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.

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

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 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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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

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?

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!

TH

Not to be offensive, but using hypotheticals in this argument is completely useless. Do you think the obnoxious smiley   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?

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

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.

 

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