George:

Just how many people have gone through an entire Masters with no three putts?  Isn't that an EXTREMELY rare occurrence?  And we're talking the best putters in the world here... If anything the results of the Masters proves my point that even the best do 3putt when contour is severe enough. And sure, a bad putter might 4putt.... but not more than the good putter 3putts.  Contour remains an equalizer.

I've also never made the assumption that highly contoured greens are slow.  I just don't think speed changes any of the factors here relevant to the overall assessment.

TH

Damn good putters make slightly fewer long first putts on highly contoured greens.  They do not double their 3-putt quotient, however (maybe more like 1.3X).

Disagree.  Damn good putters damn near NEVER 3putt on flat greens, whereas they sure as hell do on contoured greens.  That's a very key point in my argument here.

So I'd say their 3putt quotient goes up at about a 10x clip.  That is, one 3jack for every 100 on flat, 10 for every hundred on HIGHLY contoured (think #8, 11, 16 Pasa).

Perhaps I've seen too few truly great putters to make this statement based on observation, though.  I just do know that I surely have seen plenty of players who THINK they are great putters 3jack all over Pasa, for example.  
 

I'm actually one of those people who thinks the green and green-end and complicated play on and around the green is a wonderful thing---one of the real essences of golf and architecture actually. Why? Because I see the green and green end as what I've called that democratic area of golf and architecture.

On and around the green is that area the Tortoise can catch back up to the Hare. The green and green-end doesn't take the strength and the athletic ability "through the green" does. And as such I look at the green and green-end as the potential great leveler.

Some good golfers and even very good architects thought putting should be minimized because it allowed the tortoise to potentially catch the hare and some thought that wasn't right or wasn't fair, or something?

Why isn't it fair? Matter of fact it makes golf that much more interesting as it really is the place where imagination and concentration not just strength and athletic ability can allow perhaps even a little old lady to catch up to a good player. The other interesting thing is this actually adds to the frustration of the good player and has a net negative effect on him simply because he can't handle it psychologically.

What could be better?

Concur with all of that, TEP.  That's what makes this all fun to conjecture about, as well.

Could we have a discussion of who's better off, the longer hitter or the shorter, assuming they both hit it equally straight?  Seems pretty bloody obvious (though I wouldn't bet against SOMEONE here trying to say the shorter hitter has the advantage).  

Putting and short-game play is a great equalizer indeed, and that's what makes it fascinating.  It doesn't take strength particularly, so no body type has an advantage.  The tortoise can catch up to the hare for sure on the greens.  And yes, that is one of the things that makes the game great.  Sans that, we wouldn't really need to leave the range.

TH

Concur with that.  Use of extremes in arguments never really works.  I'm sure putting on the moon changes all this due to the absence of gravity, but what does that matter?

Generally that may make sense, but using ANGC allows us all to have a common baseline.  We all have either been there or watched the Masters a zillion times.  When you mention a putt at Pasa, well, some of us have played there, and many others have not so it loses some relevance.
But we can all imagine and think back to great putters at the Masters, and then try and imagine lousy putters trying to cope with those same greens.  It could easily be very ugly and 3, 4 and 5 putts are very believable (granted, ANGC just may be a bit on the extreme side  )

TEP -

Your post #59 is superb.

There have been a lot of brain cells killed today on the main thread topic. I'm not sure I get it.

Good putters have better strokes, more imagination and better vision than less good putters.  That is true without regard to green speeds, contours or putting surfaces. In my experience, the gap between good putters and not so good putters does not vary much with conditions.

At least that seems to be true in the narrow little world I live in.

Fast greens, slow greens, flat greens, sloped greens - it doesn't matter - good putters always beat me up and take my money.

Bob

If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..

If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..

RIGHT ON!
That explains it perfectly.  If it's me against Brad, shit yeah put me on Augusta and I have a chance, just due to the luck factor.  Put me on a flat piece of turf and it's game over.

The premise of this question to me is a little like saying a complicated race track favors a bad driver over a race driver compared to a staight country road. To me that premise just makes no sense at all---it's totally illogical.

Tom Huckaby:

If it's you against Faxon and it's just about making a putt vs two putting I could see your point about a luck factor but if you roll in the likelihood of you 3 putting too on complex greens vs Faxon 3 putting the luck factor of you one putting would be more than completely nixxed. Plus when it comes to the luck factor of Faxon one putting you just might find day in and day out he might be a whole lot luckier than you are!  

Think of this another way:

You seem to be saying that contours make it harder for the good putter to maximize his advantage.

Extend this to golf courses. Do harder courses make it harder for the better player to maximize his advantage? There is a lower bound to what Tiger could shoot at my rather easy home muni, even at his absolute best. There is probably close to no upper bound as to what I would shoot at Shinnecock under this year's conditions.

You have a much better chance at a 10 hole match against Faxon with 10 flat putts than 10 putts at ANGC, Huck. No way you beat him at ANGC. You might get lucky with 10 straight flat putts.

A brief story -

When I was at Sand Hills several weeks ago, Ben Crenshaw was there too with a group of friends from Dallas/Ft. Worth, some of whom I knew. They had a putting contest on the practice green at SH. As many of you may know, that green redefines the concept of "contoured". Wild slopes, ridges, bumps, etc. Crazy stuff.

Crenshaw was incredible. A couple of times he took lines that made me wonder whether he had misunderstood where the next hole was. Boom, lip-out. He putted like a god. His imagination and feel for slopes and speed is beyond anything I had thought possible. He inhabits a different putting universe from mere mortals.

One thing is now clear to me. There is not a putting surface in the world - contoured or flat - where my skills even begin to nudge up closer to Crenshaw's skills. He sees and feels things that are simply not part of my mental equipment. I was deeply humbled.

Good putters are good putters are good putters. The rest of us just do the best we can.

The types of greens we putt on doesn't shrink or widen in any meaningful way the gulf that separates good putters from mediocre putters.

Bob