Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

« **Reply #300 on:** November 14, 2006, 03:15:24 PM »

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.

« **Reply #301 on:** November 14, 2006, 03:47:53 PM »

Quote from: Mike Nuzzo on November 14, 2006, 10:38:47 AM

Quote from the Geoff S. website today.

Quote
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.

« **Reply #302 on:** November 14, 2006, 04:03:53 PM »

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.

« **Reply #303 on:** November 14, 2006, 04:37:38 PM »

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.

« **Reply #304 on:** November 14, 2006, 04:39:27 PM »

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.

« **Reply #305 on:** November 14, 2006, 04:51:48 PM »

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!

« **Reply #306 on:** November 14, 2006, 04:59:54 PM »

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.

« **Reply #307 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:04:24 PM »

Quote from: JSlonis on November 14, 2006, 04:51:48 PM

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!

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.

« **Reply #308 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:06:42 PM »

Quote from: JSlonis on November 14, 2006, 04:51:48 PM

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.

« **Reply #309 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:23:02 PM »

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.

« **Reply #310 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:23:57 PM »

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.

« **Reply #311 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:27:34 PM »

George,

Your continued knowledge and expert analysis on this subject is really something these other guys should strive for.

Stick with us...

« **Reply #312 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:28:09 PM »

Quote from: JSlonis on November 14, 2006, 05:23:02 PM

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.

« **Reply #313 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:29:37 PM »

Quote from: JSlonis on November 14, 2006, 05:27:34 PM

George,

Your continued knowledge and expert analysis on this subject is really something these other guys should strive for.

Stick with us...

You had me at knowledge.

« **Reply #314 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:34:16 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on November 14, 2006, 05:28:09 PM

Quote from: JSlonis on November 14, 2006, 05:23:02 PM
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.

« **Reply #315 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:40:34 PM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on October 08, 2004, 12:28:09 AM

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

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.

« **Reply #316 on:** November 14, 2006, 05:52:13 PM »

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?

« **Reply #317 on:** November 14, 2006, 06:52:10 PM »

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.

« **Reply #318 on:** November 15, 2006, 10:56:34 AM »

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

« **Reply #319 on:** November 15, 2006, 10:59:39 AM »

Quote from: THuckaby2 on March 23, 2005, 12:52:33 PM

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.

Not one IOTA Huckster???

« **Reply #320 on:** November 15, 2006, 11:12:35 AM »

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.

« **Reply #321 on:** November 15, 2006, 11:16:23 AM »

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.

« **Reply #322 on:** November 15, 2006, 11:24:05 AM »

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.

« **Reply #323 on:** November 15, 2006, 11:28:23 AM »

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.

« **Reply #324 on:** November 15, 2006, 11:33:30 AM »

Quote from: JES II on November 15, 2006, 11:28:23 AM

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.

As I say, it's really not directly related to what we are maintaining here. But it doesn't hurt.

News:

Padraig Dooley

JSlonis

Glenn Spencer

George Pazin

Bob Jenkins

JSlonis

JESII

Glenn Spencer

Mike Nuzzo

JSlonis

George Pazin

JSlonis

George Pazin

George Pazin

JSlonis

Patrick_Mucci

George Pazin

A.G._Crockett

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby

JESII

Tom Huckaby