Huck,


If you had a one stroke lead on Crenshaw at the Masters and wanted to close him out on 18 to prevent a playoff you would most assuredly lose....would you want for both of you to be above the hole or both below the hole 20 feet away.....of course you would choose above the hole as you would simply have to just get the ball started for a two putt.   Now if you were tied coming into 18 wouldn't you also want the most difficult putt possible.....I believe that at Augusta....the finest greens in existence so not out of the realm of discussion....you can muster many a two putt but rarely a hole out.    I don't know why these guys can't get it....bad putters that shoot in the mid seventies can two putt a place to death....good putters that shoot mid seventies make everything they see.....otherwise they wouldn't be good putters or they would be shooting in the sixties...

Sorry, guys, but NOBODY makes everything they see.  Good putters are those that two-putt you to death.  The guys on tour make less that 40% from 10 feet on flat putts, and you and I make even less.  You are going from the instance to the generalization, which just doesn't work.

Now, school is almost out, and I'm heading to the golf course on a beautiful, beautiful fall day here in the south.

The problem with a straight flat putt is that you have one choice to make it....at the hole not too fast.   With a contoured putt the poor putter has three choices to make it....perfect line/perfect speed.....high line/slow speed or....low line/hard speed.....the bad putter has three chances to catch it on the right jerk thus increasing his chances..

So straight putts are skill and twisty putts are luck? That might just be the silliest thing I've ever read on here.

I will generalize my thesis even further.

ANYTHING that makes the game more difficult will make it incrementally more difficult for the lesser golfer.

If you are saying that a highly contoured green makes the game more difficult for the good golfer (measuring stick being more 3 putts), then I believe it will affect the lesser golfer even more.

Even when Oakmont's greens were not super fast (by today's standards) stimpmeter-wise, back when Pete Dye estimated them to be stimping 6 or 8 or whatever, they were still considered a terror to putt. The slopes created the speed and difficulty.

P.S. Brent is right on with his last post.

P.P.S. If JakaB's last post is correct, then every club looking to host a major shouldn't just lessen contours, they should remove them.

A.G.

I can sink the same three foot putt that Crenshaw sinks. But he will sink lots more longer putts. And the gap in our skills will be even more evident on longer, contoured putts.

Similarly, I can write a sentence as good as a sentence by William Faulkner. But try writing anything longer and harder than that - like a novel - and his superior writing skills will soon become apparent.

I think we are in agreement about all of that.

My point is that this thread was premised on the oppposite view - that harder putts somehow narrow the gap between good and bad putters. That strikes me a not just wrong, but - as my teenage son might say - waaay wrong.

(Or, to use the Faulkner analogy, it can not be the case that the more each of us writes, the closer the quality of our writing becomes.)

Again, my view is that this thread has killed a lot of brain cells agonizing about a premise I think was counterfactual from the get-go.  

Bob

Thank God Rich returned.  His numerical example there illustrates perfectly what I've been trying to get at all day.  That is why contoured greens narrow the gap between good and bad putters.  

George, that is one hell of an overgeneralization, one that no one here has said, when you say "straight putts are skill and twisty putts are luck."  That is not at all what any of us are saying.  What we are saying is that luck is entered into the equation on twisty putts, more so than on straight putts.  That seems quite obvious to me - more variables means more things that can go wrong, more difficulty in actually holing the putt.  So yes, the good putter is also more adept at assessing these variables, but not to the extent that it overcomes the fact that he's just plain not going to make the putt... which brings him back down to the level of the bad putter.

So if you want to say the good putter will always get it closer, I'm right with you.  But if you're going to say he takes less total putts, to the extent that Rich's equation doesn't hold true, I have to disagree.

And Brent, I never said 4putts would NEVER happen.  I just do believe they happen infrequently enough as to not matter in the equation... or if they do happen, it's going to be on a putt where the good putter 3putts himself, and also might 4putt if it gets too wacky.

TH

Well spotted, Shivas!

I had a few glasses of wine with dinner at the golf club and my long-suffering bride let me wander into a few of the 4 pubs along the way on the walk home from the clubhouse, and then I posted that post that I had written earlier and recognizing that some of my numbers were not exactly perfect went back and edited it, but thank god Huckaby understands me, and now I'm going to bed, and you are wrong.

The whole comparison of Crenshaw (+2) to Huckaby (-4) is a comparison of a great putter to a very good putter.  Both are in the 90th percentile and above of all golfers.

I thought we were talking about bad putters? If we want an ad hoc test, let's pit Huckaby against my Mom (32hcp) at Pasatiempo.  She thinks she's a great putter, but is actually safely in the very bad zone.  Then tell me who does better at Pasatiempo, and how much advantage they got versus San Mateo Muni.  Actually, even then, my Mom is pretty random - so who knows!

It's a good discussion, but it's all been at the 4 beer level, math-wise.  No need to define what you are talking about, or use any stastical approach, cause we're just talkin' here!

Some on this thread seem to be trying to break this discussion down to what they call 'good putting strokes' vs not good putting stroke. What's a good putting stroke? A few of the golfers I've known have some fairly bizarre putting strokes---one notable example who makes a massive outside in stroke but he's been an excellent putter for years (watch the practice stroke vs the actual stroke of Billy Mayfair sometime!!). They say Bobby Locke had a noticeable hooking stroke. I notice most all the pros today have very similar strokes in that the putter goes straight back and the blade stays very square right on through into the finish. In the end it really doesn't matter what you do with the stroke as long as you understand your own stroke and how to apply it well to any given situation.

There is no question that contoured greens favor the better putter.  NO QUESTION!  Putting is one of my strong points and when we are playing amateur events on greens with stronger contours, I definitely have an advantage on the greens.  If you take a very good putter and give him a 10 footer that breaks 6 inches, he will make far more than average or poor putter.  If you put them both on a 10 foot relatively flat putt, the average to poor putter will close the gap.  This is for two reasons.  1st - a putt that breaks requires a feel that all good putters have and very few average to poor putters have.  2nd - a good putter would rather have a putt with break because it allows them to use the slope to effectively make the hole bigger, because a putt with more break allows a good player to use any number of speeds to feed the ball in the hole.  I also have news for you all.  Not too many great putters putt over spots as an absolute.  Feel is much more important, because if you hit it over a spot at the wrong speed, it will not go in, unless it is a straight putt (assuming you get it to the hole at less than Mach 1).  When I am looking at a putt from 10 feet with about what looks like 6 inches of break, I realize I can hit firm at 4 inches or die it in at 8 inches.  That is a variance of 4 inches and all I am trying to do is get a feel for the speed somewhere in there.  While a sound stroke helps with consistency, feel is more important.  Putting is an art not a science.  

While I have been talking about a 10 foot putt, the advantage a good putter has over an average to poor putter on sloping greens gets even greater when you put them both at 30 feet plus.  From 30 feet plus on a sloping green, the average to poor putter is likely to 3 putt on a sloping green whereas a good putter is still trying to give the ball a chance to go in.  An average to poor putter is more likely to make a 30 plus footer that is flat, whereas a flat 30 footer for a good putter is often times tougher to make because speed is not as important and they lose the advantage of using slope to feel the ball into the hole.

However, while I did not read every post, I did not see anyone point out that you first have to get to the green.  If an average to poor putter is hitting it 10 feet all day and Ben Crenshaw is hitting it 40 feet all day, Ben's putting is not going to overcome poor ball striking.      

Tripp,

You don't understand the premise of the argument...I know some guys that play at your level and you are a good putter and I am a bad putter....Guys who play in the Northeast Am and the Anderson Cup and such should give me approx 10 shots at a course like Torrey Pines South because of the number of putts you think are easy that I'm just lagging...now if we go up to Pasa I'm gonna need only 8 shots because you are going to be missing the same putts I am.....I'm sure I'm not getting enough strokes at either course but I am confident I can win or tie more holes at Pasa than Torrey just because of the greens...(I'm a 4.0 index and know the guys who play in those tournaments are better than scratch..so don't even..)


edit note:  I re-read Tripp's record and gave myself more shots...I think the 10 at Torrey compared to the 8 at Pasa represents the basis of this argument pretty well.....I just don't know if I can back it up..

A putt probably skids for a short distance, then rotates in the direction of the roll and at the pace it happens to be rolling. To spin any more than just "rolling" would next to impossible and a disaster to the ability to putt!

I think I picked up that terminology from seeing putts on videotape. Eventually any putt on a smooth green will settle down into a pure roll. What I call a "tight" roll refers to the putts that do that little skip for just an inch or two after they leave the putter and then get rolling right away. On a practice green I can make putt after putt roll absolutely perfectly with that quick-starting roll.

Some putts if you don't catch them squarely with a smooth stroke will hop in the air or wobble about for much much longer before settling down. They tend to wobble slightly off the original line they were intended to start on and never really have a chance of staying on line.

In the clinics I've attended, the putts being videotaped are of balls with a red line painted around them. I think the term "tight" comes from the fact that even during the initial skidding phase the red line stays straight whereas on poorly struck putts the line momentarily looks like a smear the whole width of the ball. But as you say, eventually any putt will do nothing but roll. It's all about getting it started straight on line those first few inches.