Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[Tom Huckaby]

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_Mucci_Jr]

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.  

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.

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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.  

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?

 

[Mike_Cirba]

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.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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 ?

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom Huckaby,

Does a bad putter perform worse as the challenge intensifies ?

[Tom Huckaby]

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?

 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.