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.

 
Of course it is!

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.  

Serenity now... insanity later.

 

You really do need to see how awful the pins could get at Pasa.  But of course it would be fun regardless....

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

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

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

Again I understand that your experience differs.  But differing on this point, we must remain.

 

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?

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.  

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.

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.

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?

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