that "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy.
As to my golf game, my opponent was not only a friend but also a GCA, which means that he putts like god but often strikes the ball like dog. As he is a 10 and I am a 6 he is an inferior golfer to me, ipso facto. Sorry, but that's the way it is.....
You should also know that my "smileys" have been disabled by Ran ever since drove his brother off this site by refusing to agree with him that the view from the 13th hole at Lundin Links was "one of the Top Ten views in Scottish golf."
So, some of my posts are serious and some are less so. Take them all cum grana salis.
Semper ubi, sub ubi
Rich
Rich,
I'll respond to this as soon as my daughter (who takes 2nd year Latin) gets home from school and can tell me what the hell it says! (Insert disabled smiley here...)
-
If someone had time to go back through Tom I's 14,262 (and counting) posts and pull out all of the "Goofballs (and Other Rich People) I've Known" stories, I think we'd be looking at a best-seller.
-
Dan
I consider it one of the most sacred roles of my life to occasionally stimulate Tom Paul's brain into revealing more of his goofball life stories. I am on record on this forum in believing that any compilation of such stories would outsell all the works on GCA ever written or ever contemplated to be written.
-
In this morning's paper, I read this stat: Brad Faxon has not 3-putted in his last 324 holes! That is 18 rounds, or 4 1/2 tournaments.
As best I can tell, his last 5 events, along with courses and GCA's are:
WGC-AmEx at Mt. Juliet Estate (Nicklaus)
84 Lumber at Nemacolin Woodlands (Dye)
Deutsche Bank at TPC of Boston (Palmer)
Buick Championship at TPC of River Highlands (Robert Ross, Dye and Weed)
WGC-NEC at Firestone (RTJ)
I haven't played any of these, so I'm not sure of the contour of these particular greens, but they must be damn flat greens for a guy like Faxon to be able to so consistently 2 putt (or better!). I'd like to get his scrawny butt on some contoured greens; I'd wear him out!
Does this make any of the hypothetical "scorecards" from earlier in the thread a bit suspect? I grant that Faxon is the best out there, and that he is obviously rolling it well, but can anyone seriously look at these stats off these five courses and contend that a bad putter could do BETTER relative to Faxon on these greens compared to flat greens at Goat Hills?
Come on! Check into drug rehab and rejoin civilization!
-
"If someone had time to go back through Tom I's 14,262 (and counting) posts and pull out all of the "Goofballs (and Other Rich People) I've Known" stories, I think we'd be looking at a best-seller."
I sure hope noone has that kind of time on their hands. If they did, I, for one, sure would feel extremely sorry for them, and, in a burst of compassion, I might suggest they take my little diarrheic dog and go out and spend a few months strolling and smelling some of the world's best golf architecture.
-
I grant that Faxon is the best out there, and that he is obviously rolling it well, but can anyone seriously look at these stats off these five courses and contend that a bad putter could do BETTER relative to Faxon on these greens compared to flat greens at Goat Hills?
Come on! Check into drug rehab and rejoin civilization!
AGC: I can look at those stats and maintain my contentions, absolutely. Do you REALLY want me to go into the why part of it again?
Just do remember ONCE AGAIN that the issue isn't that the bad putter is ever going to do BETTER than Faxon - he's not, no matter where. The contention is that he's going to come closer to him on contoured greens than on flat. And he is, for the reasons I have tried to explain umpteen ways to you all who are so afflicted with not seeing beyond the obvious. End of story, no drug rehab necessary. Well, not for this anyway.
Lovingly,
TH
-
As a statistician, I have a strong affection for made-up data as it always works out better than the messy stuff that is actually gathered in the real world. However, in the current discussion I don't think making up how many putts you think Brad Faxon and Joe Hacker will take at ANGC is of much more than entertainment value. So here's my modest suggestion...
Grant me the assumption that at least some portion of the factors separating Brad Faxon's putting from mine also exist (albeit to a much, much smaller extent) when you compare Faxon to a PGA Tour player who isn't a good putter by Tour standards. Under that assumption, we could compare a player near the top of the Tour putting ranking to one near the bottom and see how they fare on flat versus contoured greens.
So how about we find the two lowest-ranked (in putts per GIR) players in the 2004 PGA Tour stats who played at Augusta this year along with the two highest-ranked players in those same rankings who played at Augusta this year. Then we identify a couple of Tour events with flattish greens and see how our two better putters fared on the flat-green tournaments versus our two worse putters. Would that shed any light on this debate?
-
Brent:
As a statistician, you make far too much sense.
;D
Of course that would shed light on this debate, but expecting it to SETTLE it is like expecting Republicans to admit George Bush got his ass kicked in the three debates, or Democrats to admit the same re Kerry. Not gonna happen.
In all seriousness though, that would be interesting, but the worst pro is still a very good putter, and thus the difference from worst to best isn't enough to really solve this. Unfortunately what we do need is Joe Hack v. Brad Faxon, and if you can find data on that, then you are even more of THE MAN than I already think you are.
;D ;D ;D
-
I grant that Faxon is the best out there, and that he is obviously rolling it well, but can anyone seriously look at these stats off these five courses and contend that a bad putter could do BETTER relative to Faxon on these greens compared to flat greens at Goat Hills?
Come on! Check into drug rehab and rejoin civilization!
AGC: I can look at those stats and maintain my contentions, absolutely. Do you REALLY want me to go into the why part of it again?
Just do remember ONCE AGAIN that the issue isn't that the bad putter is ever going to do BETTER than Faxon - he's not, no matter where. The contention is that he's going to come closer to him on contoured greens than on flat. And he is, for the reasons I have tried to explain umpteen ways to you all who are so afflicted with not seeing beyond the obvious. End of story, no drug rehab necessary. Well, not for this anyway.
Lovingly,
TH
Tom,
I didn't mean that Joe Hack would do better than Faxon, anywhere, anytime, any way. What I meant by "relative to Faxon" was the degree of change between the two as they move from flat to contoured greens.
I'm going to give up now because I just cannot comprehend that we are still arguing a point that is so simple. Contour is more difficult that flat for ANY golfer, and so would over time (not on an isolated lucky putt) ALWAYS tend to accentuate the skill of a better putter. It cannot be otherwise under the laws of the universe as I understand them. End of story.
-
Aw come on AGC, are you REALLY gonna give up? ;D
It's funny - I see this as simple as you do and am as baffled as you are, coming from the other direction. No kidding - I really do think it is fundamental and obvious that a missed putt is a missed putt, and Faxon is gonna have way more on contoured greens, enough to make the lesser putter come closer to him. I really do believe this.
See, over time contour DOES accentuate the skill of the better putter - agreed. But to me that just means he's gonna get putts CLOSER over time. He's still going to leave putts that he can miss, though - which he just plain won't on flat greens. A perfect example of this was one I just rudely inserted into Ed's thread about Greywall, changing the subject to Meadow Club. The third green there has many putts that BOTH Faxon and Joe Hack are going to three putt, and they're not so severe that JH is going to four putt. To me, this is pretty common in a highly-contoured green. Put them back on a flat green, and Joe Hack still 3jacks from time to time, where Brad never does. So where does Joe Hack come closer to Brad? If you can't see that it's on the 3rd green at Meadow Club, then perhaps you should really give up. ;D
Now of course you can argue that #3 Meadow Club is an atypical green, and I'd agree with that. But it is the kind of "highly contoured green" I thought this whole thing was based on.
In any case perhaps that is one of our disconnects. I'm thinking of pretty severe greens, where Brad will indeed three putt, versus flat greens where he never will. Maybe such scenarios don't exist and Brad never three putts anywhere. But I gotta tell ya, I'd bet good money he 3putts at least 50% of the time from the putt I had on #3 Meadow Club, because there is just no way under the laws of physics that one gets that inside of 10 feet, without holing it (which is also bloody unlikely). So IF Brad hits a great putt, he's left with another twisting 10 footer - not too much break, but enough so that I'm betting he only makes half. Meanwhile Joe Hack gets it to 20 feet and two putts from there, damn near all the time. Three putts = three putts.
That seems to be our fundamental disconnect. If we base this on who gets it closer to the hole, I agree with you whole-heartedly. But I believe we are basing this on putts holed, and for that reason I contend what I do.
TH
-
Okay, okay, I don't give up! :)
I guess you might be right here that there are some greens so bizarrely contoured that it is just luck for anybody, but I don't think there are many, and I doubt they last long before they are blown up and replaced. The thread title is "highly contoured", which is a relative term, of course.
BUT...
Look, Tom, Faxon hasn't three-putted in 324 straight holes! On tour! For money! On courses that include work by Dye, Nicklaus, RTJ, et. al.! Holy cow! Those have GOT to be tougher greens based on contour than most, and you can't seriously mean that the differential between me and him wouldn't be greater on those five courses than on flat greens! Please tell me that you don't mean that...
Now granted, a great part of the trick to this is that Faxon doesn't hit the ball to the same stupid places on greens that I do, and the more severe the green, the more careful he is about where he misses.
That said, and given that I don't know about the Meadow Club green, my real life experience has been that if a great putter three putts because of a really, really tough green (instead of just a random poor stroke), then I am in deep, deep do-do, and a four putt is entirely possible, if not likely.
It is a LAW of sports that more difficult conditions bring the cream to the top. Why should tough putts be different than everything else in the known universe?
-
Fair enough. I believe we have come to a conclusion.
Because.....
a) I don't put too much stock into those stats about Faxon on tour. Outside of majors those guys don't tend to play the "highly contoured greens" I am talking about which make my contention correct. Again, perhaps this is our fundamental disconnect. I'm not talking greens with a little break, I'm talking monsters like #3 at Meadow Club. Oh yes, just make this SOME BREAK and it won't be enough to get Brad to 3jack - as you show - and thus my contentions fail. But that is not what I meant in my contentions.
and...
b) I really do think that Joe Hack is not going to 4putt enough to make such relevant, and that as per my example, the normal occurrence is going to be that they each just 3putt in different ways. I could be wrong here. But I just witnessed four players of wildly different abilities all three putt #3 Meadow, all just like this, so I feel pretty strong that I'm right. Oh I know, I shouldn't go from a specific to the general. But this did have a powerful affect on my contentions here.
and...
c) Hell yes golf is different than anything else in the universe. If you don't believe and accept that, then I guess there truly is no hope. ;D ;D ;D
So we shall agree to disagree, no? Or perhaps we agree more than you think?
TH
-
Hmmm, you might be on to something... ;)
-
Hmmm, you might be on to something... ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D
Just took 200 posts. AGC, PLEASE tell me you are coming to Cuscowilla. The first 6 beers or whatever you might want are on me.
TH
-
It kills me not to be a Cuscowilla (which I have played and adore) but I won't be. We're concluding our church stewardship campaign (on which I work) that Sunday, my son has a really, really important baseball tryout for a spring team that weekend, and on top of that I just simply can't afford it.
But man, are you gonna love that golf course!
-
It kills me not to be a Cuscowilla (which I have played and adore) but I won't be. We're concluding our church stewardship campaign (on which I work) that Sunday, my son has a really, really important baseball tryout for a spring team that weekend, and on top of that I just simply can't afford it.
But man, are you gonna love that golf course!
AGC: I of all people absolutely understand life realities and it remains a minor miracle that I am able to pull off this trip. So no hassles, I just do believe you've been such a good egg about all this that if and when we do meet - and it's now a quest for me to make that happen somehow, someway - well, the drinks are on me.
Then of course we're gonna have to try a few of the wildest putts we can find. I'm just counting on YOU to play the role of Faxon as I can definitely handle Joe Hack.
;D
TH
-
If I'm gonna be Faxon, I'll have to have a LOT of drinks first. Putting sober, I AM Joe Hack! :(
-
The truth is flat and boring greens favor the bad putter. How do I know that? Simply because I assume it. And how do I know my assumption is correct and provable? Because I know I'm right---that's why! :)
What probably favors a bad putter vs a really good one on something like highly contoured greens relative to something else is his confidence or lack thereof.
Have any of you stood over a complicated contoured and sloped putt and that mysterious feeling suddenly comes over you that you're going to make it and you do? That's not happened to me that often but it seems when it does I really have made more than seem probable or even possible. Have you ever stood over a flat 2 foot putt and suddenly the thought crosses your mind that you're going to miss it and so many times you do? That's also happened to me so much more than I'd ever assume it ever would.
This probably isn't about stats at all---it's probably just about that mysterious factor so prevelant in golf called confidence or lack thereof. Is a good play good because he's confident or is he confident because he's good?
Somehow I feel some of you wonkers just may attempt to STASTICALLY prove that one way or the other! ;)
-
TEP:
Once again this is pretty funny. Oh hell yes I am all about the mystical in golf - some guys call me "spooky" for how I refuse science and play by feel and just rely on what the golf gods allow - but my spookiness goes exactly opposite from yours in putting!
That is, I have had plenty of flat, or relatively flat, putts that I have stood over and just had the feeling wash over me that it was as good as in. Sure enough, in it goes. I can't ever remember that happening on a wildly contoured putt.
Which might explain why you and I look at this issue differently, huh?
;D
-
Dave:
I am indeed arguing exceptions to a rule. Or do you find "highly contoured greens" to be a regular occurrence? The more this goes on the more I think our differences are just in definition. Again, by "highly contoured greens" I mean real monsters, where talent is indeed mitigated.
I thought that was a given.
And thus I am dry as a bone. And AG is right, but so am I.
;D
-
"Which might explain why you and I look at this issue differently, huh?"
Tom;
When are you going to come to understand this has nothing to do with just that you and I look at this differently? It has everything to do with the fact that I'm just right and you're just wrong! Please try to come to understand this fact at some point in the not too distance future and then I guarantee you that both life and golf will become far more logical to you---and you should be at peace with it all---as I am!
-
Dave:
High winds are a totally different thing, because it can make the hack take WAY more shots than even the worst green.
Again, my contention is that severe greens aren't gonna make the hack take that many more putts than Faxon, and since Faxon's gonna threeputt, it tends to equalize rather than differentiate. Go back and read my Meadow Club #3 example.
Which of course you disagree with.
So I believe we can just leave it at that. I don't think the hack will do as poorly as you do on severe greens, and what I witnessed last week at Meadow Club again plays powerfully on my contentions here.
Of course I could be wrong, but you are.
;D
-
"Which might explain why you and I look at this issue differently, huh?"
Tom;
When are you going to come to understand this has nothing to do with just that you and I look at this differently? It has everything to do with the fact that I'm just right and you're just wrong! Please try to come to understand this fact at some point in the not too distance future and then I guarantee you that both life and golf will become far more logical to you---and you should be at peace with it all---as I am!
TEP: believe me, on damn near all issues that's EXACTLY how I treat things. That's why my posts tend to be bunched on relatively few topics. On the ones where that occurs - which is the vast majority - all you get is silence from me. And the group is is happy, and I am happy, and the golf world keeps spinning.
;D
-
You know it's impressive to get this baby cranked up again.
I think Tom's attitude is kinda like Nicklaus on this one - he's never 3-putted the 18th green of any course ( IN HIS MIND ). I also think that the Huckster is vastly underestimating the ability of JH to 4-putt and beyond on courses where Faxon might sniff a 3-putt.
I played Spyglass on Tues (in 90deg heat, btw), and one of the guys we got paired with was a solid 15 hcp. Spyglass is not contoured like ANGC, Pasatiempo, but there are a few dangerous greens, like #6, #8, #9, #16, #18. #10 is no freebie, either...
Anyhoo, our 15hcp friend managed to 4-putt twice. Another 7 hcp in the group 4-putted #5. Nothing outrageous, but there it is. Faxon would not have 3-putted any of the putts that anyone in the foursome had all day...
What does this all mean? I don't know, except that Sr. Huckaby either doesn't play with bad putters, or doesn't watch them, or they pick up before the 4 and 5-putts would happen, because they don't want to embarass themselves in front of the highly skilled Welshman... :)
-
I tried to make the same point as Shivas maybe 5 pages ago. His example is even clearer, though. By your (ridiculous) thesis, wind should indeed affect Tiger more than me, because the effects of wind are certainly more random than the influence of a highly contoured green.
Dye's greens at Mystic Rock are not even remotely close to being flat greens. They are the only Dye greens I've had the pleasure of playing (saw The Ocean Course in person, but it was closed because they didn't want me tearing it up before the World Cup last year :)), but my gut feeling is that his greens are more severe than most.
Look at that list again - Faxon didn't three putt at some flatter greens (relatively speaking) and he didn't 3 putt at Mystic Rock (which in my book have very good contour). I guarantee you that I will 3 putt on flat fast greens, but I will 3 putt more often on contoured greens with any kind of speed whatsoever.
The only way your thesis holds is if the flat greens are so dead flat that they are a joke, and the contoured greens are contoured so much that they blow away anything in existence currently in the world, so much that putting becomes a flat out (no pun intended) random occurence.
I have seen - heck, I see, every time I play, lousy golfers 4 putt easy greens. You are kidding yourself if you think that they aren't going to putt that much worse on highly contoured greens. There is a lower bound to how low you can go, but there is no upper bound for how high. That is a big part of what you are missing, with your highly fallacious assumption that a lousy putter isn't going to do much worse on highly contoured greens.
I will state my generalized thesis again - anything that makes golf more difficult for the top player will make the game incrementally harder for the lousy player. If you think Fax is going to 3 putt more often on highly contoured greens, then a lousy putter will 3 putt way more often. And no made up numbers by you or Rich can convince me otherwise. If we had a real life putt off and the numbers supported you, I'd be the first to say I was wrong, but I'm sure not accepting hypothetical numbers as some sort of proof.
One thing I disagree with Shivas on - you are in fact all wet on this one!
:)
-
There is a lower bound to how low you can go, but there is no upper bound for how high.
Exactly.
-
JK:
Oh good lord is that post the farthest from the truth in the history of this board. It's not your fault, you haven't been forced to hear my tails of woe enough. But my god, I get to play with single-digit handicappers about once every 25 rounds - usually it's the rounds with GCA-related folks. I play with SO many bad players, of all degrees of horrid ability, that if any thing I think I have a uniquely qualified perspective on this.
And yes, they do 4putt. But truly not that often. When they four-putt, and worse, it's typically a situation like #11 Pasa with the pin in the back - you know, infinite putting?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen - it does. Just not enough to overcome the other factors.
TH
-
George:
We've circled too many times on this. I'm gonna take the tack AGC tried earlier and just give up, with you anyway. There's only so many ways I can explain this - I have nothing left. I just plain disagree. I just think on the vast majority of these highly contoured greens, they're both going to 3putt, just in different ways - as I witnessed at Meadow Club. You and many others disagree, and that is certainly fine.
And of course none of this makes the golf world stop spinning.
Just be careful using words like "highly fallacious" lest ye get them back at you when I'm in a less charitable mood.
;D ;D
TH
-
I tried to bow out many pages ago, but you accused me of placing too much value on my time, so I decided to show you just how little my time is worth. :)
-
Is there a Mr. Pelz in the house?
-
Is there a Mr. Pelz in the house?
His head exploded about 6 pages ago.
-
Fast flat greens test nerves rather than overall skill and imagination
Boldly contoured greens at a good speed best test the overall skill of the putter, and they're a lot more fun.
-
I'll try to bring this thread back to life or put an end to it one.
Gentlemen, far and wide, flat greens do not make putting easier for the better player. It does not necessarily make it easier to get approach shots closer to the hole. I find it easier to get approach shots closer to pins on greens with more contour because I can use slopes to get the ball closer to the hole. Most everything that has been mentioned here assumes that the average player is getting the ball as close to the hole with approach shots. Even if you were to put the the good player and the average player the same distance from the hole, lets say 30 feet on contoured greens, the better player is going to beat up the average player over 18 holes because the good player would proabably not 3 putt any and would make some. The average player is going to three putt more often than on flat greens and will not likely make any putts on contoured greens. The average player has much more of a chance to make putts on flatter greens and will not three putt as often, whereas the better player cannot use the advantage of feel on flat greens and I propose they will not make any more on flat greens and will still not three putt.
This said, the average player will have a much greater chance of hitting approach shots close to flat greens, and the contours of a countoured green will more often reject a ball from a pin when played without the precision a better player can, further accentuating the advantage a better player will have on contoured greens. The length of the course also will have an impact, as will factors of wind.
When would I be most afraid of an average player and when would I give less shots? On a longish course with flat greens. I am not going to make as many birdies and the average player will both be able to get approach shots closer and they will have a greater chance of getting the ball up and down when they miss a green. When I look at courses to qualify for USGA events on, I do much better on greens with contour. Flatter greens bring the average/good player back into the game.
Keep in mind a complete game of golf is not putt putt, it also requires that you hit shots into these greens that are being dicussed.
-
I don't know, there's something about this Tripp Davis and his fairly undeniable logic on many of these threads that definitely strips through a lot of the hypothetical bullshit that prevails on this site from time to time. I, for one, am very glad he joined GOLFCLUBATLAS.com recently. I think the guy is one of the best reality checks on here in a long, long time!
-
Sure...except that he is wrong. I still believe that he would beat me worse at Torrey Pines than at Pasa because of the greens...
-
I cant believe you guys are still talking about this.
Bad putters make more mistakes. Plus their mistakes are more severe than good putters' mistakes. Contours exaggerate these mistakes, leaving a bad putter a much more difficult second (or third) putt.
-
bumping for MWP - have a good laugh.
-
George,
Thanks for bringing this back up. I hadn't seen it.
Heaven forbid, but possibly for the first time, I am in full agreement with David Moriarty.
There are probably a few mediocre putters who've won the Masters, but most were damned good in their glory years.
On the relatively flat, large greens of Champions- Cypress, a very poor putter for a professional, Orville Moody, won the US Open. As a very good striker of the ball, he negotiated the large greens well on his approaches and made enough straight putts to win.
From my own experience as a poor putter, when I get to rolly-polly greens like at Black Mesa or the Rawls course, I am toast. Pasatiempo as well. Put me on a typical RTJ or Ress Jones course and I'm not half bad.
An acquaintance who played sporadically on the Senior Tour for a couple of years told me that tee to green ANGC was not difficult at all. The greens were totally a different matter. This guy had a wonderful, rythmic swing until he got on the greens. He typically putted like a 10 handicap. In his few rounds at ANGC, he had multiple three-putts and didn't break 80 once.
-
thanks for relaying this thread..great entertainment beautifully put into reality by Tripp who said all there is to be said, he is absolutley right.
-
MWP-
I disagree.
I'd prefer to not reread everything but here was my recollection of the competition:
Ben Crenshaw vs. someone like Lou Duran (not an average player)
Ben won't miss anything on a flat green. Lou will miss some.
The average score differential on a flat green will be greater than on a highly contoured green. Lou will pick up some ground.
It would be great to run some experiments...
Lou give Ben a call.
Cheers
-
Mike N. summarizes it correctly.
And my money is on Lou also. Because they both will miss a lot of putts on the contoured green. Lou will indeed pick up ground.
And that was the point all along...
As for Tripp's post, that is great stuff, but is not what we were talking about here. Yes, factoring this into the golf game as a whole, the equation changes, as rightly pointed out by Tripp. But the question here began at the green. Perhaps it's not the right question to ask, sure. But that is the issue at hand: evaluation of the PUTTING component only.
TH
-
Hate to say this, Tom, but......
You (and Mike N.) got it right! :)
-
MikeN, TomH,
You put me against Ben at Champions Cypress, and from a variety of distances, the pro would take me handily. Take us to ANGC and do the same thing, and Ben will destroy me.
I will three-putt on flat greens a couple of times and perhaps make one or two. Ben will never three-putt and he'll make a few.
On highly contoured grees I will 3-whack many times; Ben will seldom. He'll also make a few (as he did at ANGC many times), and I never would.
It comes down to good putters having better feel, technique, and an eye for the correct line at a given speed. Us less gifted types are generally guessing, doubting our abilities, and trying not to do something dumb as opposed to making the putt.
Heavily contoured greens at normal speeds require both line and speed. The sterner the test, the more the cream will rise to the top.
If someone can arrange for me and Ben to test this hypothesis, I am available most anytime to travel to Augusta and Houston. But only if it is for the furthering of science.
-
I have made arrangements for Tom, Rich & Mike with their friends for interventions. Lay off the crack pipe!
:)
-
I spot putt. If I hit a putt 3 feet too hard on a flat green it goes three feet too far. If I do that on a sidehill or downhill putt on a highly contoured green it can roll off the green or, at a minimum, leave me geometrically farther from the hole than 3 feet.
On flat greens I can sometimes putt as well as better putters. On contoured greens that never happens.
I play in the midwest on bent. Perhaps the story is different on bermuda or other slower grasses but I doubt it.
-
You put me against Ben at Champions Cypress
Champions Cypress greens are not flat.
Redstone's greens are.
Ben - Redstone - 24 putts / Champions 27 putts
Lou - Redstone - 29 putts / Champions 31 putts.
If that isn't proof enough... ;D
-
Hate to say this, Tom, but......
You (and Mike N.) got it right! :)
I am honored.
I'm also proud of you for saying this. You have 11 more steps in the "Giving up Contrarianism" program.
;D ;D ;D
-
You guys are so wrong..flat greens make it easier for everybody, that much is true, but the disparity beteween good putters and bad putters is so escalated when you add contours..simple fact fellas..... ask any of the tour players.
Lou is absolutely correct..he gets it ;D
-
I'd be curious to hear if there is one other scenario in the entire realm of human endeavor in which a less skilled participant will "gain ground" on the more skilled as the conditions increase in difficulty, or is putting the only one.
-
On first look I would assume this thread is completely sarcastic, but I have no evidence that anyone here would stick with a joke for 10 pages.
-
Jim -
I don't expect you to read this whole boring thread, but I kind of addressed the flip side of your question with the following hypothesis:
Anything that makes the game more difficult affects the lesser player more than the better player.
-
Michael W-P:
You and Lou are incorrect.
Michael N., Rich G. and I get it.
Just ask any of us.
;D
Oh Ben will get damn near all of his putts a LOT closer than Lou on the contoured ones, and his skill will be revealed... But we're not judging this by cumulative distance from the hole - we're judging it by total number of putts.
The bottom line is this: contours will cause Ben to three putt from time to time, more than they will cause Lou to four-putt. Neither will one-putt on these contoured greens. In most instances they both will two-putt, Lou with more difficulty than Ben in many instances, but a two putt is a two putt.
Thus the differences are greater at flat greens. Ben will make more there than Lou, to a difference exceeding that on the contoured greens.
TH
-
George and JES: I just explained it once again. This is not rocket science, it's really pretty simple.
Remember the standard is NOT total distance from the hole; it's total putts. So to put your minds at ease, think of this as not the best revealer of skill. For that, one would judge based on total distance from the hole, and Ben would prevail.
Golf just doesn't work that way.
TH
-
Sorry Tom..you really dont get it
Jims post sums it up rather well.
If Crenshaw was reading this dribble, he would be laughing his socks off ;)
-
So Tom, are you saying that Lou will fare better than Ben on those second putts when he is further away from the hole after their first putts?
-
Michael:
Yes I do get it. But if I make Ben laugh, then so much the better. ;D Remember, base it on total putts. But anyway, given I am open to the possibility I could overestimate the skill of Ben on flat putts and underestimate such on contoured (which would be the only way I have this wrong), well... could you point me to this post of Jim's that sums it up rather well?
JES:
No I am not saying Lou will fare BETTER than Ben on those second putts. What I am saying is he's going to make enough of those so that he ends up better overall than he does on the flat putts. Look at the numbers Mike N. put up - that's how I believe it will turn out. Ben will make a lot of flat putts where Lou won't make many... the difference there in total putts will be greater than the difference on the contoured ones.
TH
-
Anything that makes the game more difficult affects the lesser player more than the better player.
Not true, George
Bunkers at 280 off the tee have virtually no effect on the average player.
Tom
How about organising an experiment at KPIV? Duran vs. Fortson (I'm assuming a +3 player/pro can putt....). Get the six packs (or bottles of pinot noir) out on the putting green in the gloaming, organise the wagers and settle this debate once and for all!
-
Capitol idea, Rich.
We just need a superior putter to make it work. Fortson will likely have to do. Unless there are other volunteers?
;D
-
TH
Not to be offensive, but using hypotheticals in this argument is completely useless. Do you think the obnoxious smiley ;D face used by Mike Nuzzo means he thinks those numbers are accurate?
So, to the actual point. You said, "What I am saying is he's going to make enough of those so that he ends up better overall than he does on the flat putts." I assume this is to mean the total putt disparity will be reduced, please correct me if I'm wrong.
1) What distance putt are we using as frame of referrence?
2) How close will Ben average on the "highly contoured" green with his first putt?
--How close will Lou average?
-
How seemingly smart guys can kid themselves into being so wrong is beyond my ability to comprehend.
TH, even on fairly straight four footers, Ben will make 10 out of 10, and I will miss a couple. Add the difficulty of some break, and Ben may miss one, but I'll miss twice as many as before.
Couple this with the fact that as you add more distance and slope, his approach putts are much closer to the hole than mine, the variance will only grow greater. He'll make a lot more five and six footers than I'll make from 10'+. On flat greens the variance in our approach putts would be much smaller, and his advantage would not be as great.
As to the Fortson-Duran experiment, you would probably need a better subject who is not invested in the outcome. Besides, I don't know that Jeff is that much of a better putter than I am that luck wouldn't come into play. Better to pick someone who is not aware of the experiment, and who is as good a proxy for the bad putter as Jeff is to the skilled one. I can offer no suggestions, but I am sure that you can find one.
-
JES:
I have no idea if the numbers Mike N. put up were intended to be accurate. To me, they illustrate decently how I think this would come out. It's gonna be close, but the difference in total putts would be less on the contoured greens than on the flat ones.
In any case, obviously nowhere does putt disparity get "reduced". I'm just envisioning a situation where on flat greens, it goes Ben 24, Lou 30... and on contoured it's Ben 29, Lou 34. Something like that.
So 5 is less than 6.
As for your questions, my assumption is this is over a random sampling of putts of all distances. Thus their distances from the hole would be all over the map. Average distances away? I have no idea. But I also don't see that it matters too much.
Maybe this helps: on the contoured putts, I am envisioning several instances of long ones where they after the first putt, Ben is 8 feet away, Lou is 15. They both miss, and both tap in the third. Now Ben was obviously more skillful, but the end result was that 3=3. Perhaps this would be outweighed by the instances Ben gets it to 2 feet and taps in while Lou gets it to 8 feet and 3jacks, but I don't see that... Remember the assumption also is very highly contoured putts.
I also don't see Lou four-putting enough to make this relevant....
TH
-
Mike Nuzzo,
It's been well over 10 years since I played Champions- Cypress. What I remember of the greens is that they were very large, but not with a tremendous amount of movement. They were relatively slow and I over-read the small break much of the time. If Redstone's are flatter in comparison, they must be pretty unexciting. I guess that I need to make another pass through Houton in the not too distant future.
-
Lou:
We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Though I'd also appreciate less aspersion cast on the intelligence of those who disagree... that is not helpful to the debate.
;D
I've explained this up and down and down and up and it continues to be very basic and obvious to me. As I am now about to say for the third time, I do remain open to the possibility that I overestimate Ben's prowess on flat and underestimate such on contour. If that is true, then the theory falls apart.
I just do believe I have it right, and it has nothing to do with intelligence.
As for the proposed settling match, I concur that you and Fortson are likely not the best choices. :)
TH
-
JES:
But I also don't see that it matters too much.
I also don't see Lou four-putting enough to make this relevant....
TH
I guess it must be hard to understand that which you cannot see. ;)
Any chance you have an answer to my question from about 15 posts back, I believe it was my first on this thread.
-
Tom,
Post # 358
I am obviously wasting my time trying to guide you into the light...please dont gamble any money on your fragile belief here. :)
-
JES:
I am not trying to be difficult. I am smiling as I type this, and mean no offense. I also believe I have answered all of your questions... But if you care to repeat and point out to me what you believe I missed, I will try again. I'll likely point you to a post I already did as well and we can continue this dance, but hey, swing your partner... ;)
If this is the question you mean:
"So Tom, are you saying that Lou will fare better than Ben on those second putts when he is further away from the hole after their first putts?"
Then look at the post right after that one... asked and answered, as they say in a court...
TH
-
Jim, a) I don't gamble on any BS discussed in here; and
b) there is no post #358.
Hey, I want to answer all questions, it's just polite to do so. My apologies if I failed to do so before.
TH
-
I'd be curious to hear if there is one other scenario in the entire realm of human endeavor in which a less skilled participant will "gain ground" on the more skilled as the conditions increase in difficulty, or is putting the only one.
This one Tom.
...and circle to the right...
-
There is an easy way to solve this. Test it at the next gathering. Have a putting contest with 9 flat holes and 9 sloped holes and see if the spread between the good and bad scores increases or decreases.
-
I'd be curious to hear if there is one other scenario in the entire realm of human endeavor in which a less skilled participant will "gain ground" on the more skilled as the conditions increase in difficulty, or is putting the only one.
This one Tom.
...and circle to the right...
Circle to the right? Gonna have to explain this.
And I did answer this question. Post #249. Bottom of page 10. The point is this isn't a true revealer of skill - total distance from the hole would reveal that. Ben's skill advantage is negated by the very nature of golf, in that 2 putts equals 2 putts, 3 equals 3, etc. Or do you think your skillful par earned by splitting the fairway, lacing a 2iron to 20 feet and two putting is somehow better than my skulled drive, topped 3wood, 3wood to the edge of the green and chip in?
;D
TH
-
Tom,
I did not mention total golf skill at all, and frankly was not even thinking it. I was wondering what other activity in the world enables the lesser participant to gain on the superior as the conditions of their activity increase in difficulty.
This question is based on your premise that the difference in total putts from identicle points on the green is lower on the highly contoured green than it is on the flat green. If I have this premise wrong, please feel free to clarify.
The "...circle to the right..." line was in response to your "swing your partner" quote which I assumed was a dance instruction. Oh well.
-
Tom
In looking a little deeper at your post #249, I see you are somehow making the case that "skill" is not a consideration on the second putts, only the first. Why is that?
-
JES:
Aha! Been a long time since I have actually square-danced. Sorry for missing that. ;D
As for the rest, it's gotten so convoluted that you have lost me. I don't know what you are asking, to be perfectly honest.
In any case, I do think you have my premise wrong. I am assuming the test comes on putts from many different spots on many different greens, not just putt after putt from the two same spots. Maybe this helps, maybe not. I will confess that what seemed simple to me now seems really convoluted.
18 greens putted, various distances.
Ben: 24 total putts on flat greens, 29 on contoured.
Lou: 29 on flat, 35 on contoured.
5 is less than 6.
It need not be more complex than that.
TH
-
This thread reminds me of "Argument Clinic" by Monty Python...
-This isn't an argument!
Yes, it is!
-No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
-This is mere contradiction...
No, it isn't!
-Yes, it is, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to make a point, it isn't the mere naysaying of whatever I say..
Yes, it is!
-No, it isn't!
Anywho, I would say that highly contoured greens DO NOT favor bad putters, almost categorically. On a perfectly flat green, the bad putter has to worry about two things: Speed and solid contact.
On a contoured green, break is added to the mixture. I would argue that most bad putters are also bad at reading greens, or more accurately their skill in reading greens is negated by poor mechanics (My opinion really, and from watching people play for a few years, any evidence countering this would be appreciated).
"Now, Promenade!"
-
Tom
In looking a little deeper at your post #249, I see you are somehow making the case that "skill" is not a consideration on the second putts, only the first. Why is that?
I am not making this case. Why do you jump to these generalities and the like? Please, such a case is basically logically wrong, so of course I would not make it. I implore you to give me a little benefit of the doubt. I swear to you I do have some intelligence, Jim. Don't listen to Lou. ;)
I am simply saying that put them on difficult enough second putts (those with a little distance and a little contour), and Ben is going to miss a few where LOU DOES ALSO. So 2 equals 2. Oh Ben will look better doing it, for sure. But a miss is a miss.
Skill is a consideration. Ben does come closer. But a miss is a miss.
TH
-
TH,
I was not questioning your or Rihc's intelligence. Both of you are beyond reproach on this dimension. I was just noting the counterintuitive phenomenom that really smart people can sometimes be so utterly wrong. This just happens to be one of those times.
Look at Ben's history at the Masters. Do you not think that he can handle those big breakers? In contrast, think of all the whining I did about Black Mesa's greens. Now, you don't think that I bitched because I putted them so well, do you?
Most poor putters don't like heavily contoured and fast greens. It is the main reason why my ex-club seldom let the speeds get up to above 9 on Brauer's ridiculously sloped greens. The high-handicappers would bitch and it would take all day to play. The best players typically complained about the greens being too slow.
-
Kyle:
I love ya man, but you are way behind on this - that was covered on page one.
I now officially HATE George Pazin for bringing this thread back to life. Man I went through hell trying to convince AG Crockett, who was just as skeptical as Michael W-P and JES are today, and he did come around. It's all there on pages 8-9 or so.
Patient me, here I go again.... but George is gonna pay for this.
;D
-
Huck
I know what you mean, but re-check your math in post #269.
-
TH,
I was not questioning your or Rihc's intelligence. Both of you are beyond reproach on this dimension. I was just noting the counterintuitive phenomenom that really smart people can sometimes be so utterly wrong. This just happens to be one of those times.
Look at Ben's history at the Masters. Do you not think that he can handle those big breakers? In contrast, think of all the whining I did about Black Mesa's greens. Now, you don't think that I bitched because I putted them so well, do you?
Most poor putters don't like heavily contoured and fast greens. It is the main reason why my ex-club seldom let the speeds get up to above 9 on Brauer's ridiculously sloped greens. The high-handicappers would bitch and it would take all day to play. The best players typically complained about the greens being too slow.
Lou:
Thanks. The problem is, we're not wrong.
You keep missing the point... I am not saying Ben can't handle big breakers - of course he can. He just WILL three-putt from time to time (his Masters record shows this). He WILL tie you a tiny bit more on those putts, such that the difference between you is greater on the flat ones.
Yes, whining did occur at Black Mesa's greens. But how many putts did you have? I'd be shocked if it were over 35. And if it is, then you are a bad example.
But perhaps this is the disconnect - we are assuming the bad putter isn't THAT bad - that's why Lou is the example. Make the bad putter a truly awful one - like my 6 year old son - and of course he's gonna do worse on contoured greens relative to Ben.
My assumption was a certain basic skill level in the "bad" putter.
On the extremes this does fail.
But one could say that about damn near any hypothesis as wacky as this one.
;D
-
O.K., I think I've got it now...
Ben Crenshaw is a WAY better putter than I am, UNLESS we play on greens that Crenshaw will find difficult. Magically, I will NOT find those same greens to be as difficult as BEN FREAKIN' CRENSHAW, at least relative to my normal game.
By extension of this theory, if I can just find greens that are sufficiently difficult, then I will be BETTER than Crenshaw, and will at last be able to contend in a tour event, especially if Rich Goodale is my marker!
Cool!
Of all the threads on God's green earth, I cannot believe that this one ever made it back to the top. However, see the above, please.
-
Huck, et al.,
Does it get more complex than that? I admit I only perused the past dozen pages or so and have Pelz's Putting Bible on my lap right now (Not a fan, but it has some decent data). I would say this argument boils down to "What type of bad putter are we talking about?"
Bad mechanics, bad feel, bad reads
Bad mechanics, good feel, good reads...
Good mechanics, bad feel, good reads...
And all the iterations therein.
I think on a flat green, mechanics is most important with feel being second and reads being negated. On a contoured green, the less tangible skills of feel and reads come more into play, and sometimes bad mechanics can be made up for by the breaks and varying speeds of the green.
-
AGC:
You think you are in disbelief? As I say, George Pazin is truly on my shit list. ;D
Kyle:
It's all in here, it's not complex, I just don't have the strength nor the patience to restate it again. Your theories are correct. They just don't account for total putts made.
TH
-
Tom,
No need to restate, just curiosity on my part. I'll look through it more thoroughly, I have a personal interest in this topic as an instructor and teacher.
When I give playing lessons, I try to incorporate as much architecture and strategy into the lesson and focus less on mechanics. This goes into that category for me.
Mechanics are for the range...
...or Mike Rutherford.
-
Kyle:
Very cool. Sorry for the impatience.
And I am about to type something that may well be a first in the august history of this forum:
I could very well have this completely wrong.
;D
-
TH
In post #249 you said:
"Think of this not as the best revealer of skill. For that, one would judge based on total distance from the hole and Ben would prevail.
Golf just doesn't work that way."
Why is total score not the best revealer of skill?
How does golf work? I have unfortunately been under the impression that the people that shoot 72 to my 75 are better "skilled" than me.[/color]
JES:
Maybe this helps: on the contoured putts, I am envisioning several instances of long ones where they after the first putt, Ben is 8 feet away, Lou is 15. They both miss, and both tap in the third. Now Ben was obviously more skillful, but the end result was that 3=3 I wonder if Ben has ever made an 8 footer. I bet he would make moe than half as compared to 0 makes from that 15 feet for Lou.[/color] Perhaps this would be outweighed by the instances Ben gets it to 2 feet and taps in while Lou gets it to 8 feet and 3jacks, but I don't see that... Remember the assumption also is very highly contoured putts.
TH
-
Kyle:
Very cool. Sorry for the impatience.
And I am about to type something that may well be a first in the august history of this forum:
I could very well have this completely wrong.
;D
We'll take it and run.
Much like a conceded three footer in an important match, it ain't sittin' there for long. :)
-
JES:
Of course bottom line is score. Remember that request re giving a benefit of the doubt? Hopefully I won't have to repeat it. ;D
The point is that if both players miss from any distance, for that one putt they are equals (assuming they tap in the next one). That's why your questions about "skill" here are invalid, as I see it.
As for your second part in red, well now we are down to brass tacks and come to our disagreement.
Of course Ben is going to make a lot of 8 footers. Just remember we are talking about 8 footers with contour. Thus he is going to miss a few also. My contention remains that their misses will be closer to equal on these than on the flat ones. That is, Ben will make MORE of the flat ones relative to Lou. It's going to be close, but that is how I see it.
I expect you disagree with this, which is fine, at least we've come to a point beyond the bs and debate-team rhetoric.
;D
TH
ps - re that conceded three-footer, just remember the exact words were I COULD have it wrong. You'll note I didn't say I DID.
-
And so merlin the magician packed up his tools with the understanding that perhaps his first impressions..could..have been wrong..but deep down his mind was still wondering...what if....
Huck..entertaining as ever...your posts are always a source of high value entertainment :D
-
Damn, what is the penalty for prematurely picking up a misunderstood concession when your opponent pulls the rug out from under you?
To let you off the hook, I must allow that you are overestimating Ben's prowess on flat putts, and underestimating it on highly contoured. :-* :-*
-
Anything that makes the game more difficult affects the lesser player more than the better player.
Not true, George
Bunkers at 280 off the tee have virtually no effect on the average player.
Bunkers at 280 (or 250 or 310) have a profound effect on the average player, on their second or third shots. In contrast, the better player generally has much more control of their distance, and will either hit over or lay up with not much chance of trouble at all.
The above is a perfect example of why better players ought to leave golf design to the hacks, or at least gain a better understanding of their perspective. So is your theory expressed in this thread. Go play on tough greens with someone who is off their putting game and tell me you still believe this hypothetical mumbo jumbo. I've rarely seen a bad putters putt off flat greens. The same cannot be said of a bad putters on contoured greens.
Tom H.
So difficult greens lessen the gap between the Scratch and a Bogey? This explains alot about how slopes are determined in Ca.
-
[Tom H.
So difficult greens lessen the gap between the Scratch and a Bogey? This explains alot about how slopes are determined in Ca.
Dave M. That is obviously not the case. In fact it's the opposite. Bogey gets a +1 on severe contour where the scratch does not.
Which of course flies right in the face of my contentions here, so I am most definitely CAUGHT.
Well done. You ought to be a lawyer.
My only possible retort: I love the course rating system and do believe in it completely... but I never said it was PERFECT. This is an area where if I were Course Rating Czar I would make a change. Oh, I wouldn't reverse the direction of the adjustment... but I would eliminate the +1 we give.
TH
-
Michael W-P and JES:
Great stuff, I do appreciate the sentiment. And here's another concession: my knowledge of how great putters like Ben work is rudimentary at best. If indeed they are not as great on flat putts, and better on contour, than I think....
Well then pick it up both of you, it's good. Huckaby goes to the 2nd tee one down.
;D
One thing though: I know a LOT LOT LOT about bad putters.
TH
-
Tom
You're the best.
-
JES: thanks man, right back at ya.
I do still want to see this proven somehow, though!
;D ;D
-
There goes the rug again... ;D
-
No no, the rug remains in place. I trust you guys. Really I do. Just remember how my name fits into the New Testament... I have always been quite the doubting Thomas... but I shall not deny you guys thrice before the cock crows twice....
Why is it that I have always loved that verse?
;D
-
One thing though: I know a LOT LOT LOT about bad putters.
I hate to break it to you, but you clearly DON'T!
And you didn't convince AG of anything, as evinced by his post above. That is sarcasm, not acceptance.
The notion that contours will have a more deleterious effect on Ben than me, relative or otherwise, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen on this site. Just think about it for awhile.If you think you are not going to 4 putt a lot of greens at ANGC, you are either wrong, or you are not a bad putter.
-
Anything that makes the game more difficult affects the lesser player more than the better player.
Not true, George
Bunkers at 280 off the tee have virtually no effect on the average player.
Bunkers at 280 (or 250 or 310) have a profound effect on the average player, on their second or third shots. In contrast, the better player generally has much more control of their distance, and will either hit over or lay up with not much chance of trouble at all.
The above is a perfect example of why better players ought to leave golf design to the hacks, or at least gain a better understanding of their perspective. So is your theory expressed in this thread. Go play on tough greens with someone who is off their putting game and tell me you still believe this hypothetical mumbo jumbo. I've rarely seen a bad putters putt off flat greens. The same cannot be said of a bad putters on contoured greens.
Tom H.
So difficult greens lessen the gap between the Scratch and a Bogey? This explains alot about how slopes are determined in Ca.
Dave, you have to be an awful lot worse than an "average" player to worry about bunkers at 280 for your 2nd or 3rd shots. Try again.
PS--Just because I say something doesn't mean you have to disagree with it, or maybe it does...... :'(
-
One thing though: I know a LOT LOT LOT about bad putters.
I hate to break it to you, but you clearly DON'T!
And you didn't convince AG of anything, as evinced by his post above. That is sarcasm, not acceptance.
The notion that contours will have a more deleterious effect on Ben than me, relative or otherwise, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen on this site. Just think about it for awhile.If you think you are not going to 4 putt a lot of greens at ANGC, you are either wrong, or you are not a bad putter.
George, now please. Here we had come to a peaceful acceptance, and you call this the dumbest thing ever posted on this site? Come on, that's not true, not even close. Remember all the lunacy posted on here from time to time.
And you have no clue about my history if you think I have no knowledge of bad putters. I have been one, am still at times but more importantly play 95% of my golf with partners of such ilk. Careful with the assumptions, my friend.
In any case, it does come down to how JES and I settled it. I do think that the great putters are VERY good on flat greens and closer to mortals on contour, for many reasons. I could well have this wrong and given those guys have personal access to putters like Crenshaw that I can never have, I am willing to punt and concede this to them.
But if I have it right, well then the theory holds. It remains far from dumb. It could well be based in lack of information, sure. But it is not dumb.
You know what's a new contender for the dumbest thing ever posted on here? Your statement. But of course I'd never say that, I'm not into casting aspersions.
;D ;D ;D
-
I know I'm late to this party, BUT...
For those of you that are trying to argue "that highly contoured(ie:more difficult) greens favor bad putters"...
would you also try to argue that...
A hole like the 17th at TPC Sawgrass would tend to favor poor iron players.
In a relative sense, you are agreeing with the statement I made above.
JES II has stated numerous times...Increased difficulty would tend to widen the gap between a skilled player and a poor player, not make them closer.
-
Jamie:
That's a leap of logic that none of us are trying to make, not even close. We are also not taking this to any general levels, just leaving it at the very odd specific re putting.
If you care to read 12 pages of some pretty entertaining drivel (if I do say so myself) then you would see this.
It's a very interesting theory. Having conceded based on lack of facts to JES, I will say no more.
But it is all in there if you care for some entertainment. Note I didn't say enlightenment. Oh, I'd hope for that, but I make no assumptions.
;D
-
Rich -
Re: your little example -
First of all, Dave is right about average golfers having to confront this on 2nd or 3rd shots. You clearly don't know many average golfers. We hit the ball all over the place, at all sorts of inconvenient times.
Second, bunkers placed at 280 are usually placed at 280 for the back markers. They are usually 180-240 from various forward markers.
If you wish to continue with this particular silly example, I will concede that you can create specific features that will only penalize the better player. An easy one: make it a 250 yard carry to reach the fairway from the back tee, and then place the forward markers right up at the fairway, or maybe 20 yards back. So what? So this trivial example is supposed to negate the silliness of Ben struggling with contoured greens? EVERYONE has to play the green, the tees you choose to play are another story entirely.
Huck -
Sorry, the truth hurts in this instance. I honestly can't think of a sillier notion than the idea that contoured greens bring Ben back closer to my level.
Here is a possible way to test the theory, in a different sense:
Take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at any Tour stop with flat speedy greens (the Hope comes to mind) versus the average player that week. Then take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at ANGC during the Masters versus the average entrant. I'm willing to bet the difference is less at the Hope than the Masters. And in this example, we are comparing 150 guys who are all phenomenal putters by normal player standards. The worst Tour pro is a better putter than every average golfer on the planet, no matter what you hear about how bad some pros are at putting. I guarantee you the Scott McCarron with a normal short putter is a better putter than me. He went to the long putter because he was lacking putting skills in a relative sense. You don't get to his level putting like me.
Sorry I dragged this up, but the sooner you abandon your foolish notion the sooner the pain will go away.
:)
-
Jamie
You have made the fatal mistake of assuming that something the evil Dr. Moriarty said was relevant to this discussion. Disregard him in the future, please. :) We are not talking about 280 yard bunkers or tee shots to island greens, we are talking about putting.
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to contend that, RELATIVELY, a poorer putter will score better than a good putter on more highly contoured greens.
Let me offer this hypothetical. I'm playing Crenshaw, and we each end up with 18 8-foot flat putts. He'll sink 16 or 17, I'll sink 8 or 9. Ben is 8 up (counting putts only). Alternatively, Ben and I end up with 18 25-foot breaking putts. Ben will sink 3-4 of them with at most one 3-putt. I'll sink at least one with at most 3-4 3-putts. Ben is 6 up (counting putts only). Case closed. :)
PS--I love how my baby has come to life with such a vengeanc ;)e!
-
Rich -
Re: your little example -
First of all, Dave is right about average golfers having to confront this on 2nd or 3rd shots. You clearly don't know many average golfers. We hit the ball all over the place, at all sorts of inconvenient times.
Second, bunkers placed at 280 are usually placed at 280 for the back markers. They are usually 180-240 from various forward markers.
If you wish to continue with this particular silly example, I will concede that you can create specific features that will only penalize the better player. An easy one: make it a 250 yard carry to reach the fairway from the back tee, and then place the forward markers right up at the fairway, or maybe 20 yards back. So what? So this trivial example is supposed to negate the silliness of Ben struggling with contoured greens? EVERYONE has to play the green, the tees you choose to play are another story entirely.
Huck -
Sorry, the truth hurts in this instance. I honestly can't think of a sillier notion than the idea that contoured greens bring Ben back closer to my level.
Here is a possible way to test the theory, in a different sense:
Take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at any Tour stop with flat speedy greens (the Hope comes to mind) versus the average player that week. Then take a look at how often the winner 3 putts at ANGC during the Masters versus the average entrant. I'm willing to bet the difference is less at the Hope than the Masters. And in this example, we are comparing 150 guys who are all phenomenal putters by normal player standards. The worst Tour pro is a better putter than every average golfer on the planet, no matter what you hear about how bad some pros are at putting. I guarantee you the Scott McCarron with a normal short putter is a better putter than me. He went to the long putter because he was lacking putting skills in a relative sense. You don't get to his level putting like me.
Sorry I dragged this up, but the sooner you abandon your foolish notion the sooner the pain will go away.
:)
George
What codswallop!
OK, if you get to play the forward tees (although you tell us you can carry the ball farther than shivas tells us he can.... :o), I'm going to let my hypotheical putter move his ball 10 feet closer to the hole on the contoured greens when he is playing Crenshaw. Speaking of crenshaws, lets compare melons with melons, please....... :)
-
George:
Well then I shall have to just disagree. I still believe this is very far from foolish and absolutely not dumb, but whatever, you can say what you will and there's not much I can do about it. To me it continues to make very good sense.
As I say, I may overestimate the prowess of great putters on flat greens and underestimate such on contour. If that is the case the theory fails. But if I am right about that the theory holds.
So it might be wrong based on misinformation, but again, it is not dumb. Give me a break. You can disagree with it, sure. But that doesn't make the theory a dumb one.
Because the mistake you, and many others here, keep making is that you keep taking it to absurd levels and making leaps of logic and stating contentions that I for one am not trying to state in any way... No, this does not "bring Ben back to your level" - he is always going to be WAY better than you, no matter what. If my estimations of BEN'S abilities are correct (and remember I am punting on that, I may well have that wrong and trust JES and MWP about it), you are just going to come slightly closer to him in total putts on contoured greens, for the many reasons I've stated, many times.
He's still gonna kick your ass - that is a given.
You just might take one or two putts in total closer to the number he takes, over 18 holes, on the contoured greens.
Dumb? No way. There are many reasons why this is actually among the SMARTEST theories ever posted on here.
TH
ps - you may blow right by post #299, in which Rich says:
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to contend that, RELATIVELY, a poorer putter will score better than a good putter on more highly contoured greens.
Let me offer this hypothetical. I'm playing Crenshaw, and we each end up with 18 8-foot flat putts. He'll sink 16 or 17, I'll sink 8 or 9. Ben is 8 up (counting putts only). Alternatively, Ben and I end up with 18 25-foot breaking putts. Ben will sink 3-4 of them with at most one 3-putt. I'll sink at least one with at most 3-4 3-putts. Ben is 6 up (counting putts only). Case closed. :)
This is my contention as well. Or WAS, until JES set me straight about Ben's abilities. If we have Ben's abilities right, this works. If we don't, it doesn't. I'm willing to punt that I have Ben's abilities wrong. Rich may not make this concession. ;)
-
Tom,
I did read through alot of the pages...
NOW my head hurts. :P
My statement was strictly to make a point. Like JES II , MWP, George, etc...I don't understand how making something more difficult, in this specific case, putting, would in any way favor a poor putter in comparison to a skilled putter.
-
Fine, if you are offended with dumb, simply insert misguided. I really don't think you or Rich have the experience with bad putters that you think you do. You are both single digit handicaps.
And I was in fact wrong, at least in one sense - the idea that anyone can create his own ficticious numbers to provide the evidence to support a theory is far sillier than the actual theory itself.
Ask Jeff Brauer about his putting experience at Oakmont sometime.
-
Jamie:
Read post #299, or the one I just did in which I quote Rich. That states the contention far better than any of my drivel.
Now we may have Ben's abilities miscalculated, but if we don't, the theory holds.
And in no way do we take this beyond the specific putting example. It also should not be generalized on the skill level - that too has been covered.
But since this is a fun thing to do... riddle me this: in golf, is SKILL ALWAYS PERFECTLY REWARDED?
TH
-
Jamie -
It's pretty tough arguing with people who make up numbers and then use them as evidence to support their theory, no?
-
Fine, if you are offended with dumb, simply insert misguided. I really don't think you or Rich have the experience with bad putters that you think you do. You are both single digit handicaps.
And I was in fact wrong, at least in one sense - the idea that anyone can create his own ficticious numbers to provide the evidence to support a theory is far sillier than the actual theory itself.
Ask Jeff Brauer about his putting experience at Oakmont sometime.
George: being a single digit player makes me somehow unqualified to assess poor putting? Now we have a new leader in the "misguided" statement category. ;D
Please. I play nearly all of my golf with players over 15 handicap. You think I have my eyes closed?
And you also assume that being a single digit somehow makes me a GOOD putter? Good lord how I wish that were true....
As for the rest, the numbers were cited just as a way of explanation. Go read Rich's hypo in #299, or my recent quote of it. That is the contention. The numbers are not meant to be "evidence", they just illustrate the contention numerically. And my explanation to Jamie fleshes it out, hopefully.
You can choose to disagree, fine.
TH
-
From what I have witnessed in putting over the years, here are a few thoughts that you may or may not agree with:
Good putters tend to have- good mechanics, good feel/touch, confidence, and the ability to read greens well.
Poor putters tend to have- poor mechanics, poor feel, lack confidence, and do not read greens as well.
In my understanding of specifically PUTTING, given what I have stated above, I fail to see how the increased difficulty of contoured greens would favor a less skilled putter. I can't break it down into more simpler terms. More difficult conditions would increasingly affect negatively, the overall performance of the less skilled putter.
That's my Theory...and I'm stickin' to it. ;D
In this theory, are we talking about highly contoured greens that also have a fairly fast pace or are we talking about slower greens with contour?
-
Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.
Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004). Full complement of fielders, batting practice pitcher. The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings. Barry probably hits .860. I hit .160 it I'm lucky. Barry leads by .700. Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson. Barry hits .340. I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line). Barry leads by .320.
So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .380. Is this too hard to understand? :)
-
Jamie:
That's a darn good theory. And I agree with every word of it. It makes perfect sense.
Ah... but here's the rub... one can buy all of that, and still maintain that IN TERMS OF TOTAL PUTTS HOLED bad putters come closer to good putters on highly contoured greens. We've tried to explain why. To me the explanations are good. Basically it boils down to putts made as the indicator (instead of how close they get to the hole)... and it's really not all that complex....
But it's all here, in any case. It's ok if you missed it. Being expected to read 12 pages of theory and arguing and childish drivel is beyond the pale without a doubt.
TH
-
Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.
Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004). Full complement of fields, batting practice pitcher. The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings. Barry probably hits .850. I hit .150 it I'm lucky. Barry leads by .700. Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson. Barry hits .350. I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line). Barry leads by .330.
So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .370. Is this too hard to understand? :)
Rich - works for me, and that sure is analagous to the relativity we are trying to describe....
-
Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.
Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004). Full complement of fields, batting practice pitcher. The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings. Barry probably hits .850. I hit .150 it I'm lucky. Barry leads by .700. Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson. Barry hits .350. I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line). Barry leads by .330.
So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .370. Is this too hard to understand? :)
Rich,
Bad example. I am here to tell you that if you get in the box against Randy Johnson, you WILL NOT stay in as the pitch comes, much less hit it. YOU WILL NOT HIT THE BALL. You are dreaming if you think otherwise, or it has been way, way too long since you have seen a ball moving fast. An 80 mph fastball will make you run, I promise; he's pushing 100. Forget it; you hit .000; you MIGHT, I repeat MIGHT, hit .020 off a good high school pitcher, but that's where it ends. (Remember, Michael Jordan only hit about .210 off Double A pitching, and, in addition to being the best athlete in the world, he was doing it every day for two years! You're going to get a blooper off the Big Unit? I think not...)
-
AGC:
Fine. So put Rich at .000. The example still works....
TH
-
Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.
Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004). Full complement of fields, batting practice pitcher. The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings. Barry probably hits .850. I hit .150 it I'm lucky. Barry leads by .700. Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson. Barry hits .350. I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line). Barry leads by .330.
So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .370. Is this too hard to understand? :)
Rich - works for me, and that sure is analagous to the relativity we are trying to describe....
If you decline from .150 to .020, and Bonds goes from .850 to .350, the gap between you and Bonds is BIGGER! He WAS hitting 5.7 times more than you; NOW he's hitting 17.5 times more than you! Jeez, guys, I flunked math and can see this!
-
AG
I said "in my youth," didn't I? That was 1964 and I hit .400 in American Legion ball against the best HS pitchers in my county. Not to boast, or anything.... :-*
Anyway, as Tom says, give me a big .000 against BOTH pitchers, and the analogy still works!
-
AG
I said "in my youth," didn't I? That was 1964 and I hit .400 in American Legion ball against the best HS pitchers in my county. Not to boast, or anything.... :-*
Anyway, as Tom says, give me a big .000 against BOTH pitchers, and the analogy still works!
The analogy doesn't work, especially if you stay at .000 for the rest of your life, which you would!
-
The analogy is actually a good example of our point.
In your Bonds example, there is a lower bound for your hitting - 0. So you can only drop 160.
Putting is the exact opposite. The lower bound is on how low you can go - there is no upper bound. When the average golfer takes a putt with 15 feet of break, there is an excellent chance he will end up no closer to the hole, possibly even further away. This is a type of example of why some people say "Don't get above the hole." What in God's name makes you think he is going to generally 2 putt from a location that is as far or farther away?
The kind of contour that would be required to create 25 foot breaking putts would be rather extreme, no? Yet, I have seem pros and amateurs 2 putt in some crazy instances, like putting 180 degrees from the hole, using the ground to bring it back to the hole. If the average golfer gets this kind of putt, without seeing the pro do it first, he will easily leave his putt as far or farther away.
If you do not see people 4 putting on a regular basis, then you are indeed golfing with better than average golfers, or you are playing courses with "easy" greens - slow and no contour. On the hardest greens in the world - Oakmont, ANGC, #2 during the Open setup, take your pick - the average pro is still going to 2 putt most of the time, and only occasionally 3 putt. On these same greens, the average golfer (which we never really defined - I'll use the USGA stated average index of 18 or whatever) is going to have some greens where he almost can't even finish the hole. 4 putts, 5 putts, 6 putts, these are going to flat out kill his total.
I repeat, if you truly believe that you are only going to 3 putt a bit more often on greens with a lot of contour (relatively speaking, less often than Ben), you are not a bad putter. You may not be great at holing long putts like Fax, and you may not have a dead eye stroke from 6 feet like Tom or Arnold in their prime, but apparently you are a good lag putter.
-
This argument keeps going around in circles. Could it be that different people have different abilities on different types of putting surfaces. If I may use my game as an example. On relatively flat greens I'm not a very good putter. This is partly because my concentration and interest aren't as sharp as when I'm on a highly contoured green. I look forward to playing on some of the old courses around here and look forward to the different putts presented to me. My planning and execution are better when I have to concentrate more.
I'm still not as good of a putter as many others but I'm better when there is more of a challenge of reading the putt and playing the different slopes. Trying to adjust for speed off a hill or how much it bends or even how it putts compared to yesterday is more complicated then a putt from a flat surface.
If it's strickly about stroke a pure putter probably likes less contour but............
-
George
You forgot about Equitable Stroke Control. Even the highest handicaps get to pick up after 3-4 putts. :)
Also, what's your problem with imagining a 25 foot putt with some break? You didn't really think I meant a putt that breaks 25-feet, did you? Even Crenshaw would 3-putt most of those!
-
Actually, with all the wild scenarios people are throwing around, I did think you meant a putt that broke 25 feet. Regardless, it doesn't change my position or explanation.
I can't explain or re-explain my position any clearer, so, absent any specific questions for me to address that are materially different from everything we've covered, I'm going to attempt to bow out.
Happy Putting Everyone!
:)
-
George: just remember it was YOU who resurrected this beauty. ;D ;D ;D
I also can't explain or re-explain my position any clearer, so, absent any specific questions for me to address that are materially different from everything we've covered, I'm going to attempt to bow out.
Happy Putting Everyone!
;D ;D
-
......and Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are......
-
Dave, you have to be an awful lot worse than an "average" player to worry about bunkers at 280 for your 2nd or 3rd shots. Try again.
Hey, leave my "awful lot worse than average" game out of this.
If the average player slices or hooks into the rough, then the bunker is in play on the second shot. If the player tops the drive, the bunker is in play on the second shot. If he hits it in the rough, the bunker is in play on the second shot. If the player skies the drive, the bunker is in play on the second shot. And, if the player happens to hit a good drive, then the bunker is still in play, because the average player is due to top, sky, slice, hook or duff the next second one.
And the bunker is in play on the third shot when the average player hits into the bunker on his second shot.
You brought bunkers into this not me. Ever see a good putter putt into a bunker? I've seen bad players putt into them, but never on flat greens.
PS--Just because I say something doesn't mean you have to disagree with it, or maybe it does...... :'(
Oh come on, I dont have the time to disagree with the vast majority of the disagreable things you say. If you werent always wrong it would be a lot easier to agree with you.
-
But since this is a fun thing to do... riddle me this: in golf, is SKILL ALWAYS PERFECTLY REWARDED?
TH
Sorry my friends ;),
So the lesser player has the golf gods on their side? ??? :P
-
Now JES, this time 'tis you who failed to answer the question. And I think it's because you know the answer.
It's not that the golf gods side with the lesser player... It's that said gods are FAR from just and fair, because in this crazy game of seemingly infinite variables, yep, some times bad shots end up great, and great shots end up bad.
My concession stands, btw. This is just a fun tangent.
;D
-
Actually I did not know the answer at the time, but think I can imagine what you see as the correct answer. The better player is presumed to make their putt and luck can only effect it in one direction (it can only keep the ball out if it is to become a factor), whereas the lesser player has the opportunity for "luck" to knock his ball into the hole when his stroke might not have allowed it (in a vacuum). Correct?
NO GOOD, because the better player will have his misses closer to the hole more often thereby gaining a realistic chance of "luck" helping those balls into the hole.
How do you feel about the baseball analogy?
If forced to choose, I must agree with George in its support of our position due to performance in baseball being judged by percentage as opposed to total score. The lower bound limit in baseball in contrast to no upper limit in golf goes to making this a poor analogy in general though.
-
Quote from the Geoff S. website today.
The aspect of the game you lose with green speeds averaging somewhere between 11-13 on the Stimpmeter is the ability to build contour into your putting surfaces…When you take contour out of the greens and speed them up, you only make the game easier for the average-putting Tour pro, and harder for the club player. PETE DYE
Not exact, but close enough for me...
This years Ryder cup was also proof enough for me - they don't miss a long flatish putt.
-
Oh Boy!
-
Thanks Mike
This time it only took 18 months and the endorsement of Shackelford fils to get vindication. It's tough being right all of the time..... :'(:)
Rich
-
without reading the entire thread or thinking about it too much, I would think highly contoured greens favor the better putter...
-
How many bad putters have won the Masters...
-
Only if "they" means the Euros!
What does Pete Dye know about golf? :)
-
Vindication, so sweet, so sweet.
It is tough being right all the time, isn't it, Rich?
;D ;D
-
Go ahead and believe that if you'd like.
Doesn't make you or Rich any more correct than before - or less, for that matter. It's Pete's opinion, he can be wrong as well.
Does someone want to argue that Pete's courses lack contour in the greens, because he is trying to separate the good putters from the bad?
Actions speak much louder than out of context words.
-
Pete Dye is a nice authority to have on one's side. I'll take him.
;D
-
Give a good putter a ten foot putt on a flat green and he will hole a high percentage. Give him the same length putt with a lot of break and the percentage would go down quite significantly.
The difference in a poor putter's success rate would be a lot less.
So, yes this seems to favour the bad putter.
However, I always thought that contoured greens favoured good ball strikers. There is a bigger advantage to be gained by hitting it closer to the hole.
-
Quote from the Geoff S. website today.
The aspect of the game you lose with green speeds averaging somewhere between 11-13 on the Stimpmeter is the ability to build contour into your putting surfaces…When you take contour out of the greens and speed them up, you only make the game easier for the average-putting Tour pro, and harder for the club player. PETE DYE
Not exact, but close enough for me...
This years Ryder cup was also proof enough for me - they don't miss a long flatish putt.
I'd hate to disagree with Mr. Dye...but I will. ;)
Pine Valley & Merion haven't lost the "contour" in their greens, and I've played them when they were running at 11-12. They are extremely difficult for all levels of play, but for a poor putter, even more so. I don't know how anyone can argue that a contoured green like you'd find at the two courses I mentioned, compared to a flatter green of the same speed would be of any added benefit to a poor putter.
Like JESII said in another post....
Apparently, "putting" is the only human sporting endeavour where as the difficulty of the task increases, it somehow benefits the poorer player. ??? :P
-
I feel comfortable speaking for the poor putters, because there is no question that I am one. I want as much going on at the greens as possible, then I feel that nobody is going to make much of anything. From 20 feet on flat greens, I am missing, but those guys that can putt, feel confident from there.
-
Huck, you can have Pete, I'll stick with Jamie and Jim.
:)
Like I said, Pete's proof is in his designs, not a misconstrued phrase.
-
It seems to me this is a good "Dave Pelz" topic and experiment.
Get 5 pros or low handicappers and get them each to stroke 1 puts from 5 feet on a flat surface and 5 from 20 feet. Then get them from the same distance with a right breaking putt and then a left breaker, again with straight and breaking putts uphill and downhill on contoured and flat greens.
Then go get 5 10 - 20 handicappers and do it all over again.
Measure the distance from the hole on each putt and total it up.
Jordan Wall can organize it and do all of the menial work and send us the results.
-
redanman,
I'm with you on the taking the flagstick out thing. Mr. Pelz must conduct his tests with some magical soft flagticks. In my own views from course, I have seen a lot of shots that would have ended up in the hole if it were NOT for the flagstick being left in. If I have a chip I think I have a chance of making, I always take it out.
Let's see...in the last two posts, I have now disagreed with Pete Dye and Dave Pelz. Who the hell do I think I am! ;D
-
Can the flagstick help a good shot?
Bob Jenkins,
The key to your experiment is to not measure total distance left after the first putt, but to have each person putt out. The difference to be found is when the good putter approaches to 2 feet and makes every one of those and the lesser putter approaches to 5 feet and misses many of those.
-
redanman,
I'm with you on the taking the flagstick out thing. Mr. Pelz must conduct his tests with some magical soft flagticks. In my own views from course, I have seen a lot of shots that would have ended up in the hole if it were NOT for the flagstick being left in. If I have a chip I think I have a chance of making, I always take it out.
Let's see...in the last two posts, I have now disagreed with Pete Dye and Dave Pelz. Who the hell do I think I am! ;D
I have never hit a shot and said, 'Damn, I wish I would have left the flag in.' The other way around, 1000 times, minimum.
-
In my own views from course, I have seen a lot of shots that would have ended up in the hole if it were NOT for the flagstick being left in.
I'm not going to disagree, I haven't holed a shot in years, but your observations don't prove your point. It still may be better to leave the flag in under all circumstances.
Same with the putting.... :)
It is the disparity that shrinks
I think you will beat me at putting at Bethpage 21 putts to 29, but at Pine Valley you'll only beat me 26 to 33. :)
-
Mike,
I'm not so sure what you are missing.
I stated that I've seen many more shots where the ball would have gone in the hole if it weren't for the flagstick being left in. From my own observances, I think this proves my point.
I have seen far more balls be kept out of the hole because of the flagstick than actually being aided by it.
As for the putting question, count me as one of the guys that don't think that the disparity shrinks. I think the worse get worse to an even greater extent when the difficulty increases.
-
I've never really understood the logic behind Mike's, Huck's and Rich's posts. Actually, not the logic so much as the premise.
The notion that adding contour to the equation will result in disproportionally more 3 putts from the better player is beyond counterintuitive to me, it is so far out that I just won't believe it unless someone can provide concrete evidence.
The only way I see it helping even the playing field is if there is so much contour that it causes completely random results, and I have never seen such contour. Furthermore, I'd even argue that the better player is mentally stronger and will adapt to randomness better than the lesser player, but this is obviously pure speculation.
Under this "logic", tournaments like the Hope should favor good putters more than tournaments like the Masters. Does anyone want to try to make this case? The Masters has been won more than a couple times by a guy who never 3 putted in 72 holes. If an average golfer went from playing flat greens to Augusta greens, he wouldn't just 3 putt many more times, he'd 4 and 5 putt a few times as well.
Somewhere buried in this thread is my extension of my position:
Anything that makes the game more difficult for the expert golfer will make it incrementally more difficult for the average golfer.
I haven't seen anything offered on this thread that would cause me to back away from that.
-
George,
Your continued knowledge and expert analysis on this subject is really something these other guys should strive for. ;D
Stick with us...
-
I have seen far more balls be kept out of the hole because of the flagstick than actually being aided by it.
I'm not saying I agree with Pelz, but I think he'd argue that the myriad of times you've seen putts and chips with no flagstick in warp your perception (hope that made sense). In other words, if the flagstick were always in, you'd see more of the times it helps out.
For my money, I'd guess the flagstick effect is negligible either way. I think for lesser golfers, it probably would help more because it would keep hot shots closer to the hole. It'd probably hurt better goflers more because they are obviously much better at judging the proper pace.
-
George,
Your continued knowledge and expert analysis on this subject is really something these other guys should strive for. ;D
Stick with us...
You had me at knowledge.
:)
-
I have seen far more balls be kept out of the hole because of the flagstick than actually being aided by it.
I'm not saying I agree with Pelz, but I think he'd argue that the myriad of times you've seen putts and chips with no flagstick in warp your perception (hope that made sense). In other words, if the flagstick were always in, you'd see more of the times it helps out.
For my money, I'd guess the flagstick effect is negligible either way. I think for lesser golfers, it probably would help more because it would keep hot shots closer to the hole. It'd probably hurt better goflers more because they are obviously much better at judging the proper pace.
George,
That's a good point. You are probably correct when comparing the levels of play.
My chipping has been mediocre of late, but I'm still pulling that flagstick. ;)
-
On another thread, Jeff Brauer implies this is so.
Does he imply it ? Or, are you infering it ?
I would tend to agree with him in that flat and straight putts expose weaknesses in the putting stroke better than anything.
I would disagree.
Putting isn't just about stoking the club, it's about reading the green, assessing pace and break, and a good stroke. All absent in a poor putters game.
The more that contour comes into the equation, the less important the quality of the putting stroke vs. the ability to hit the ball to the proper spot on the green, and to imagine approach putting angles if you miss that spot.
That's a flawed conclusion
As I think through writing this post, I think that this is a great argument for highly contoured greens, as it (properly, in my opinion) diminishes the relative importance of a grooved putting stroke to golfing importance.
I'm in favor of anything that promotes highly contoured greens, even if it's flawed thinking ;D
PS--I would also say that the faster the greens the less they favor the putter with the grooved putting stroke.....
Now you're really going off the deep end.
Have you been visiting with TEPaul lately ?
PPS--perhaps this goes some way to explaining why JakaB is so enthusiastic about highly countoured/highly "stimped" greens...........
No comment
Don't forget that highly contoured greens also favor the better golfer on approach and recovery shots.
-
Here's something else I recall Jeff mentioning, a long long time ago:
When he played Oakmont for the first time, he had several 4 putt greens.
How many do you think tour pros have?
-
As to the Dye quote, I think he is talking about two very different things; the increase in green speeds AND the resulting loss of contour. Read that way, the quote makes much more sense. His contentions are:
1. average-putting pros are being helped by less contour, relative to better-putting pros.
2. club players are being hurt by more speed rather than slower speed.
Read that way, the quote works perfectly. It makes utterly NO sense to believe that Dye is arguing that the very same thing could help lesser pros relative to the better ones, yet hurt club players relative to pros. Dye is not a dope, and only a dope would argue that the same process would double back and start hurting lesser players when it had been helping them. ???
-
George:
Do you REALLY want me to explain this to you yet again?
You continue to miss the point.
Golf is not measured by how close you get the ball to the hole, but rather by how many strokes it takes to get the ball IN the hole. Think about this, go back and read, and perhaps finally you will see the light. Highly contoured greens means the pros will three putt, where they never will on flat greens.. and though they will certainly get closer than the amateur on first putts, they also won't make as many as they would on flat greens - two misses means a tie, in golf, regardless of who's closer. Meanwhile the amateur three-putts on both, and doesn't four-putt or worse nearly enough to make a difference... at least not compared to how many MORE putts the pro makes than he does on flat greens.
Why is this so hard to understand? It really does seem fundamental and basic to me... and nothing you or anyone else has said has caused me to move from this one iota either.
Like Mike says:
I think you will beat me at putting at Bethpage 21 putts to 29, but at Pine Valley you'll only beat me 26 to 33.
That's what it all comes down to.
Remember also the comparison here isn't pro v. pro - so results from the Hope or Masters matter not - but rank amateur v. pro. So yes, Pete Dye's quote truly doesn't vindicate what Rich and I have been saying... but it sure doesn't hurt... and I feel confident if we asked him the question Rich asks, he'd agree with us.
TH
-
Kyle:
Very cool. Sorry for the impatience.
And I am about to type something that may well be a first in the august history of this forum:
I could very well have this completely wrong.
;D
Not one IOTA Huckster???
-
Nope. Nada iotas. To me this really is simple....
And it does come down to Mike's assessement. Put a great putter on flat greens, he makes putts... while hack me still misses. Put us both on contoured greens, neither one of us makes anything. You come closer, for sure... but we both then tap in.
More or less.
;)
-
Did you read the passage I quoted? It was written by you 18 months ago. It looks like a big IOTA to me.
Anyway, these speculations about how many putts you or Mike Nuzzo will have on two different style greens is about the most ridiculous thing I have read on here other than John Kavanaugh deciding to stay 100% on topic. With that as your only ammunition I am surprised you re-entered the ring.
-
Sully, that is FAR from my only ammunition. I just don't feel like unloading the arsenal AGAIN. Mike just sums it up well.
As for that previous quote, well... unlike some people (not you) I acknowledge my fallibility. And I was just being nice back then. I'm a nasty bitch these days.
;D
-
Fair enough TH. I don't know if I have the energy, but the image I get of you and Goodale strutting in victory around your computers because of a Pete Dye quote might just be too much for me to take.
I'll leave it to my cohorts for a few hours and see if they can handle it.
-
Fair enough TH. I don't know if I have the energy, but the image I get of you and Goodale strutting in victory around your computers because of a Pete Dye quote might just be too much for me to take.
I'll leave it to my cohorts for a few hours and see if they can handle it.
Totally understood. And at least for me, the strutting was more to piss George off. ;D As I say, it's really not directly related to what we are maintaining here. But it doesn't hurt.
;D
-
My course has highly contoured greens for the most part that stimp at around 9 -1/2 most days. Bad putters do horribly on them for the following reasons:
1. They cannot read the putt, either line or speed. I think this is due in part to a failure to hit putts consistently.
2. If they read it correctly, they cannot hit it on the correct line.
3. If they have the correct line, they cannot hit it the correct speed.
4. Short putts leave the choice of hitting it hard at the hole, which must hit the middle or spin out, or hitting a soft putt that depends on the break. Poor putters have a huge disadvantage in either event.
5. Bad longer putts result in balls rolling off the green, going the wrong direction off a spine or staying short above the hole, which does not improve one's lot at all. The result is a 3 or 4 putt rather than two tap ins of varying length.
My most frequent playing companion is a better putter than me. His advantage is multiplied at our course compared to courses with flatter greens.
I am a better putter than many. I would rather play them at my course than others that have flatter greens.
-
On another thread, Jeff Brauer implies this is so.
Does he imply it ? Or, are you infering it ?
Pat, no question I implied it, or at least the reverse - that they negate some advantages of being a good putter, because they are more difficult for everyone. Its pretty simple logic - poor putters will still miss, and good putters will make less.
I don't have the patience to read through any long, even if well thought out, posts as to why it might be so because of the relative importance of greens reading vs. stroke. I agree it also might give more advantage to players whose game strenght is accuracy and mental acuity to hit approach shots to the right part of the green, etc., making for a more balanced challenge for all different types of games.
Jason - I agree its possible for a horrible putter to do even worse than a good player gets dragged down by steep greens. I think thats true of almost any gca feature designed to challenge the best players - they affect poor players about 4 times as much (in this case, bad approach, bad chip, bad first putt, bad second putt, and maybe even a bad third putt can each go haywire for the poor player)
I think Pat, myself and others are thinking in terms of 15 handicappers and less who are competitive in club matches, albeit with varying game strengths.
-
Jamie Slonis said it yesterday, and that is only the most recent attempt. You guys are claiming that putting is different than any other skill in all of sports known to man, in that more difficult greens favor poor putters relative to good putters.
I wrote this eons ago, but here it is again. By this logic:
Ben Crenshaw is a WAY better putter than me, unless the greens are really difficult. THEN, Ben Crenshaw is less "way better" than me, SO if I can just find a course where the greens are tough enough, I will be as good or better than Crenshaw! (or at least he'll suck as bad as I do!) Right????
Name one other skill in all of sports that actually works this way. Increased difficulty ALWAYS more clearly identifies the advantages of the better player. ALWAYS.
-
AGC:
This is where you and George go off track. And as I recall, you acknowledged this way back when and came to understand it... it pains me you have retrenched. ;D
See, we are absolutely not saying anything like:
putting is different than any other skill in all of sports known to man, in that more difficult greens favor poor putters relative to good putters.
or at least not in that type of absolute. Because if you measure it based on how close one gets to the hole, obviously it holds true that the more skilled will get closer, and this "do better."
But golf is not measured that way. Golf is measured based on how many putts are holed.
And thus I refer you to the simple logic as stated by Jeff Brauer:
Its pretty simple logic - poor putters will still miss, and good putters will make less.
That's really all this comes down to. Look at it in terms of putts holed - as Mike Nuzzo did in his example - and this works out very simply.
And it does not refute any laws of physics or sports. Golf just remains a unique game in terms of how results are measured.
TH
-
AG Crockett,
Good putters will ALWAYS outperform weaker putters irrespective of the configuration of the green.
One of a good to great putter's skill is "reading"
Without adept "reading" skills, and the ability to combine pace and break golfers are "lost" on the putting surfaces, especially as the speed of the green increases.
If a putt breaks four feet and the higher handicap reads it at eight feet, he's going to have a longer, more difficult recovery putt, and, if he mis-hits it on the wide side, an even longer, more difficult putt,
The converse is also true.
I think much "slower" greens narrow the gap between the good to great and the mediocre putter, but, not contouring.
You fellows are erroneously focused on one putts while ignoring the likelihood of three and four putts by the inferior putter on highly contoured greens.
P.S.
A ten handicap golfer can be a better putter than a 6 handicap golfer, so don't view this exercise in the context of handicap, rather, confine it to putting skills.
-
The best way to resolve this issue is to hold a putting contest using a highly contoured putting surface in one instance and a flat surface in another instance. If the spread in scores increases on the contoured surface, then such greens favor the better putter. If the spread decreases, contoured greens favor the poorer putter.
The next Kings Putter?
-
Tom,
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can just look at this hypothetical from just the number of putts holed. When you say putts "holed", am I to assume that you mean 1st putts? You have to look at it from the context of TOTAL putts.
If you have a good putter, they are still going to hole a couple of 1st putts, even with increased difficulty, while the poorer putter won't make any and will three putt more so.
For the two sides of this issue, the argument boils down to whether or not you think a good putter will hole more 1st putts on flat greens to widen the gap...OR you believe the poor putter will 3 putt the tougher greens more often.
I didn't see Pat's response before posting the above, but it seems as if he is 100% correct...yet again. ;)
-
Patrick:
Not that you and I need ANOTHER thing to disagree about... but... methinks you are not getting our point.
This isn't about one-putts, it's about how it works out in total over the course of a round of golf.
And I continue to believe the take of Jeff Brauer, as put very simply above, and as quantified by Mike Nuzzo.
I do believe that the gain in one-putts on flat greens (by the better putter) does off-set the loss the lesser putter gets on contoured greens. I really don't think he's going to 4-putt more than the better putter one-putts on the flat. And since neither one of them is going to one-putt very often on the contoured greens, this is what it boils down to.
Thus I agree with your comments... just not your conclusions.
And I've seen it play out too many times at Pasatiempo. Of course that takes it to the absurd... but when no one can make any putts, how does anyone have any advantage?
It remains an interesting argument anyway, even here 10 pages and nearly two years into it.
;D
-
Tom,
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can just look at this hypothetical from just the number of putts holed. When you say putts "holed", am I to assume that you mean 1st putts? You have to look at it from the context of TOTAL putts.
If you have a good putter, they are still going to hole a couple of 1st putts, even with increased difficulty, while the poorer putter won't make any and will three putt more so.
For the two sides of this issue, the argument boils down to whether or not you think a good putter will hole more 1st putts on flat greens to widen the gap...OR you believe the poor putter will 3 putt the tougher greens more often.
Jamie - I am absolutely looking at it in the totality of the golf round, as I just explained to Irish-man. But yes, we have boiled it down - just as you say. And I continue to believe the good putter WILL hole more 1st putts on flat greens than the bad putter will three and four putt more than him on the contoured.
TH
-
Tom,
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can just look at this hypothetical from just the number of putts holed. When you say putts "holed", am I to assume that you mean 1st putts? You have to look at it from the context of TOTAL putts.
If you have a good putter, they are still going to hole a couple of 1st putts, even with increased difficulty, while the poorer putter won't make any and will three putt more so.
For the two sides of this issue, the argument boils down to whether or not you think a good putter will hole more 1st putts on flat greens to widen the gap...OR you believe the poor putter will 3 putt the tougher greens more often.
Jamie - I am absolutely looking at it in the totality of the golf round, as I just explained to Irish-man. But yes, we have boiled it down - just as you say. And I continue to believe the good putter WILL hole more 1st putts on flat greens than the bad putter will three and four putt more than him on the contoured.
TH
Well...now we're getting somewhere!
We should've agreed to disagree 5 pages, and two years ago, and saved ourselves all this FUN.
-
Jamie - didn't we do that?
;D
-
Tom Huckaby,
Remember, the issue is in the context of HIGHLY CONTOURED greens.
As such, the better putter, the better player will have easier putts.
He'll be able to get closer to the hole on approach and recovery, and he'll be more inclined to have the prefered line to the hole.
And, you're forgetting another element.
The bad putter will be even more out of his comfort zone on highly contoured greens. His bad putting will be accentuated, thus the gap, the disparity will increase, not decrease.
Put a good putter and a bad putter on the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th, 12th and 15th greens at NGLA, stimping at 10-12 and the disparity will become clear to you.
Put them on the same greens stimping at 6 and you'll see the gap close.
Highly contoured greens favor the good player and the good putter.
-
Patrick:
Agree to disagree. I have taken all of that into consideration, and I just plain disagree. And remember, I have seen this play out at Pasatiempo, whose greens make NGLA's look positively tame.
TH
-
Tom,
Thanks for the support of simple logic.
My father used to tell me that the value of an idea is usually inversely proportional to the amount of words used to describe it, making most of Pats arguments suspect. ;)
Was if FLW or another architect who coined the phrase, "Less is more?"
-
Was if FLW or another architect who coined the phrase, "Less is more?"
Jeff
That was Old Tom Morris when some Englishman asked him how to score the bloody game.
-
Actually, it was Mies, from the Chicago School.
A friend just returned from Scotland, telling the story of being so nervous on TOC, that he shanked it between his own legs over on the 18th green. The caddy tells him "make that putt, and you'll be round in 2"
Think that's what old Tom had in mind? ;)
-
Was if FLW or another architect who coined the phrase, "Less is more?"
See http://tinyurl.com/vto2z (http://tinyurl.com/vto2z)
I thought Mies said: "God is in the details."
As for who really said "Less is more," see: http://tinyurl.com/y6hcu6 (http://tinyurl.com/y6hcu6)
-
I think much "slower" greens narrow the gap between the good to great and the mediocre putter, but, not contouring.
You fellows are erroneously focused on one putts while ignoring the likelihood of three and four putts by the inferior putter on highly contoured greens.
Pat,
We agree completely. Every golfer holes one putt per green eventually. The issue is the number of putts taken prior to that. The bad putter will accumulate HUGE numbers on contoured greens because they repeatedly miss by relatively large distances. This is added to by the fact that the bad putter can't get the speed right, so they leave putts way short much of the time, whereas the good putter leaves himself a relatively short, straight putt coming back after the contour feeds the ball down a slope.
-
AGC:
Suffice to say I continue to disagree. I don't see the volume of 3 and 4putts that you guys do, and I think you sell short the number of made first putts by the better putter on flat greens.
Now ask yourself, who would you really rather have on your side in this?
;D
-
Tom,
I think the fallacy in thinking that poor putters will four putt as much as good putters two or three putt is that most folks will concede the third or fourth one, having the necessary compassion to NOT want to see a grown man cry. ;)
-
Tom,
I think the fallacy in thinking that poor putters will four putt as much as good putters two or three putt is that most folks will concede the third or fourth one, having the necessary compassion to NOT want to see a grown man cry. ;)
And of course that too is a very good point.
;D
-
Golf is not measured by how close you get the ball to the hole, but rather by how many strokes it takes to get the ball IN the hole.
Who said anything about distance from the hole?
When did I say anything about distance from the hole?
I find the notion that contoured greens are going to cause Ben to 3 putt disproportionately more than me to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
And by funny I, of course, mean bizarre and incorrect.
:)
-
And who said Ben Crenshaw is going to three putt more than you on highly contoured greens?
What I find funny (and by that I mean bizarre and incorrect) is how you continually put words in my mouth that were never said. Of course it makes sense given you have Mucci on your side here, the king of that particular tactic.
Please read back to my exchanges with Sully, Jamie, AGC from today. That spells it all out. You likely will disagree also... and that's fine. Then at least we'll come to some sort of acceptance rather than pithy word-insertion.
;D
-
Come on George, didn;t you see how it happens. Mike Nuzzo laid it all out right here.
Same with the putting.... :)
It is the disparity that shrinks
I think you will beat me at putting at Bethpage 21 putts to 29, but at Pine Valley you'll only beat me 26 to 33. :)
Hey Jamie, 21 putts is about right for you, huh? 26 at PV? How many did you have in the Crump?
Any chance an average putter (or whoever it is in this argument) has less than 40 putts during either of those qualifying rounds? 50 would be closer if you also count the chips that come between some of their putts....
-
Sully - I doubt Mike Nuzzo meant those as real numbers - note the smilies.
How's this for a real estimate though:
San Jose Muni (flat greens, easy course, take my word for it):
Ben Crenshaw - 26 putts at most.
Bad amateur putter - 35 putts at least.
Pasatiempo (highly contoured greens, sometimes absurd pin placements):
Ben Crenshaw - 31 putts at least.
Bad putter - 39 putts at most.
Thus 9 v. 8. And I really do think that's how it would tend to work out. I've seen it in action at Pasa. Let's just say if the pins are silly enough, it becomes worse for Ben... while the am eventually gets it in pretty much the same... as all misses roll to pretty much the same spot.
TH
-
And who said Ben Crenshaw is going to three putt more than you on highly contoured greens?
Disproportionately more. That's what I said, and what you and the others on your side have said as well. If not exactly, that's certainly what you imply. You imply that Ben will go from zero 3 putts to 2 or 4 or whatever, while I will hold relatively steady.
I'm guessing you've never seen either of us putt in person.
:)
Sully -
Nothing I love more than made up stats to back up a position!
-
George:
Well I don't know exactly what you mean by "disproportionately more", but my position has been pretty clearly and simply laid out today - and several times before. Choose to disagree, as I say - and that's fine. But again, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.
As for making up stats to support an argument, well... I'm just giving an example of how I think it would work out. You're free to disagree with that as well. But again, it just helps to make sure we're talking about the same things.
TH
ps - I have not seen either you or Crenshaw putt obviously, but I have seen how this plays out at Pasa. And I continue to believe I am right about this. But again, reasonable minds will differ.
-
Love the hypothetical guesses.
You consider 35 to be a bad amateur putter on what I'm assuming are relatively bland greens? And this same guy is only increasing to 39 at Pasa, where you and others have boasted of endless putting?
That tells me all I need to know.
We're waaaaaaaaay past agreeing to disagree. I think we need to agree that the other guy is so far gone as to be unfindable.
:)
-
George:
I've seen it in action at Pasa. Have you seen this play out?
And note that my take there is based on normal pins, not the crazy ones they can use which make for the endless putting. If they use those, the numbers go up for both Crenshaw and the amateur... with the most telling thing being that after the first putt (if missed) both Ben and Am are putting from the same place anyway due to gravity.
If that doesn't prove my point, nothing will. Two putts that miss the hole end up in the same place, no matter how well they are struck.
BTW I don't think you're far gone at all - I just do believe that as some others are, you are selling short the skill of the good putter on flat putts, and overstating the effects of contour on the bad putter. Again, we can disagree about that - that is just fine.
TH
-
I'm just needling you on the made up stat-thing - I know it is to illustrate your position, not support it. (I'm not sure about Rich, however.... :))
And I've seen lousy putters throw up more than 35 putts on my home muni, I'm guessing they'll have a handful of pickups on tough greens.
-
George - very well. I can accept the needle.
;D
I too have seen lousy putters throw out well more than 35 putts on relatively easy greens - I'm just trying to illustrate an average.
My tournament group tracks putts - prizes are given for the low and a booby-prize is given for high. Now of course none of us are pros, but when we play flat greens, a low handicapper nearly always wins, with something like 24-27 putts. The loser rarely goes over 38 or so. When we play highly contoured greens, the winner rarely gets below 32... and the loser seems to get to 40, but rarely more than that. So again, the disparity is lower at the flat greens. Now I know a lot of logic flies in the face of it working out this way, but I really do think it comes down to highly contoured greens leaving all misses in pretty much the same place, at least many times.
Perhaps my group has overly clouded my take here... but the example is powerful, for me anyway.
TH
-
Well, it's nice to have a real world example, even it's a small sample size. I'd have to know a lot more about the golfers and the courses before I accepted it as proof, however.
I don't think I can really say much more to illustrate my side, so I'll bow out from here - reserving the right to rebutt, of course!
-
Well, it's nice to have a real world example, even it's a small sample size. I'd have to know a lot more about the golfers and the courses before I accepted it as proof, however.
I don't think I can really say much more to illustrate my side, so I'll bow out from here - reserving the right to rebutt, of course!
That's cool. I doubt this topic will ever really end.
And of course my sample gives no proof... I'm just trying to get you to understand why I've adopted a position you find so preposterous. Simple logic (as Jeff puts it) combined with a real world example is a powerful thing.
;D
-
Sully - I doubt Mike Nuzzo meant those as real numbers - note the smilies.
How's this for a real estimate though:
San Jose Muni (flat greens, easy course, take my word for it):
Ben Crenshaw - 26 putts at most.
Bad amateur putter - 35 putts at least.
Pasatiempo (highly contoured greens, sometimes absurd pin placements):
Ben Crenshaw - 31 putts at least.
Bad putter - 39 putts at most.
Thus 9 v. 8. And I really do think that's how it would tend to work out. I've seen it in action at Pasa. Let's just say if the pins are silly enough, it becomes worse for Ben... while the am eventually gets it in pretty much the same... as all misses roll to pretty much the same spot.
TH
Whoa, Tom! Ben Freaking Crenshaw gets AT LEAST 5 putts worse at Pasa, and I only get 5 or so worse? 39 putts at worst? Heck, if Crenshaw gets 5 worse, why wouldn't I get way worse than that? He gets worse faster than I do?
39 putts is 2 putts per green and 3 three putts; a bad putter has 3 three putts on easy greens! If the bad putter goes to a few more three putts PLUS adds a 4 putt or two, he's WAAAAY over 40 putts for the round with the contours.
You don't play with enough bad putters, Tom. Bad means bad. Monday I played in a scramble; our D player (20 handicap) sliced every putt AND couldn't get the speed OR hit the line! After awhile, I stopped watching his putt at all. I guarantee you he takes 40 putts easy on his own ball, maybe a lot more. These were on pretty flat Fazio greens at White Columns; at a Strantz course or a Dye course he would have lost his ball several times!
-
AGC:
Try to think of this in terms of not so much the raw numbers, but how they happen.
You and Crenshaw each face a putt from 30 feet that you each miss. Crenshaw shave the hole, you miss wildly. Each putt keeps rolling and due to gravity ends up at the same place! So how is Ben any better than you, in this instance? You both keep going until you make the putt. He does so in fewer strokes overall... but not like he would on flat greens.
That's what it comes down to. I know the numbers seem odd - hell they do fly in the face of some logic. But golf does not conform to logic absolutely.
And please, I play with some truly awful putters... and my example of my tournament group holds true.
TH
-
You and Crenshaw each face a putt from 30 feet that you each miss. Crenshaw shave the hole, you miss wildly. Each putt keeps rolling and due to gravity ends up at the same place!
This perfectly illustrates the disconnect.
-
George:
Why? You can't imagine this?
I've seen it happen. One putt gets struck way better, with way more skill... and the two balls end up in the same place.
It happens... on highly contoured greens. Missed putts just gravitate to the common low point.
TH
-
George:
Why? You can't imagine this?
I've seen it happen. One putt gets struck way better, with way more skill... and the two balls end up in the same place.
It happens... on highly contoured greens. Missed putts just gravitate to the common low point.
TH
The common low point?? In my example, I used Pine Valley & Merion, two courses with quick, highly contoured greens. Neither of which you'll find too many common low points. Only with the most goofy hole locations, would you see a decent putt and a lousy putt end up in the same spot. A good putter will keep the ball around the hole, it might trickle to 5-6 feet sometimes, but the poor putters "common low point" could very well be totally OFF the green in some cases. I've played Pine Valley with a couple members of my local club. I'd say they were average ballstrikers but they weren't particularly good putters, neither of them could sniff 39 putts. If it weren't for a few "pick em' ups"...we may still be there. ;D
-
Tom,
In some extreme (VERY extreme) hole locations, Crenshaw and I might end up at the same place; I've seen that happen too. But he'll make the next putt back up the hill because it will be more or less straight and he'll get the speed righ, and mine will roll back to my feet at least once more if the putt was that tough in the first place.
More likely, my first putt rolls off, and his first putt is on a line that lags up safely. He isn't trying to make it the first one, then taps in. Meanwhile, I'm 10 feet away, hoping to get down in two more.
There is just no way a tougher green cuts down the difference between me and Ben Crenshaw; it will highlight how good he is every single time. Think Augusta...
-
AG,
Face it, we are not going to convert those on the "dark side".
No matter how great our thinking may be, or how well we explain our side of the story, we will never get them to see the light. It is a lost cause, kaput, end of story. ;D
But it's still fun to try... ;)
-
Patrick:
Agree to disagree. I have taken all of that into consideration, and I just plain disagree. And remember, I have seen this play out at Pasatiempo, whose greens make NGLA's look positively tame.
Tom Huckaby,
I doubt you've putted on highly contoured greens that stimp at 11-13, under tournament conditions.
I doubt that most bad putters have ever experienced anything like highly contoured, firm and fast greens at high speeds.
I have seen good to great players interface with those surfaces and the poorer putter doesn't pick up an edge.
It's just the opposite.
And, after a few holes, any confidence they might have had is completely shattered.
-
AGC:
Suffice to say I continue to disagree. I don't see the volume of 3 and 4putts that you guys do, and I think you sell short the number of made first putts by the better putter on flat greens.
Now ask yourself, who would you really rather have on your side in this?
Tom Huckaby,
The best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour Pros were only
50-50 from six (6) feet during many U.S. Opens.
Another statistic was that they were only 10 % from 20 feet.
So, I think we can discount your statements with respect to how efficient great, let alone good putters are.
AGCrockett,
Huckaby will never concede that his argument is flawed and his conclusions erroneous, but, you and I know better.
-
Nice try gents, but none of you have swayed me one bit. I understand Jeff's simple logic, and I feel for you that you can't. I've also seen it play out, which helps. Enjoy the theories... I'll deal with what my own eyes tell me.
TH
-
AGCrockett,
That's tantamount to a concession, and, we accept
-
Even after many years of this thread, I still can't believe anyone can say that a good putter's advantage decreases on contoured greens. That may be the single most absurd position I've seen in almost 7 years following this site since it started.
Depending upon how much I play, I fluctuate on either side of scratch, and the putter has always been my strong suit. I may be the worst ball striker to ever hit a green in regulation. But when I go play places with highly contoured greens, I end up giving my buddies 2 or 3 shots A SIDE more than their handicap entitles them to. Otherwise, it's not competitive.
Take Arcadia Bluffs, for example. Go talk to the guys in the golf shop, and they'll tell you about the impact the greens have on pace of play. Many groups will have a couple players with 40+ putts! Why is it that when I go there, there is no difference in the typical number of putts I will have? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS IF YOU THINK MY ADVANTAGE ERODES AT A PLACE LIKE THAT!!!! If my advantage decreased, how can I continue to give my friends more shots than their handicaps allow, and still continue to beat them? I will frequently post a number that is one of my lowest differentials, while they struggle to shoot within 10 shots of their handicap. C'mon, I doubt I'm that exceptional. As a matter of fact, I know I suck. I'm the shortest, most crooked driver of the golf ball on the planet. But when the greens get interesting, I am going to beat my buddies (all mid- to low-single digits) like rented mules.
C'mon, people!!! Huckaby, you are insane. You claim to have seen it with your own eyes. I see it play out regularly in my wallet ;D
-
Huck,
Has it occurred to you in your tournament group example that those players (low putts and high putts) are not starting each green in the same location? Inevitably, the player with the least putts in a group like that (what 20 players? Maybe more) hits a fairly low number of greens and is able to chip and pitch to decent spots to putt from. What you are witnessing in that group is totally irrelevant to this conversation because it takes the players entire game into consideration as opposed to just putting.
Just a thought.
-
Doug:
It's far from absurd, and it's not just me who sees the simple logic. Each of Jeff Brauer, Mike Nuzzo, Rich Goodale and yes, Pete Dye see how this plays out. I'd try to explain it again, for the 100th time, but you won't believe it, so let's just agree to disagree. Just easy on the exclamations, OK. I really do believe it plays out this way. It is far from absurd.
Patrick:
If that's a concession, thank God you don't run our military. ;)
Sully:
Yes, I understand that. I still think it plays out like I've said. The example from my tournament group is far from perfect, but I just gave it so that George - who demanded facts - had something he could at least try to understand.
All of you seem incapable of grasping how golf can be different from all other sports - how a task that's more difficult can possibly favor the lesser player. Why is that so hard? Golf is different from other sports in SO many ways, why should this surprise you? And why does it work out this way?
It comes down - once again - to how golf is measured. It's not how close you get it to the hole, it's how many strokes are recorded.
Try this:
Two players putting from 25 feet. One shaves the hole, leaves it on the lip, taps in. One misses by 4 feet, never coming close to the hole - then makes the second putt.
Who is the better player?
By the way you guys are thinking about this, the first player is necessarily better. And if we are basing it on style points, he is.
But golf isn't measured by style points. It's measured by strokes. Unbelievably, against all logic, the two players are EQUAL.
And that's the basis for why this all plays out as Jeff, Rich, Mike and I have tried to explain.
I understand you don't buy it. I can live with that. It comes down to you underselling (as I see it) the skill of the better player on flat putts, and overselling (as I see it) the horrific effects of contour on the bad putter. We can and do disagree about that.
But our position is FAR from absurd. It actually makes a lot of sense.
And it comes down to the oddity of a sport where a 2 inch putt also counts the exact same as a 325 yard drive. That's pretty damn illogical also. But that's golf.
TH
-
Tom,
If this discussion is bothering you and you'd prefer the "agree to disagree" route, fine. But I'd like to explore this a bit further if that's OK.
By the way, I am not viewing it in style points I am viewing as you are, in a total putts perspective. that's the only way.
I may well be underselling the better putter, but the Tour stats are not usually as strong as what you suggest. And yo are the one that just conceded every four footer to this mediocre putter. That's the stretch I can't swallow. In every example you guys give the lesser putter seems to overachieve on "second" putts. That's the divide here.
Because the lesser putter leaves their first putts further from the hole and are still lesser putters when it comes time to hole out that putt, the percentages of them missing that one are higher. That is where the exponential nature of the better putters advantage on tough greens comes into play. It's the second and third putts that will be missed.
-
Sully - heck I'm happy to keep exploring this - it's only been going on for nearly two years now. ;D It's people calling our position "absurd" and the like that has me semi-rankled. It's far from absurd.
So in answer to your questions - obviously my example is just one scenario. Of course it won't take place EVERY time. And it's also just a means to get you guys thinking... which seems to succeed, with you anyway. ;)
Re the tour stats that Patrick quoted - remember those aren't all flat putts. But more importantly, ask yourself this: on highly contoured greens, what are even the good putters going to have a lot of for 2nd putts? Six footers.
So they are going to miss their share of 2nd putts also... by your own reckoning no?
In any case I don't see the lesser putter overachieving. Heck he's gonna three-wack from time to time on flat putts also. I just don't see him having the disasters - four and five putts - on contoured greens that would seem to be required for you guys to be correct.
TH
-
TH,
Let's use 18 as a base line for total putts, and use a putts per hole number as the score, and 20 feet as the distance on both types of greens.
FLAT GREEN:
I cannot see the Tour player doing better than 6 one putts and 12 two putts. That means 1.67.
I see the mediocre putter making as many as they three putt. Is that unrealistic? Score 2.00
DIFFERENTIAL OF .33
CONTOURED GREEN:
Tour players do not three putt from 20 feet very often, and they do make some. Go with 4 makes and 1 three putt for a score of 1.85.
Mediocre putter will three putt this often and make very, very few. Give them 1 make and 9 three putts. for a score of 2.40
DIFFERENTIAL OF .55
Which of those scenarios do you disagree with?
-
Whoa. I very much disagree with the second scenario... so at least you've defined our disagreement!
At least as I'm looking at this, I don't see the good putter doing nearly as well, nor the bad putter nearly as bad, on the contoured greens.
So there we have it. The basis for disagreement. Not much further we can go....
TH
-
That's Absurd. ;D ;D
-
That's Absurd. ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D
Of course it is!
-
That's Absurd. ;D ;D
I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Huck:
I think you are overestimating how often the good putter is going to three putt. By the sound of your position, I should barely be able to get it within 6 feet, and should have 36+ putts per round at places like Oakmont or Crystal Downs.
-
Doug:
I've never been to either Crystal Downs or Oakmont.
But I'd defy you to have less than 36 putts at Pasatiempo if you let me set the pins and get the speeds up.
In any case, I don't think the good putter is going to go three-jacking every green... he just may have one or two... where he NEVER will on flat greens. Hell I've explained it countless times before, as I see it.
So we shall disagree.
And neither position is absurd, as tempting as it might be to slam that back at you. ;)
-
Doug:
I've never been to either Crystal Downs or Oakmont.
But I'd defy you to have less than 36 putts at Pasatiempo if you let me set the pins and get the speeds up.
In any case, I don't think the good putter is going to go three-jacking every green... he just may have one or two... where he NEVER will on flat greens. Hell I've explained it countless times before, as I see it.
So we shall disagree.
And neither position is absurd, as tempting as it might be to slam that back at you. ;)
Huck:
I'll take that wager!! The only problem now is making it happen.
Sorry for not including a smiley after any "absurd" comment :) Now if you want something REALLY absurd, you should see my lifelong struggle with the driver.
Is it OK if I still think you are insane?
Sobe
-
Serenity now... insanity later.
;D ;D
You really do need to see how awful the pins could get at Pasa. But of course it would be fun regardless....
TH
-
Doug:
But I'd defy you to have less than 36 putts at Pasatiempo if you let me set the pins and get the speeds up.
Tom, just the thought of 8,9,11,12,13,14 and 18 at tourney speeds makes me shutter. :o
-
David - you and me both, brother. Now think of it placing the pins in the most awful possible places....
Of course it's silly, but this is the extreme which shows how things would be equalized. ALL putters would just keep on missing and missing and missing....
TH
-
Tom, If the ball cannot possibly stop near the hole, and will always return to the same low spot it is not putting. If that is the scenario you are envisioning making your thesis hold then answer me this; after both players have putted their first ball and it ends up in the "low spot", who will hole that particular putt first? Considering your scenario in which the ball returns to the same spot say 20 feet below a hole, doesn't the better putter now have an incredible advantage because he holes infinitely more straight 20 footers than the lesser putter.[/i]
Seriously, try to envision this. Both players have now putted from 20 feet. The good player barely misses the hole and the ball runs down the slope to a low point 20 feet below the hole. The lesser putter might miss the hole by a foot, but the ball still goes to this same low spot. This is now a pretty straight putt that cannot stop near the hole. The 20 footer is to be repeated until the ball is holed. The Tour caliber putter will make after just a few tries, while the mediocre putter could be there for a long damn time.
Any chance? Or are you so entrenched in agreeing to disagree that this line of reasoning can't crack through?
-
Sully, I get that. Just remember we're now talking about a very silly extreme that is darn unlikely to ever occur, one I mentioned only to try to get you guys thinking about what might happen on severely contoured greens.
So I get that the 20 footer eventually gets made, and quicker, by the better putter. But change it to a pin where the common low is only 6 feet away... or 3 feet... then see how it works?
The point is more how things get equalized and skill is rather removed from the equation.
Because what's far more likely to occur is the pro misses barely, the am misses by a few feet, then both make, and 2=2.
TH
-
That's where it shocks me that you concede the second putt to the lesser so easily. When you play at Pasatiempo and the pins are tame (which I am sure is still very difficult) how often do the mediocre putters you play with putt their 20 footers up to easy tap in range? I just can't see it happening all that often. the conspiracy of issues fighting them doing that seem to make it unlikely.
-
Sully:
That example convinced me even more, and I was already 110% on your side of the fence!!!
I wonder if Huck considers himself as someone that benefits from more highly contoured greens according to his position on this matter. ;)
Sobe
-
Sully:
What I see happening - and I say this in all sincerity and honesty - is a lot of times where both putters do two putt. Combine that with the infrequency of one-putts by the good putter just due to the contour, and it plays out as I say. I understand you disagree. But having seen it play out at Pasa, well... your words are powerful and your logic sound, but it doesn't trump experience.
Doug: I am a profoundly average putter - great at times, awful at times, streaky at best. I have no personal stake in this. That being said, I am among the better players in my tournament group, and kinda sadly I generally do play with players far worse than me.... such that I am definitely a better putter darn near always than my playing partners. And again in all candor and honesty, I find my advantage negated at Pasa. Again I understand that your experience differs. But differing on this point, we must remain.
;D
-
Again I understand that your experience differs. But differing on this point, we must remain.
;D
No problem there. The more important thing for me now is to find the type of golf course that turns my diving hook into an advantage! ::)
Now for the big question.... Do you think the Simpson's Movie coming out next year will disappoint us, or will it exceed our expectations?
-
;D ;D ;D
Now THAT is a solid question, one worthy of 14 pages of discussion.
I'm leaning toward disappointment... but that being said, perhaps low expectations will mean higher satisfaction?
;D
TH
ps - Pebble Beach - at least 15 holes all the trouble is on the right. ;)
-
ps - Pebble Beach - at least 15 holes all the trouble is on the right. ;)
We can't forget about The Old Course!
I'm worried that the movie will mark the point where they finally jump the shark. :'(
-
The Old Course - great call!
And that is a very valid worry. It's amazing they haven't vaulted el tiburon yet. ;)
-
David - you and me both, brother. Now think of it placing the pins in the most awful possible places....
Of course it's silly, but this is the extreme which shows how things would be equalized. ALL putters would just keep on missing and missing and missing....
TH
Have you seen the greens at The Masters on TV? How about Oakmont or Shinnecock, under US Open conditions? Sure, the pros 3 putted a few times, but generally not.
What really differentiates good putters from bad putters is lag putting, not holing 30 footers.
-
George:
"A few times" is more than none. And therein lies a very key part of this whole thing.
And I agree with your differentiation assessment. But my conclusions after that obviously differ with yours.
TH
-
I'm glad to have indirectly started a topic that generates an unlucky 13 pages of response.
To clarify my initial thoughts on contoured greens, my comments came from Larry Nelson when we were collaborating on our first design (Brookstone in Atlanta) He felt contoured greens took away the advantage of his competitors who were better putters, but less accurate in iron play. In essence, the comparison was between similarly skilled players (ie tour level) with some being better putters and others scoring through accuracy (ie leaving shorter putts).
Given that tour level guys aren't going to three putt that often, the question remains if contoured greens reduce the amount of one putts of the best putteres, while not increasing three putts of other good players.
I think the answer is yes, because a good player who never seems to make a decent putt doesn't necessarily miss by ten feet, he just misses, probably by a faulty stroke, but possibly because of reads. Either way, a good putter who has more trouble reading the contoured greens (or matching reads to speed, etc.) will make less, narrowing the differential in that part of the game. I agree contoured greens (or any other difficulty factor) affect a handicap player 4 times as much as the Tour pro.
-
Jeff:
Remember this thread would be many more pages if the change to 35 posts per page hadn't been implemented. ;)
As for the substance, of course I am with you, and it plays out even more obviously if the comparison is between tour pros, one being a good putter, one not so good - because the not so good is still going to be pretty damn good... and what's going to happen then is a lot of two putts by both. The good putter barely misses, the lesser putter misses by a few feet, both then make the 2nd. The good putters advantage is thus negated.
I'd say this same scenario plays out a lot more often than just with tour pros also... any time you have two players where the putting difference is not extreme, the advantage for the better one will be negated on contoured greens - just as you and Larry Nelson have described.
It does get a little more difficult to visualize on the extremes, but I am sticking with my take even there. But this example does clearly show what the main point is here.
TH
-
Tom,
And I am sticking with my contention that many three putts and four putts of average golfers will be conceded out of mercy, negating the downside for average players and poor putters.
I admit to not having read all 13 pages. Has anyone even broached how a contoured green green helps the "feel" guy, ie, better chipper or factored that into the "how many putts" calculations?
-
Hold on a second there Tom. Go back and re-read what Jeff said there. According to his statement, Larry Nelson felt contoured greens took away the advantage of a great putter that is not as accurate with approach shots as he was. In other words Nelson observed that he was consistently closer to the hole than some of his opponents on approach shots but their odds of making their first putt went down. His comments take the entire game into account and do not address the issue of this thread of putting, and putting from the same position on every green.
Now, I did read Jeff's opinion that among Tour players he feels this phenomenon may play out but read his last sentence. It is 180 degrees from your position. He sees what I see.
Now back to Tour players, or any fairly equal level player that have some discrepency in their putting game, I'd have to see it. You and I see this completely differently and that's great, but another one of your guys just jumped off your wagon and we are happy to take him. ;)
-
Sully - I don't read it that way - Jeff is very much with me.
He's just brought up a different comparison, that's all.
A powerful point is indeed that the better player will get the ball closer and thus generally have easier putts. I thought I conceded that long ago... if not, well, I do understand this. I just don't believe that negates anything I've been saying... his putts will be easier, but not THAT much easier such that all else is negated.
And I don't think that's what Jeff, or Larry Nelson, was saying - Nelson was rather pointing to one specific thing. I keep trying to refer to the general, overall.
And no, Jeff''s last sentence is not 180 degrees from what I've been saying, far from it. I can take that and STILL make my contentions. But do you really want to go through all of that again?
TH
-
David - you and me both, brother. Now think of it placing the pins in the most awful possible places....
Of course it's silly, but this is the extreme which shows how things would be equalized. ALL putters would just keep on missing and missing and missing....
TH
Have you seen the greens at The Masters on TV? How about Oakmont or Shinnecock, under US Open conditions? Sure, the pros 3 putted a few times, but generally not.
What really differentiates good putters from bad putters is lag putting, not holing 30 footers.
The guys on TV are playing well though. TV can be very misleading when it comes to ability. Not too many people are kicking it around when they are playing well. My experience? Good putters are the ones that make the ones inside 10 feet. Lagging is not really part of the equation, although, Tiger has been the best lag-putter in the game since he was 15, so maybe there is something to it, because he certainly is the best from inside 10 feet and I don't care if there are any stats to the contrary on him.
-
...my comments came from Larry Nelson when we were collaborating on our first design (Brookstone in Atlanta) He felt contoured greens took away the advantage of his competitors who were better putters, but less accurate in iron play. In essence, the comparison was between similarly skilled players (ie tour level) with some being better putters and others scoring through accuracy (ie leaving shorter putts).
Those sentences then have nothing to do with our conversation because according to this quote, Nelson is talking about some player making a score by putting prowess and some do so through ball striking prowess. In no way is Nelson weighing in on a differential between himself and the better putter starting at the same point.
I agree contoured greens (or any other difficulty factor) affect a handicap player 4 times as much as the Tour pro.
If that isn't exactly what I have been saying all along than I don't know what is. I think highly contoured greens affect mediocre putters much more in a scoring sense than they do Tour caliber putters.
-
If we confine the discussion to tour pros, shot link data might help, with average distance from flag, and other stats to add to the 1.767 putts per green average. It it correct that the best players that week in putting are the ones we see on TV, and is skews our judgment of how good everyone is playing.
If stats were broken down even further, I think Tiger (and Jack, and top players before him) are better clutch putters than the others. I don't know if shot link breaks down putts by round position (i.e. last four holes) or by up one, down one, tied, kind of like game winning and game tying goals in hockey.
I think you would see the best players have higher clutch putt records even if their putting averages were similar. I wonder if Tiger putts as well when he is doomed to a 20th place finish as he does when in contention. Somehow, I doubt it, bringing his average back to the field. But his make rate probably goes way up in the clutch, while most golfers careers get derailed by failing in the clutch when it matters most.
However, to get it back on topic, its really multi faceted. Overall, I think the contoured greens would narrow the field, perhaps not identifying the best player that week.
Would Tiger rather have a contoured green or a flat green on the late holes of a tourney where he had to make the putt to take/keep the lead, assuming his nearest competitor was in his group and had a similar putt?
Would it depend on whether the competitor was a poor clutch putter (say Phil) or a good one (like Furyk)?
My guess is that if he was head to head with a poorer putter, he would prefer a flatter putt. With a great putter, maybe more contour, assuming he could handle it better?
-
Sully:
Re the first part, OK.
Re the second, sure Jeff might agree with you on the degree of negative effect on the am v. the tour pro. I just still don't think he would agree with your overall conclusions on the issue as a whole... and of course you know I don't.
See here's the thing: even if I accept that contour effects the am 3-4 times as much as the pro, I stick with my conclusions. Nothing changes. Jeff does too... he says it's because the ams eventually get given putts, I say it's because the ams even with this lack of skill eventually do get close enough to make it. Nothing has changed.
TH
-
Jeff - that's all interesting re Tour Pros... but just like so much else regarding golf courses, why should they really matter? I believe it's going to play out as you say.... I just don't care all that much. Those guys continue to be a tiny, minuscule minority of all golfers.
Far more interesting to me is how it plays out for two average joes, one a 5 handicap, one a 15.
Assuming the 5 is a better putter (fair assumption), I continue to very firmly believe his advantage is negated on contoured greens.
All other readers please also keep in mind there are a HELL of a lot more golfers in the 5-15 range then there are scratches and tour pros and 36 handicap hacks. Methinks we've waisted a lot of time trying to each prove our point based on how it works out on the extremes... Isn't it far more worthwhile to assess how it works out for the vast majority of golfers?
Sully - cogitate on this for awhile. I put a lot of stock in your take here... and George's, and AGC's, hell in all of you who think I'm insane. ;)
For the 5 v. 15 I mention, man it seems very very simple logic that the 5 loses his advantage. But if you disagree, I shall promise to listen.
;D
TH
-
If we confine the discussion to tour pros, shot link data might help, with average distance from flag, and other stats to add to the 1.767 putts per green average. It it correct that the best players that week in putting are the ones we see on TV, and is skews our judgment of how good everyone is playing.
If stats were broken down even further, I think Tiger (and Jack, and top players before him) are better clutch putters than the others. I don't know if shot link breaks down putts by round position (i.e. last four holes) or by up one, down one, tied, kind of like game winning and game tying goals in hockey.
I think you would see the best players have higher clutch putt records even if their putting averages were similar. I wonder if Tiger putts as well when he is doomed to a 20th place finish as he does when in contention. Somehow, I doubt it, bringing his average back to the field. But his make rate probably goes way up in the clutch, while most golfers careers get derailed by failing in the clutch when it matters most.
However, to get it back on topic, its really multi faceted. Overall, I think the contoured greens would narrow the field, perhaps not identifying the best player that week.
Would Tiger rather have a contoured green or a flat green on the late holes of a tourney where he had to make the putt to take/keep the lead, assuming his nearest competitor was in his group and had a similar putt?
Would it depend on whether the competitor was a poor clutch putter (say Phil) or a good one (like Furyk)?
My guess is that if he was head to head with a poorer putter, he would prefer a flatter putt. With a great putter, maybe more contour, assuming he could handle it better?
Jeff,
If I'm not mistaken, Tiger leads the Tour in least distance from the pin with approach shots (or however that stat is phrased...) so he will tend to have a flatter putt than his rivals anyway! Therefore, I would guess that he would LOVE courses with heavy contours (read ANGC, for instance) because he is not only the best iron player, but the best lag putter and best clutch putter as well.
So whom would the contoured greens favor more? The best player in the world, or the rest of us? Case closed for me, but it was 2 years ago! ;)
-
As the great Lee Corso would say, and Sully did say earlier...
Not so fast, my friend.
AGC, you yourself waivered mid-way through this thread, saw the light, and only now are returning to this strident position. If the case is closed, well... that's a new development.
I'm always watching.....
;)
In any case, since neither of us ever play Tiger, see my last post prior to this one. Let's compare a 5 and a 15. I will be interested in your thoughts on that.
TH
-
As the great Lee Corso would say, and Sully did say earlier...
Not so fast, my friend.
AGC, you yourself waivered mid-way through this thread, saw the light, and only now are returning to this strident position. If the case is closed, well... that's a new development.
I'm always watching.....
;)
In any case, since neither of us ever play Tiger, see my last post prior to this one. Let's compare a 5 and a 15. I will be interested in your thoughts on that.
TH
Tom,
The 5 and 15 are just the same, in relative terms, to Tiger and his fellow competitors.
I don't remember wavering ever in all of this over the last two years, but then I'm older and forgetting gets easier and more likely every day, unfortunately. :(
I'll go back and see where I wavered later, but the statute of limitations on flip-flopping may be up by now anyway. ;)
-
AGC:
OK. You did see the light at some point. But what the heck, it matters not now. ;D
As for how this relates, well... you really think Tiger is 10 shots better than his fellow competitors per round?
Interesting, he must really be playing like crap in all these tourneys he wins by 2-3 strokes. ;)
I do think it's quite different. But if you want to look at it the same in terms of putting skill, that's fine. My take remains the same, as stated many times. And I think it quite obviously plays out in this comparison. On most of the first putts, Tiger/5 barely misses (even though he's closer, the contour makes it too tough even for him - as compared to flat putts anyway), lesser pro/15 misses by a little worse, each make the 2nd. Lesser pro/15 doesn't three putt nearly as much as required to overcome this. Tiger/5's advantage is negated, as compared to flat greens.
TH
-
But Tom, they won't HAVE the same putt! That's a key point, isn't it? The 5-15 thing IS the same as Tiger and his F.C.'s in that the 5 will hit the proper part of the green and the 15 won't, just like Tiger hits it closer and takes some or all of the contour out.
Add to THAT advantage of easier putts to begin with the putting skill differential on the putts that remain, and the gap gets bigger on contoured greens.
Wow, I think I just blacked out from deja vu overdose!
Let's stop for the weekend. I'll meet you back here in November of 2008, o.k.? ;)
-
AGC:
In general they may not have the same putt, but remember that contour also takes many better shots away from the hole, to places of common collection - common lows as I've called them. So while I understand this, I don't think it outweighs all the other things negating his advantage. He's still going to have harder putts than he would on flat greens, putts he will miss... and 2 continues to equal 2.
I'll still be here, trying to get you fellows to understand. 2008 it is.
;D
-
Okay,
Now I am not so proud to have had any part in starting a 13 page thread!
Any chance we can admit that we don't, can't, and won't ever know how any green affects various golfers to end t his whole thing?
When you boil it all down, greens can only affect individual putts, not golfers in general.
-
Okay,
Now I am not so proud to have had any part in starting a 13 page thread!
Any chance we can admit that we don't, can't, and won't ever know how any green affects various golfers to end t his whole thing?
When you boil it all down, greens can only affect individual putts, not golfers in general.
Jeff - I offered to do just that several pages ago - agree to disagree, as it were. For my trouble I was called insane, my thoughts absurd, etc. Some people just have no sense of accomodation.
In any case, of course how you boil it all down is true. But if we leave all issues at that level of boiling down, what would we ever talk about?
;)
-
I agree contoured greens (or any other difficulty factor) affect a handicap player 4 times as much as the Tour pro.
If that isn't exactly what I have been saying all along than I don't know what is. I think highly contoured greens affect mediocre putters much more in a scoring sense than they do Tour caliber putters.
Sully:
I agree, that is what I've been asserting all along as well. It seems that our corner is filling up with people in agreement ;D
Huck:
Coincidentally, I just spoke to a buddy of mine (PGA Professional, good player, former captain at Oklahoma State) and he played Pasatiempo yesterday for the first time. First thing I asked him was how difficult it was to putt those greens. He said they were probably rolling around 10, and he didn't find them overly difficult. Called them a good challenge for a public golf course. He said that if they were closer to 12, they would be quite difficult. So for your challenge of having less than 36 putts, does it require the greens and hole locations to be prepared in a less than typical fashion, bordering on unfair? If the conditions were such that you couldn't conduct a competition, it seems like you'd have to stretch to get to the result you are expecting.
Sobe
-
Doug:
My challenge at Pasa was based on me setting the pins - so OF COURSE it was a stretch - that was the whole point! But ask your friend what the putting challenge would be if the pins were set in the toughest possible place on every green, and they were running 11. If he played yesterday, he sure as hell didn't see any of that. His estimation of 10 is also likely rather high... hard to believe with the rain we've been having this week they were that fast.
In any case, my challenge was not meant to do anything other than to try and get you to think about how awful contour COULD get.
As for the rest, I had posted some vitriole that I am now removing, and hopefully you never saw. Jeff has asked for accomodation, which I remain happy to do.
;D
-
Tom,
Boil down, boil over.....its amazing how close those two things are, and yet how far!
Have a good weekend!
-
Tom,
Boil down, boil over.....its amazing how close those two things are, and yet how far!
Have a good weekend!
Roger that Jeff - as you see, my boil was momentary. And same to you my friend. The quality of my weekend will hinge on two things:
a) results of the glorious CV-Revolution U12Girls district cup soccer; and
b) USC v. Cal.
It's sick to let one's happiness ride on sporting events. The first I can be excused for - it will determine my daughter's mood and near-future happiness. The latter, well... I'm just sick.
;)
-
Huck:
We both know that it wouldn't be any fun here if everyone agreed. Please keep in mind that anything that ever comes out of my keyboard or mouth is ALWAYS dripping with sarcasm. Unfortunately, my 9 year old daughter has inherited my personality.
Regarding your last reply, here is how I interpreted it. I edited out the parts you wrote that aren't pertinent to the ongoing discussion ;D ;D ;D
Doug:
Hell I never disagreed about that anyway. The main overall point, you get it.
on my side on the general point, sorry.
-
Sobe - love it! And understood re the sarcasm... from my side, I might boil at times but it's alway short-lived, and my smile rarely disappears. Even with Mucci.
;D ;D
-
It's sick to let one's happiness ride on sporting events. The first I can be excused for - it will determine my daughter's mood and near-future happiness. The latter, well... I'm just sick.
;)
With my Dallas Stars cooling off a little, I noticed I am in a funk lately, so I understand. Good luck to your daughter though!
-
Jeff - thankfully I have my beloved Sharks to brighten my mood. But thanks!
;)
-
I just spent two days watching a wide range of golfers (+3 to 18) play Seminole under F&F conditons.
The greens are contoured and pitched, and they were firm and fast.
I can state, without equivication, that poorer putters performed far worse than the better players on and around the greens.
I watched golfers degreen putts, on UPHILL putts.
I watched golfers degreen putts, on downhill putts.
I say three putts from 3 feet and four putts from 10 feet.
The poorer putter's inability to cope with firm, fast, contoured/sloped greens is exponential, not arithmatic.
-
Patrick,
Is it merely due to the contour or because the greens are also faster than what those players may be accustomed to? There's a difference between a poor putter who just doesn't have much experience on greens like those and thus has no hope of handling them when presented the opportunity, and a poor putter who has had plenty of experience on such greens and has learned to deal with them using the golf equivalent of a prevent defense (prevent de-greening and three putts from 3 feet by putting scared)
-
I just spent two days watching a wide range of golfers (+3 to 18) play Seminole under F&F conditons.
The greens are contoured and pitched, and they were firm and fast.
I can state, without equivication, that poorer putters performed far worse than the better players on and around the greens.
I watched golfers degreen putts, on UPHILL putts.
I watched golfers degreen putts, on downhill putts.
I say three putts from 3 feet and four putts from 10 feet.
The poorer putter's inability to cope with firm, fast, contoured/sloped greens is exponential, not arithmatic.
Patrick:
Interesting. I have witnesse far different results, at greens that from what I can hear are at least as difficult, if not worse(Pasatiempo).
We shall have to plainly disagree on this.
I also never witnessed any of this at Sand Hills with you, and we did have a wide range of abilities there... and Sand Hills' greens are certainly neither flat nor easy....
TH
-
Doug Siebert,
A poor putter is ..... a poor putter.
Tom Huckaby,
Other than the 2nd green at Sand Hills, none of those greens are highly contoured.
-
Doug Siebert,
A poor putter is ..... a poor putter.
Tom Huckaby,
Other than the 2nd green at Sand Hills, none of those greens are highly contoured.
Patrick: I might call a few others that. But ok, let's work with #2. I still think my advantage over my high-capper friends is negated there... I'm sure you disagree. I just have seen a lot of this in action.
TH
-
Patrick: I might call a few others that. But ok, let's work with #2.
I still think my advantage over my high-capper friends is negated there... I'm sure you disagree.
I just have seen a lot of this in action.
Seeing as how you reference how old I am, I think now would be a good time to cite that my extensive experience in observing golfers over a long period of time, refutes and outweighs your rather limited experience in this area. ;D
The poorer putter will be challenged well beyond their abilities when confronted with highly contoured greens, whereas the good putter will adjust and do welll.
-
After 15 pages, and my own observations, I think the bottom line is this;
Highly contoured greens, particularly when quick, will do more to separate a good putter (player) from a bad putter (player), simply because they require more planning, more touch, more finesse, and more confidence.
The only caveat to this is when the better putter is a case of severe yips waiting to happen, because those types of greens will identify a closet Yipster faster than Britney Spears can identify her child.
-
Patrick:
I will conceded that your experience HUGELY trumps my own in terms of quantity. But given your very odd takes on other issues lately, I am having difficulty accepting your views on golf completely - it's just hard for me to accept that one part of your mind remains sound while the other is so obviously flawed. ;)
Mike:
I agree with every word you said -and I still think it plays out as I have said many times in this Topic. The good player will get closer to the hole, but 2 will still equal 2, or 3 will still equal 3. And that is what this topic is all about - not simply who performs better on the more difficult contoured greens.
TH
-
The only caveat to this is when the better putter is a case of severe yips waiting to happen, because those types of greens will identify a closet Yipster faster than Britney Spears can identify her child.
Mike,
It's not about a better putter, it's about a good putter versus a poor putter.
Your caveat reclassifies the better putter into the category of a poor putter, and thus, your caveat is erroneous and rejected.
You're starting to sound like Huckaby, which is dangerous.
Tom Huckaby,
It's too bad that the football thread was deleted as I was going to refute every one of your points this morning.
What you, Michael Moore and others don't understand about the spread is the evaluative component on position and player. That's not formula or computer driven.
But, let's not divert this thread. I'll continue to home school you on another thread.
-
Patrick:
Agreed to let the football issues lie... other that to say, yes, I know, about the evaluative component. I get that. I also just believe that the potential for corruption trumps any and all other considerations. The rest was us just trying to out-shit each other. ;D
Now as for this putting issue, sure you can take it to the extremes, and perhaps a pro does lose no advantage to a 45 handicapper. I can live with that.
But taking it in the real world... say a 5 against a 15... I firmly believe the 5 does lose his advantage the more contour there is. And nothing you've said has caused me to move from this, just as I assume nothing I say will get you to move from your position.
So perhaps best to let this one lie also.
You just don't go hiding after Saturday, you hear?
;D
-
Mike,
It's not about a better putter, it's about a good putter versus a poor putter.
Your caveat reclassifies the better putter into the category of a poor putter, and thus, your caveat is erroneous and rejected.
You're starting to sound like Huckaby, which is dangerous.
Ah, but Patrick...you're missing something here.
Tom Watson was a great putter. Johnny Miller was a great putter.
However, at some point in their continuum, some chinks started to appear in the armor, to the point where they both devolved to spasming over four footers. My point is that a great or good putter somewhere on this unfortunate downward trend (which is almost imperceptible at first) will be identified more quickly by a highly contoured, slick green than any other.
-
You can't view the issue in the context of handicaps.
I know 10 handicaps who are better putters than 5 handicaps.
The issue is good putters versus poor putters.
And, the poor putter's game will deteriorate further when confronted with additional challenges on the green, whereas the good putter will perform well.
The gap gets wider as the greens present more challenge.
Or, do you think a poor putter gets better under adverse conditions ?
-
Patrick:
Don't get too caught up in the numbers. OK, call it good putter vs. OK putter.
In that context, I do think the good putter loses a bit of his advantage on highly contoured greens. It's not that the OK putter gets better, it's that they both get worse... enough that one putts on the flat greens become two putts on the contoured, for the good putter... hell I've explained my take at least 100 times already. Choose to disagree, fine.
Now make it GREAT putter v. AWFUL putter, and I will concede it might work out as you say.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby,
To be precise, the thread was in the context of the [size=4x]BAD PUTTER[/size]
Not the OK putter
Highly contoured greens will expand the differentiation between good and bad putters.
I recently saw bad putters (it starts with being a bad reader) hit putt after putt on the low side of a ridge, and watched as the putt ended up 15-20 feet from the hole, from where they then two or three putted.
Adverse conditions expand the gap between the good player and the bad player, they don't favor the bad player or putter.
-
Patrick:
You can't seriously mean to go back to page one of a 14 page thread.
That has been asked and answered, we've moved on to about 55 different issues besides the basic question on page one.
If you truly want to re-discuss something covered in such ungodly detail yet again, I'd be happy to do so.
Wearily, and praying for some good nature from you, I shall just say I disagree, in that I don't feel the bad putter suffers as much as you say, especially as against the good putters, who also do suffer to some extent.
Just to hopefully put this in real world context and put it to rest, here's how I explained it off-line to a friend earlier today, who seemed to get it immediately and agree:
huckaby72 (11/21/2006 8:28:24 AM): putter A takes 28 putts on a good day at SJ Muni, putter B takes 34
huckaby72 (11/21/2006 8:28:39 AM): put them both at Pasa, and A takes 34, B takes 39
huckaby72 (11/21/2006 8:28:47 AM): 6 is greater than 5
huckaby72 (11/21/2006 8:28:53 AM): thus the harder greens narrowed the gap
Again, I trust you disagree. But that's how I see it playing out, and have seen it play out in my tournament group. Assume we have no great putters, so player A is good, but player B is bad. For reference, SJ Muni has very flat, easy greens. Pasa I trust you at least can imagine due to the voluminous discussion of it in here.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby,
The exercise shown above is merely hypothetical B.S. with a predisposed outcome.
Again, to state a basic, irrefutable tenet.
A bad putter gets worse as the greens present more challenge.
The gap between a good and a bad putter widens, it doesn't narrow.
Please tell me that you understand this.
-
Patrick:
My exercise was just an example of how I see this playing out, and have witnessed it. It was not meant to be any proof, just an illustration of my take - which I felt necessary since you continually put words in my mouth I don't intend, and give me positions I don't believe in.
I understand your take completely. It is just not irrefutable. I have refuted it many times - based on my opinions and my experience. You can choose to disagree, but your opinion is no more valid than mine, although of course I admit your experience is more broad.
I've explained my postion seemingly countless times on this thread.
Let's just agree to disagree.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby,
Does a bad putter perform worse as the challenge intensifies ?
-
Tom Huckaby,
Does a bad putter perform worse as the challenge intensifies ?
Of course. But so does the good putter. The rest has been explained multiple times.
If you really want to revisit this, it comes down to how golf is measured - by strokes, not by distance from the hole.
But methinks few topics have been beaten to death more than this one.
Possible to just leave this at disagreement?
;D
-
Tom Huckaby,
I believe that the differential between the good and bad putter will expand as the challenge intensifies, and you think it will contract.
Think about that.
Then, take two aspirin.
And post your thoughts in the morning.
On highly contoured greens a bad putter can't get better relative to a good putter, to think so is to not understand what a bad putter is all about.