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

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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 ?

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?