Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[THuckaby2]

Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.

Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004).  Full complement of fields, batting practice pitcher.  The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings.  Barry probably hits .850.  I hit .150 it I'm lucky.  Barry leads by .700.  Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson.  Barry hits .350.  I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line).  Barry leads by .330.

So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .370.  Is this too hard to understand?

Rich - works for me, and that sure is analagous to the relativity we are trying to describe....

[A.G._Crockett]

Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.

Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004).  Full complement of fields, batting practice pitcher.  The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings.  Barry probably hits .850.  I hit .150 it I'm lucky.  Barry leads by .700.  Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson.  Barry hits .350.  I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line).  Barry leads by .330.

So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .370.  Is this too hard to understand?

Rich,
Bad example.  I am here to tell you that if you get in the box against Randy Johnson, you WILL NOT stay in as the pitch comes, much less hit it.  YOU WILL NOT HIT THE BALL.  You are dreaming if you think otherwise, or it has been way, way too long since you have seen a ball moving fast.  An 80 mph fastball will make you run, I promise; he's pushing 100.  Forget it; you hit .000; you MIGHT, I repeat MIGHT, hit .020 off a good high school pitcher, but that's where it ends.  (Remember, Michael Jordan only hit about .210 off Double A pitching, and, in addition to being the best athlete in the world, he was doing it every day for two years!  You're going to get a blooper off the Big Unit?  I think not...)

[THuckaby2]

AGC:

Fine.  So put Rich at .000.  The example still works....

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

Let me try another hypothetical for those who think that increased difficulty necessarily = RELATIVELY poorer performance for the poorer athlete.

Me (in my youth) vs. Barry Bonds (2004).  Full complement of fields, batting practice pitcher.  The game is to have the highest batting average for 50 swings.  Barry probably hits .850.  I hit .150 it I'm lucky.  Barry leads by .700.  Now change the pitcher to Randy Johnson.  Barry hits .350.  I hit .020 (blooper down the right field line).  Barry leads by .330.

So Barry still beats the hel lout of me, but I have RELATIVELY improved by .370.  Is this too hard to understand?

Rich - works for me, and that sure is analagous to the relativity we are trying to describe....

If you decline from .150 to .020, and Bonds goes from .850 to .350, the gap between you and Bonds is BIGGER!   He WAS hitting 5.7 times more than you; NOW he's hitting 17.5 times more than you!  Jeez, guys, I flunked math and can see this!

[ForkaB]

AG

I said "in my youth," didn't I?  That was 1964 and I hit .400 in American Legion ball against the best HS pitchers in my county.  Not to boast, or anything....

Anyway, as Tom says, give me a big .000 against BOTH pitchers, and the analogy still works!

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

I said "in my youth," didn't I?  That was 1964 and I hit .400 in American Legion ball against the best HS pitchers in my county.  Not to boast, or anything....

Anyway, as Tom says, give me a big .000 against BOTH pitchers, and the analogy still works!

The analogy doesn't work, especially if you stay at .000 for the rest of your life, which you would!

[George Pazin]

The analogy is actually a good example of our point.

In your Bonds example, there is a lower bound for your hitting - 0. So you can only drop 160.

Putting is the exact opposite. The lower bound is on how low you can go - there is no upper bound. When the average golfer takes a putt with 15 feet of break, there is an excellent chance he will end up no closer to the hole, possibly even further away. This is a type of example of why some people say "Don't get above the hole." What in God's name makes you think he is going to generally 2 putt from a location that is as far or farther away?

The kind of contour that would be required to create 25 foot breaking putts would be rather extreme, no? Yet, I have seem pros and amateurs 2 putt in some crazy instances, like putting 180 degrees from the hole, using the ground to bring it back to the hole. If the average golfer gets this kind of putt, without seeing the pro do it first, he will easily leave his putt as far or farther away.

If you do not see people 4 putting on a regular basis, then you are indeed golfing with better than average golfers, or you are playing courses with "easy" greens - slow and no contour. On the hardest greens in the world - Oakmont, ANGC, #2 during the Open setup, take your pick - the average pro is still going to 2 putt most of the time, and only occasionally 3 putt. On these same greens, the average golfer (which we never really defined - I'll use the USGA stated average index of 18 or whatever) is going to have some greens where he almost can't even finish the hole. 4 putts, 5 putts, 6 putts, these are going to flat out kill his total.

I repeat, if you truly believe that you are only going to 3 putt a bit more often on greens with a lot of contour (relatively speaking, less often than Ben), you are not a bad putter. You may not be great at holing long putts like Fax, and you may not have a dead eye stroke from 6 feet like Tom or Arnold in their prime, but apparently you are a good lag putter.

[Pat K]

This argument keeps going around in circles. Could it be that different people have different abilities on different types of putting surfaces. If I may use my game as an example. On relatively flat greens I'm not a very good putter. This is partly because my concentration and interest aren't as sharp as when I'm on a highly contoured green. I look forward to playing on some of the old courses around here and look forward to the different putts presented to me. My planning and execution are better when I have to concentrate more.
    I'm still not as good of a putter as many others but I'm better when there is more of a challenge of reading the putt and playing the different slopes. Trying to adjust for speed off a hill or how much it bends or even how it putts compared to yesterday is more complicated then a putt from a flat surface.
   If it's strickly about stroke a pure putter probably likes less contour but............
   

[ForkaB]

George

You forgot about Equitable Stroke Control.  Even the highest handicaps get to pick up after 3-4 putts.

Also, what's your problem with imagining a 25 foot putt with some break?  You didn't really think I meant a putt that breaks 25-feet, did you?  Even Crenshaw would 3-putt most of those!

[George Pazin]

Actually, with all the wild scenarios people are throwing around, I did think you meant a putt that broke 25 feet. Regardless, it doesn't change my position or explanation.

I can't explain or re-explain my position any clearer, so, absent any specific questions for me to address that are materially different from everything we've covered, I'm going to attempt to bow out.

Happy Putting Everyone!

 

[THuckaby2]

George:  just remember it was YOU who resurrected this beauty.  

I also can't explain or re-explain my position any clearer, so, absent any specific questions for me to address that are materially different from everything we've covered, I'm going to attempt to bow out.

Happy Putting Everyone!

 

 

[ForkaB]

......and Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are......

[DMoriarty]

Dave, you have to be an awful lot worse than an "average" player to worry about bunkers at 280 for your 2nd or 3rd shots.  Try again.

Hey, leave my "awful lot worse than average" game out of this.  

If the average player slices or hooks into the rough, then the bunker is in play on the second shot.  If the player tops the drive, the bunker is in play on the second shot.  If he hits it in the rough, the bunker is in play on the second shot.  If the player skies the drive, the bunker is in play on the second shot.  And, if the player happens to hit a good drive, then the bunker is still in play, because the average player is due to top, sky, slice, hook or duff the next second one.  

And the bunker is in play on the third shot when the average player hits into the bunker on his second shot.

You brought bunkers into this not me.   Ever see a good putter putt into a bunker?   I've seen bad players putt into them, but never on flat greens.  

PS--Just because I say something doesn't mean you have to disagree with it, or maybe it does......

Oh come on, I dont have the time to disagree with the vast majority of the disagreable things you say.  If you werent always wrong it would be a lot easier to agree with you.  

[JESII]

But since this is a fun thing to do... riddle me this:  in golf, is SKILL ALWAYS PERFECTLY REWARDED?

TH

Sorry my friends  ,

So the lesser player has the golf gods on their side?  

[THuckaby2]

Now JES, this time 'tis you who failed to answer the question.  And I think it's because you know the answer.

It's not that the golf gods side with the lesser player... It's that said gods are FAR from just and fair, because in this crazy game of seemingly infinite variables, yep, some times bad shots end up great, and great shots end up bad.

My concession stands, btw.  This is just a fun tangent.

 

[JESII]

Actually I did not know the answer at the time, but think I can imagine what you see as the correct answer. The better player is presumed to make their putt and luck can only effect it in one direction (it can only keep the ball out if it is to become a factor), whereas the lesser player has the opportunity for "luck" to knock his ball into the hole when his stroke might not have allowed it (in a vacuum). Correct?

NO GOOD,  because the better player will have his misses closer to the hole more often thereby gaining a realistic chance of "luck" helping those balls into the hole.


How do you feel about the baseball analogy?

If forced to choose, I must agree with George in its support of our position due to performance in baseball being judged by percentage as opposed to total score. The lower bound limit in baseball in contrast to no upper limit in golf goes to making this a poor analogy in general though.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Quote from the Geoff S. website today.

The aspect of the game you lose with green speeds averaging somewhere between 11-13 on the Stimpmeter is the ability to build contour into your putting surfaces…When you take contour out of the greens and speed them up, you only make the game easier for the average-putting Tour pro, and harder for the club player.   PETE DYE

Not exact, but close enough for me...

This years Ryder cup was also proof enough for me - they don't miss a long flatish putt.

[JESII]

Oh Boy!

[ForkaB]

Thanks Mike

This time it only took 18 months and the endorsement of Shackelford fils to get vindication.  It's tough being right all of the time.....  

Rich

[PThomas]

without reading the entire thread or thinking about it too much, I would think highly contoured greens favor the better putter...

[Philippe Binette]

How many bad putters have won the Masters...

[George Pazin]

Only if "they" means the Euros!

What does Pete Dye know about golf?

[Tom Huckaby]

Vindication, so sweet, so sweet.

It is tough being right all the time, isn't it, Rich?

 

[George Pazin]

Go ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Doesn't make you or Rich any more correct than before - or less, for that matter. It's Pete's opinion, he can be wrong as well.

Does someone want to argue that Pete's courses lack contour in the greens, because he is trying to separate the good putters from the bad?

Actions speak much louder than out of context words.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete Dye is a nice authority to have on one's side.  I'll take him.