Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[Brian_Gracely]

I'd like to understand the "pro's" rationale from Rich's original post.  Let's assume that if they are professionals, that they have reasonably good putting strokes.  Putting comes down to two things.....Line and Speed.  If line is dictated by the contours of the green, then less contours means the line becomes less of a challenge to think about.  So how in the world does he rationalize that more contour is going to bring more putters into the mix?  Do they not say...every year...that The Masters ultimately comes down to identifying the best putter because the greens are so severe?  

You guys can argue all day long about good putter, speed putter, blah, blah, blah.....but I think the initial premise is wrong.

[Paul_Turner]

Ask any tour pro who's been through the yips which they find exposes their stroke more...and they'll definitely reply fast greens.

It's not the length of the stroke, it's the pace.  A slow stroke needed for fast greens is much more prone to the yips and small twitchy movements in the hands.  

[JakaB]

Here we go again....the same people who said that the luckiest golfer was winning at Shinnecock now say that the skilled golfer makes his own luck.  

[henrye]

I consider myself a bad putter.  Issues I face.

1. Pace is the #1 issue regardless of green speed (within reason).

2. If a green is absolutely flat and the task is to hit it straight, an element of complexity is removed and I can usually hit it pretty straight.

3. Heavily contoured greens are easier to read than subtly contoured greens.  Subtle contours are always the most difficult - ie: I'm more prone to misread than a scratch player.

[Andy Hughes]

Re your point 1, that will factor into it for sure.  But I just see so many misses by ALL putters, that in the end this still favors the bad putter... On flat no-countour greens, the good putter makes a lot of putts.  The bad putter never does no matter how the greens are.  So again, relative to each other, the bad putter fares better with more contour.  Or at least that's my take!

Tom, first, I missed the part about everyone putting from the same place, and that is a big issue.
But for the rest, it hit home for me because last week I saw this up close and personal. We visited the RTJ Trail, and there are a LOT of greens there that have very large ridges, swoops and undulations, the proverbial green-within-a-green concept separated by big, pronounced slopes.
It doesn't say much for my friends, but I probably putt better than the other 3 I was with and on some of those greens I just knew I had an edge. It wasn't so much the first putt because as you say, none of us had much chance with many of the pins. But I knew I had a better chance of getting down in two, and I also knew that I had a better chance of successfully reading the greens with wild undulations.

[A.G._Crockett]

If you polled all of the golfers in America as to which greens on their home course were the most "difficult" (whatever that might mean to various individuals) I think the near-total majority would choose the most contoured greens on the course every time!  Can you imagine players choosing a flat green as the hardest green?

[THuckaby2]

Andy:  I understand that.  I still think that in the end, the bad putter is better off.  Look at it this way:  how many putts in the 10-20 foot range did you make?  If you are a superior putter, on flat greens you're going to make far more of those than the bad putter, who won't make ANY no matter what the contour.  Add contour, and you don't make any either, so your advantage is diminished.

I think this also works in with the long putts also... on flat greens, the superior putter won't ever 3 putt really - or not hardly ever anyway.  On contoured greens, even the best putter will 3 putt from time to time, because he's going to be left all too often with another contoured 5-10 footer, no matter what his best effort is!

So sure, put you against your buddies on a long contoured putt, and I'd bet on you to get it closer, and 3 putt less often.  But that's not really the sum total comparison here....

The correct comparison is where do you have a truly better advantage - flat or contoured greens, overall?

And because of all of the above, I'll take you on flat greens, over the long haul.  You're going to make far more putts than they do, from all distances.... far more I think than the advantage in long 2putts over their 3putts on contoured greens.... keeping in mind that the more contoured the greens are, the less putts you make also.

TH

[ForkaB]

Ask any tour pro who's been through the yips which they find exposes their stroke more...and they'll definitely reply fast greens.

It's not the length of the stroke, it's the pace.  A slow stroke needed for fast greens is much more prone to the yips and small twitchy movements in the hands.  

Paul

I'm not a pro, but I've had the yips, and it's always been the "easier" putts that most affected my "stroke."  Part of being a bad putter is the mental anguish of the self-fulfilling prophecy of "knowing" that you are going to miss putts that you are supposed to make.  When the putt is harder (i.e. more slope, more speed) it becomes "easier" because you aren't expected to make it, and you relax, and putt (relatively) better.  At least that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it!

[Brian_Gracely]

So Tom, you don't subscribe to the theory that if the good putter (who usually 2-putts) ends up three-putting on contoured greens, that the bad-putter (2.5-3putts) won't have more than 3 putts very often?  Or do we not find this out on a regular basis because we given the short-putter those short putts because we don't want to constantly see the agony of 4-putts or excessive 3-putts?

I'm also trying to see how this argument would apply to a difficult course vs. an easy course?  

[A.G._Crockett]

Ditto on the yips, Rich.  They are in remission right now (I'm pounding on my wooden desk as I type this!), but when they are raging, I have found a slow uphill or flat 3 footer to be my personal MLTY (Most Likely to Yip) putt.  Counter-intuitively, the faster the putt, the better my chances when yipping, because I just have to get it started instead of actually making a stroke.

The putts that you yip are the ones you are supposed to make, NOT the really hard putts.

For purposes of this discussion, I don't think yips should be included.  They are a different critter, and can't be handled in a rational manner.

[George Pazin]

This seems to me to be a classic case of overthinking.

A good putter is better off than a bad putter on anything, pretty much by definition. If you are better on highly contoured greens than someone who is better on flat speedy greens, then, surprise, surprise, you are a better putter on contoured greens and the other guy is a better putter on fast greens.

Ayn used to say "A is A".

The rest is just excuses.

If you want to try to argue that a higher handicap golfer is better off on highly contoured greens, that is something entirely different. I'd still argue against it, because, generally speaking, the lower handicap golfer is better at everything, short of maybe the luck involved with holing 50 footers. Even there, the lower handicapper will likely have a better grasp of the proper speed, so he has a better chance there as well.

I'm a pretty good putter, as compared to many golfers who are mid to higher handicappers. It's probably because I have very good vision and am okay at reading greens. I'd bet a lot of money that Scott McCarron, pre long putter, having quit playing after his career at UCLA due to his frustration with the flatstick, was still a much better putter at that time than I am now. Flat greens, highly contoured greens, whatever. Maybe - maybe - I might be better at 5 footers if he was yipping or something, but I doubt it. He was a lousy putter compared to his peers, not compared to bad golfers or bad putters.

[THuckaby2]

Brian:

I think they're both going to 3putt from time to time on contoured greens, so the good putter's advantage is diminished.  Put them on flat greens and the good putter never 3putts, while the bad putter still does.  Factoring in 4putts and worse just seems to me to be taking this to extremes of unliklihood that don't matter much for the comparison.  Or to put it another way, the fact the good putter is 3putting - which he would never do on a flat green - outweighs the instances of the bad putter 4putting.

Add to it that on flat greens the good putter is going to MAKE far more putts outside 6 feet than the bad putter - who just plain never makes them no matter what the contour - and the advantages get plainer to see.

For me anyway.

 

[THuckaby2]

George:

We ARE trying to argue that the lesser putter is better off - relative to the good putter - on contoured greens than on flat greens.

I've explained it a bunch of times already.

Yes, a good putter is better than a bad putter - that's just plain logic. A does equal A.

But what we're trying to determine here is where the good putter has the LEAST advantage, and it seems to me that occurs on highly contoured greens.

TH

[George Pazin]

I think you guys are mistakenly assuming that highly contoured greens are automatically slow. I disagree - they may achieve speed through contour rather than mowing height, but they can be fast nonetheless.

I'll tell you one thing. Tom P has a reputation for being a great putter. I'd bet a lot of money that I could do A LOT better against him on flat speedy greens than greens with a lot of contour and any kind of speed whatsoever. Even bad putters can learn to control speed eventually - controlling speed within contours is another matter entirely.

[Paul_Turner]

Dave Pelz makes a good scientific explanation of why downhill putts are harder than uphill, in his putting book.  Any misjudgement in stroke pace/length is magnified when the putt is downhill.

However, contour is exagerrated with uphill putts because of gravity.

It would be interesting to see the stats of The Masters vs USOpen at Bethpage.  Could show influence of green contour.

I cannot see how Augusta would be harder, for anyone, if the greens stimped at 7.

[THuckaby2]

I think you guys are mistakenly assuming that highly contoured greens are automatically slow. I disagree - they may achieve speed through contour rather than mowing height, but they can be fast nonetheless.

I'm not making that assumption at all.  Add speed and the difficulty increases, so BOTH putters miss more, and my comparisons remain valid.

I'll tell you one thing. Tom P has a reputation for being a great putter. I'd bet a lot of money that I could do A LOT better against him on flat speedy greens than greens with a lot of contour and any kind of speed whatsoever. Even bad putters can learn to control speed eventually - controlling speed within contours is another matter entirely.

I'll take that bet.  Tom won't make any on the contoured greens and both of you will have a few 3putts, with you having a few more.  On the flat greens, you still won't make anything (assuming you are a bad putter, which I gather is the assumption here), Tom will make a bunch from the 6-20 foot range, and you won't make any.  He's gonna beat you either way, but in the end, the total putts you take will be closer to him on the contoured greens than on the flat greens.

TH

[TEPaul]

"I'll tell you one thing. Tom P has a reputation for being a great putter."

I do? Maybe I did once upon a time but that should be considered in the same category as ancient history. If I still am a great putter I wish somebody would try and convince my golf ball of that because right now it doesn't seem to be getting that message very well!

[johnk]

Wow, here's a completely subjective, data-free discussion!  Fun!

One problem I have with these arguments is that you are really talking about "bad" putters versus mediocre putters.  Good and great putters are at a tremendous advantage on highly contoured greens.   Why?  They are much better at reading greens and controlling pace - by definition!  George P is absolutely right that controlling pace on greens with contour is not in the repetoire of bad putters - regardless of how fast/slow they are.

Bad putters don't just 3-putt on highly contoured greens - they do a lot worse than that!  Mediocre putters, however can usually limit the damage, assuming they aren't already picking up  those 2-cup break 4-footers...

Once you start using stroke quality as part of your argument, you are dealing with the general populace of bad and mediocre putters.  Totally subjective analysis mostly, based on your own putting...

[THuckaby2]

Good and great putters are at a tremendous advantage on highly contoured greens.   Why?  They are much better at reading greens and controlling pace - by definition!  George P is absolutely right that controlling pace on greens with contour is not in the repetoire of bad putters - regardless of how fast/slow they are.

Of course good and great putters are at a basic advantage on highly contoured greens - that's a given.  They'll be better no matter what the conditions are, because as George says, A=A.

Once again though, I just do think they a lesser advantage there then they are on flat greens, and no one has said anything to dissuade me from this.

Speed really doesn't change this, either.  

I really want to do George's bet, using the GOOD Tom Paul.  And Tom, he will return - you know how putting comes and goes.

TH

[George Pazin]

I don't get your assumptions, Huck.

Neither of us make a putt on highly contoured greens? I'd say a good putter is certainly going to make more than a bad putter.

I'd also say the bad putter is going to 3 putt way more often on highly contoured greens than flat speedy greens, whereas a good putter will 2 putt more often no matter what. The good putter will probably 3 putt more on the highly contoured greens, but not way more.

[THuckaby2]

I don't get your assumptions, Huck.

Neither of us make a putt on highly contoured greens? I'd say a good putter is certainly going to make more than a bad putter.

Disagree.  With severe contours, even the good putter isn't going to make ANY putts outside 15 feet, and he's also going to miss a bunch inside that distance.  Make the greens flat and that isn't the case.  The good putter's advantage is therefore diminished.

I'd also say the bad putter is going to 3 putt way more often on highly contoured greens than flat speedy greens, whereas a good putter will 2 putt more often no matter what. The good putter will probably 3 putt more on the highly contoured greens, but not way more.

Concur that the bad putter will 3putt more on contoured greens than he would on flat.  BUT - and this is the key - SO WILL THE GOOD PUTTER. That's the difference here.  You think the good putter is gonna two-putt no matter what?  No way.  I'll take Ben freakin' Crenshaw to some places at St. Andrews and he's not gonna 2putt (think 2nd green, wrong side of the entry mound).  On flat greens his two putt is a given though... whereas the bad putter's 2putt is never a given no matter what the green is like.

Again, we're talking HIGHLY contoured greens v. flat greens, for this comparison.

[johnk]

Good and great putters are at a tremendous advantage on highly contoured greens.   Why?  They are much better at reading greens and controlling pace - by definition!  George P is absolutely right that controlling pace on greens with contour is not in the repetoire of bad putters - regardless of how fast/slow they are.

Of course good and great putters are at a basic advantage on highly contoured greens - that's a given.  They'll be better no matter what the conditions are, because as George says, A=A.

Once again though, I just do think they a lesser advantage there then they are on flat greens, and no one has said anything to dissuade me from this.

Good putters are at a lesser advantage at Pasatiempo or Augusta than they are at say Poplar Creek?!?  What is a bad putter then?  A 24hcp player, or a 4hcp who once had the yips?

Here's a real test, not based on one data point:

Take 20 golfers from The bottom 15% of putters, skill-wise. (I'd use handicap as a proxy, but decide however you like).
Take 20 from the top 15% of putters.
For each one, place a ball in the middle of each green at Pasatiempo, and a ball in the middle of each green at Poplar Creek (or whatever represents "flattish" to you).
Count how many putts it takes them to hole the ball for 72 holes.  Sum all the numbers for the good players on flat and contour and the bad players on flat vs contour.  Get 4 numbers:

i.e.: good/flat = the sum of the 20 players strokes over 72 flat holes

Calculate the deltas: good/flat - bad/flat, and good/contour - bad/contour

Then tell me which delta is bigger.  The flat or the contour?

[Andy Hughes]

Neither of us make a putt on highly contoured greens? I'd say a good putter is certainly going to make more than a bad putter.

This is what I keep bumping up against as well.  I understand the basic premise TomH is making, but I believe this assumption he is making (that nobody makes putts on contoured greens) is where it gets dicey.  The pros make lots of putts at the Masters, and good putters don't 3 putt much at the Open. Of course, the variety of golfers being discussed (from the best of the best down to the worst of us) makes this rather wide-ranging.

[TEPaul]

I think highly contoured greens couldn't possibly favor a bad putter over a good one. Matter of fact let's just say a good putter is twice the putter a poor putter is on flat greens with little break. Now you give that poor putter two things to think about (break and speed instead of just speed) and he'll probably be about four times worse than the good putter instead of just twice as bad on flat greens!  

[George Pazin]

Concur that the bad putter will 3putt more on contoured greens than he would on flat.  BUT - and this is the key - SO WILL THE GOOD PUTTER. That's the difference here.  You think the good putter is gonna two-putt no matter what?  No way.  I'll take Ben freakin' Crenshaw to some places at St. Andrews and he's not gonna 2putt (think 2nd green, wrong side of the entry mound).  On flat greens his two putt is a given though... whereas the bad putter's 2putt is never a given no matter what the green is like.

So how do you explain the fact that winners at ANGC often times don't 3 putt? Or do you think these greens aren't highlyy contoured? Heck, a bad putter might - check that, will 4 or more putt some of these greens.

I don't think a good putter is going to 2 putt no matter what, but he's going to do it WAY more often than the bad putter on highly contoured greens. I don't think 3 putting on flat speedy greens is nearly as prevalent for the bad putter, and for the good golfer it's almost non existent.

I also disagree that even the good putter isn't going to make ANY putts outside 15 feet. I've made plenty of putts outside of 15 feet that have a lot of break to them.

As I said before, I think the key assumption that I disagree with is that the highly contoured greens are slow. I think Paul Turner is right in that virtually all greens putt easier stimping at 7 than much higher. But I also agree with John Krystynak - bad putters frequently do worse than 3 putt on highly contoured greens. I don't think they frequently do worse than that on flat speedy greens.