Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[JakaB]

Shivas,


On that three or four times a year people who don't golf much and come up and ask you if you are a good golfer what do you say.....The answer has to be no.....One funny thing about the 17 handicap you mention....most of those guys who respect the game are guys who got started playing late in life and are better putters than guys like you and me who have been playing our whole lives....I know I'm a bad putter, the people who play with me know I am a bad putter, my wife and children know I am a bad putter.....I can't imagine ever shooting over 75 if I was a good putter...and if I never shot over 75 I would have no trouble saying I was a good golfer...of course my press clippings would say that for me...When you described your game if you had D.A. Points short game you described what would be one of the top Mid Ams in the Midwest....throw some even par rounds around at the State Am and USGA qualifiers and see where it gets ya...69, 72, 74, 75 might not win but it gets you a free pass back year after year...

[George Pazin]

And yes, he is damn unlikely to ever four-putt.  But I don't think the average hack will either, as much as many of you do.  I just plain don't think he'll do THAT bad at Augusta, as the painful exercise my (former) friend made me go through shows.   Just a fundamental difference.  

TH

And that perfectly explains to me why you don't understand why you're wrong.

I take great comfort in the fact that Barney & Rich agree with you.

Just wasting a little more time....

[TEPaul]

To say that amateur golfers, generally speaking, even including probably most relatively low handicap amateur golfers, are going to be anywhere near a good tour pro and excellent tour pro putter like a Crenshaw or a Mickelson on highly sloped and contoured greens at really good speed is "Walter Mittyism" at its finest, in my opinion.

That certainly doesn't mean there haven't been some amateurs who are known to have putted really well and putted well in high level tournament golf just as well as a really good tour pro putter.

His name escapes me now, but there was a golfer who used to play in the Crump Cup who had a very successful amateur career (Opens and Walker Cups) who was a reknowned putter like that. Once he was walking into the lockerroom at Merion right behind Ben Hogan who he'd just played a round at the US Open with and when someone asked Hogan how it went he said (unaware this amateur was right behind him);

"I just played with an amateur who might be about the best putter I've ever seen."

[THuckaby2]

George:

That is very cool with me.  Your statement there illustrates perfectly for me why you don't understand how wrong you are.

 

Now if only Dave S. could accept this type of situation, we'd save a lot of bandwith.

 

BTW, I am very interested in your take on Tom Paul's post on slope, etc. and my reply thereto... forget this hypothetical putting stuff - that issue seems to me to be important.  Whaddya think?

TH

[JakaB]

Shivas,

Fill out your little chart with you against Ben....this in no way is admitting you are a bad putter...but just for giggles anyway.  Rich could change the title of the thread to "Do highly contoured greens favor low handicapers over touring pros..."  Its really the same thing just different.

[THuckaby2]

To say that amateur golfers, generally speaking, even including probably most relatively low handicap amateur golfers, are going to be anywhere near a good tour pro and excellent tour pro putter like a Crenshaw or a Mickelson on highly sloped and contoured greens at really good speed is "Walter Mittyism" at its finest, in my opinion.

TEP - no Walter Mitty here.  I don't have the amateur coming close, no matter what greens.  That's not the issue anyway, which is where does he come closer:  contoured or flat.  If you wish to wade through 125+ posts of nonsense, somewhere herein you can find why I think he comes closer on the contour.  If not, well then I respect your judgment even more.  

 

[TEPaul]

"If not, well then I respect your judgment even more."

TomH:

Thank you---I appreciate that because I have no intention of wading back through 125+ posts on this thread. Furthermore, I have something much more important to do now which is to clip my cat's claws!      

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

As promised:

I told you we look at this differently.

That's all you get.   Oh that, and I still think I'm right and you're wrong, reading every single word of your analysis of my stats.  See, what you seem to miss is I have AH doing pretty damn bad at Random Hills... so yep, he's not gonna do that much worse at Augusta, as tough as those greens are.  Bad is bad and there is a limit to it.  I just really don't think he's gonna deviate that much no matter what greens he plays at, because again, bad is bad and eventually he does get the bal into the hole.  Remember also the assumption is normal speeds and normal pins - this may well be our disconnect.  Make it during the Masters, those crazy pins, and the assessment may well be different.  And no, I am not gonna do it again based on that.

We do look at this very differently.  I have seen bad putters do horribly at San Jose Muni, and the same type of horribly at Pasa.  In my experience, they truly do come out pretty much the same.  It's the GOOD putters who do far worse at Pasa, not the bad.

You now owe me four beers and two jiggers, if you have any honor at all.

 

Tom P.:

If I had a cat I'd favor that exercise over this as well.  Your place in my pantheon of heroes is cemented.

 

[johnk]

Wow, this fusillade of posts is even more entertaining than the average Congu vs GHIN Goodale/Huckaby slugfest!

I'm not going to be at Cuscowilla, however, I think a duel is in order, and it'd be nice if someone could film it and put it up.

BTW, one thing it does prove is that there is such a thing as addiction to the internet.

[THuckaby2]

John Kry:

Glad you are enjoying it.  Of course I am as absolutely correct in the handicapping discussions as I am here.  I don't tend to care enough to post this much unless I am convinced I am correct, and otherwise intelligent friends somehow have gone astray.

No duel is necessary - this remains all in good fun and humor.  However, I gather Cuscowilla does have some good contour in the greens.  Rest assured note will be taken of how putters of various levels of skill fare there.

 

[TEPaul]

"No duel is necessary - this remains all in good fun and humor."

TomH:

What're you talking about? A duel between you and Shivas certainly is necessary! Amongst men of honour duels have taken place for a whole lot less than just good fun and humor, so what will it be---guns or sabers tomorrow morning at sunrise? Since this is a golf and architecture website perhaps this one time we could make an exception and permit 1 irons iinstead but if so both of you must act like gentlemen and promise to only go for the nuts. If either of you really is injured and in life threatening pain, though, the other must do the honorable thing and put the downed man out of his misery with a well struck hooked or faded blow to the temple!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

There have been other times where I would have gone for a duel, where I have been genuinely annoyed, and where 1irons would have been fine but I'd rather have hit drivers.  This is certainly not one of those times (nor were such in the handicapping discussions, btw - I'd leave the duel against Goodale to YOU in that one, in any case).

One other thing also - shhhhhhhh!  Don't tell anyone.  OK, just between you and me - as I read Dave analyze the numbers I came up with, I found myself saying "damn, when you look at it that way, he does make some great points."  But of course that's due to faulty, unthinking numbers on my part and not because he might be right or anything.  But anyway, I can't even let him know that at this point.  So mum's the word, ok?

 

[THuckaby2]

I suggest 1 irons at 235 yards!  How's that for loading the deck?

Wedges from 60 yards, I say.  I believe I'd be safe.

 

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Huckaby:

I would submit to you that you are in grave peril if we choose wedges from 60 yards.  I can blade a wedge with the best of 'em.  You, on the other hand, almost assurdly hit all of your wedges with feather-like precision.  Be careful what you wish for....

Oh shit, that is a good point.  Actual lofted shots won't hurt at all.  Laser-skulls mean maiming or death or worse.

 

[johnk]

This is more like it!

Shivas mentioned the word "deck" which makes me think:

"Drivers off the deck at 200 yards would be fun to watch"

Even if you got hit, you still could play later that day.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

Don't worry---these discussions are not much more than amusing---no one really needs to lose their life over them. The statisitical assumptions that Shivas and others come up with on here are both time consuming and laughable and so are you're rationalizations to contrary of what he says. The truth is Crenshaw and Mickelson could putt the brains out of both of you on flat or contoured greens and no one really needs to know or even cares if they could do more damage to either of you on one type vs the other type.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, Barn, in truth, I tell them that I AM a pretty good golfer.  The reason?  I understand exactly how BAD most people are!  Somehow, i get the feeling that you think everybody is a single digit.  And in that world, an 8 hdcp. sucks.  But you and I know that that ain't the case.  

I believe there is something qualitatively different between what I'd label "good golfers" and all the other people you see on a golf course. A person who can shoot around par on a tough course in competition (my definition of a "good golfer") is completely different from a 6-handicapper who can shoot anywhere from 72 to 82 when there's no pressure but couldn't break 80 in a stroke-play tournament one time in twenty.

There are all kinds of ways to get a 6-handicap even with major holes in your game. A "good golfer" just about has to be at least decent at everything and also have at least a couple major strengths (awesome short game, mental toughness, great imagination and creativity or some other unusually good part of his game). That's what makes them "good". All IMO, of course.

You seem to be suggesting that the existence of a people like me who struggle to play bogey golf somehow minimizes the difference between a guy who play well in the Mid-Am versus a guy who finishes second in the B flight of his club championship. There are millions of people playing golf any Saturday who couldn't break 120 playing the ball down and putting it out. Does that make me a pretty-good golfer? No, it just means you can always point out someone worse.

I also draw a distinction between a "real golfer" versus someone who just plays golf. A "real golfer" can play at a reasonable pace, knows how to avoid destroying the course or annoying his playing companions, can at least occasionally string together two or three good golf shots and can handle bad conditions, bad breaks or bad weather without whining about the game being "unfair". Anyone can learn to be a "real golfer" but for some people becoming a "good golfer" might be an impossible dream.

[JakaB]

Thanks for that response Shivas.....I would say that after reading your posts for the last couple of years that you are an eternal optimist on the golf course.....and after living with myself as a golfer for the last 36 years I am an eternal pessimist.....I can not stand in front of a person or people who I hardly know and calmly state I am a good golfer....I need to work on that.   As a matter of fact I am the only golfer I know who continually overclubs...I kills me.   Anybody just try to score when you airmail three to four greens a round....from now on I'm gonna be like you my friend and believe I can hit the shot and take less club....no wonder I suck...I'm sitting here in my office worried about what club I'm going to hit on a shot I don't even have yet...

One thing I would like to know...how come guys like you and me that had every opportunity in the world never got any good...or really good...or great or however you want to put it....

[TEPaul]

Shivas said;

"Well, Tom, if I may say so, that's a downright silly thing to say.
This discussion has import.  Doak nailed why.  If we really want courses to be easier for the weak player and challenging to the good player, we should be very interested in whether heavy contour hurts the bad putter less than the good putter."

Shivas:

I don't agree that this discussion or this specific subject has import, not the least reason being the fact that you and Huckaby and some others can't even remotely agree on it. The upshot of that is that it's consequently incredibly unlikely that anyone else will agree as well and so therefore what could possibly be the utility of it short term or long term?

But if one wanted to basically accomplish perhaps the same effect here's another way it may be accomplished. Again, the idea here is to create more highly contoured greens in the future to create greater interest and perhaps simultaneously create a situation where the good player is more challenged in relation to the less good player.

What really limits the creation of more highly contoured greens in this day and age? Obviously increased green speed does but what's so wrong with increased green speed and highly contoured greens? Clearly the prospect of 3 putting or worse more often and for everyone. What's so wrong with 3 putting or worse in the real world? Nothing much more than the fact that everyone has been saddled with the PERCEPTION that 2 putting is the thing that's expected of everyone once their ball arrives at a green. Who created and fostered that perception of the expectation of 2 putting for everyone? Obviously the regulators of golf did somewhere along the line. Why did they do that? Probably to create what they thought was effective and efficient handicapping by hanging it totally on the concept of "par". Par tells us what to strive for---X amount of expected shots to reach various par holes and once on every green the expectation of 2 putting!

I say---what would happen if the regulators of golf would truly try to abolish the expectation of two putting at every green?

I think what would happen is the green end of golf would truly become that "democratic" area of golf and architecture where everyone really did have a better change against anyone else compared to the area of golf called "through the green"?

Why is that? Because the green and green-end is the only area of golf architecture that doesn't absolutely require strength to be ultimately successful. It requires only imagination and concentration, something that anyone should be able to do if they practiced it. Therefore the green and green-end really is that democratic area of golf and architecture and as such it should be fostered with more highly contoured greens to test everyone even strategically!

Have you ever thought of putting as a strategic thing to do Shivas? I bet you haven't. All you ever thought about putting was to make a putt or at the very least to get down in two putts. I bet that's even a locked-in expectation to you too.

Well remove that expectation---create highly sloped and contoured greens and the expectation of getting down in two putts would cease to be almost a requirment of golf due to the barometer of par and the expectation of all architecture and the idea of putting almost strategically to ensure getting down in three putts would take over as the ultimate goal not to be exceeded!

Think about it. If that could happen---the abolishment of the over-riding expectaion of two putting on every green by all golfers golf could be a lot more fun and a lot more potentially leveling amongst the entire spectrum of golfing abilities.

"Greens with a green" could become more of a reality instead of something to be avoided and something that's considered an architectural abomination!

 

[ForkaB]

Just a wee note from the middle of my vacation to thank all of you who have been keeping this thread alive, and a special thank you to Dave S. for all the data he has complied on relative putting abilities on various courses.  I shall promise to think of analysing these data if and when I get the time.

Keep at it, guys.  If we work hard it even might grow to be the longest non-Rees bashing thread in the history of GCA!

PS-on Sunday I was beaten (giving 4 strokes) by an inferior player but better putter on greens which are highly contoured but were runnning slow and bumpy due to recent scarification.  My opponenty was not putting as well as I have seen him do, and I managed to slot two missable birdie putts, now that I think of it.  Does this not prove my thesis?

[A.G._Crockett]

PS-on Sunday I was beaten (giving 4 strokes) by an inferior player but better putter on greens which are highly contoured but were runnning slow and bumpy due to recent scarification.  My opponenty was not putting as well as I have seen him do, and I managed to slot two missable birdie putts, now that I think of it.  Does this not prove my thesis?

How is he an "inferior player" if he beat you?  This example only proves that putting is a vital part of golf, and Harvey Penick's statement that a good putter is a match for any man.  In fact, you say that he wasn't putting as well as you have seen, and that you made two you might otherwise have missed!  

If he putted below his best level, and you made a couple extra, and HE STILL BEAT YOU, then he is a superior player.  Further, I take it that you are saying that he would have putted even better on flat greens, thereby beating you by even more!

Thanks for disproving your own thesis.  Its way less trouble for the rest of us that way!

[ForkaB]

AG

If Vijay gives me 18 shots and I shoot 79 to his 62 and "beat" himone up, am I the superior player?  I think not, which is just one of the many reasons why my thesis remains foolproof.

[Dan Kelly]

AG

If Vijay gives me 18 shots and I shoot 79 to his 62 and "beat" himone up, am I the superior player?  I think not, which is just one of the many reasons why my thesis remains foolproof.

Either that, or fool-proved!

[George Pazin]

Never thought I'd see the day when anecdotal evidence and made up numbers were cited as proof of a theory.

Apparently my professors were way off in what they were teaching. Must be the new math.

[A.G._Crockett]

Rich Goodale,
Your loss, giving 4 shots, to an "inferior" players might just as well prove any of the following:

1. Your opponent is a amoral sandbagger.
2. You carry a vanity handicap that you cannot play to under pressure.
3. He had a good day.
4. You had a bad day.
5. Golf is a funny game.
6. Golf is often not a fun game.
7. Giving strokes wasn't a great idea.
8. Fill in the blanks with your own pet theory.

I think, however, that if you want your Sunday afternoon match to be used to prove, once and for all, a particular thesis about golf course architecture, you are going from the instance to the generalization a bit more than is generally permissable in research.  

By this standard of research, for instance, Florida could be expected to be hit by two hurricances in a two-week period EVERY September, when in reality this year was the first time in 85 years that two had hit so close together.  Or, that in American presidential elections the winner is that candidate that finishes second in the popular voting.  

Possibly a bit more academic rigor is called for here before I jump off the bridge...