Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[Jason Topp]

My course has highly contoured greens for the most part that stimp at around 9 -1/2 most days.  Bad putters do horribly on them for the following reasons:

1.  They cannot read the putt, either line or speed.  I think this is due in part to a failure to hit putts consistently.
2.  If they read it correctly, they cannot hit it on the correct line.
3.  If they have the correct line, they cannot hit it the correct speed.
4.  Short putts leave the choice of hitting it hard at the hole, which must hit the middle or spin out, or hitting a soft putt that depends on the break.  Poor putters have a huge disadvantage in either event.
5.  Bad longer putts result in balls rolling off the green, going the wrong direction off a spine or staying short above the hole, which does not improve one's lot at all.  The result is a 3 or 4 putt rather than two tap ins of varying length.

My most frequent playing companion is a better putter than me.  His advantage is multiplied at our course compared to courses with flatter greens.

I am a better putter than many.  I would rather play them at my course than others that have flatter greens.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

On another thread, Jeff Brauer implies this is so.  

Does he imply it ?  Or, are you infering it ?

Pat, no question I implied it, or at least the reverse - that they negate some advantages of being a good putter, because they are more difficult for everyone.   Its pretty simple logic - poor putters will still miss, and good putters will make less.

I don't have the patience to read through any long, even if well thought out, posts as to why it might be so because of the relative importance of greens reading vs. stroke.  I agree it also might give more advantage to players whose game strenght is accuracy and mental acuity to hit approach shots to the right part of the green, etc., making for a more balanced challenge for all different types of games.

Jason - I agree its possible for a horrible putter to do even worse than a good player gets dragged down by steep greens.  I think thats true of almost any gca feature designed to challenge the best players - they affect poor players about 4 times as much (in this case, bad approach, bad chip, bad first putt, bad second putt, and maybe even a bad third putt can each go haywire for the poor player)

I think Pat, myself and others are thinking in terms of 15 handicappers and less who are competitive in club matches, albeit with varying game strengths.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jamie Slonis said it yesterday, and that is only the most recent attempt.  You guys are claiming that putting is different than any other skill in all of sports known to man, in that more difficult greens favor poor putters relative to good putters.

I wrote this eons ago, but here it is again.  By this logic:

Ben Crenshaw is a WAY better putter than me, unless the greens are really difficult.  THEN, Ben Crenshaw is less "way better" than me, SO if I can just find a course where the greens are tough enough, I will be as good or better than Crenshaw!  (or at least he'll suck as bad as I do!)  Right?

Name one other skill in all of sports that actually works this way.  Increased difficulty ALWAYS more clearly identifies the advantages of the better player.  ALWAYS.

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC:

This is where you and George go off track.  And as I recall, you acknowledged this way back when and came to understand it... it pains me you have retrenched.  

See, we are absolutely not saying anything like:

putting is different than any other skill in all of sports known to man, in that more difficult greens favor poor putters relative to good putters.

or at least not in that type of absolute.  Because if you measure it based on how close one gets to the hole, obviously it holds true that the more skilled will get closer, and this "do better."

But golf is not measured that way.  Golf is measured based on how many putts are holed.

And thus I refer you to the simple logic as stated by Jeff Brauer:


Its pretty simple logic - poor putters will still miss, and good putters will make less.

That's really all this comes down to.  Look at it in terms of putts holed - as Mike Nuzzo did in his example - and this works out very simply.

And it does not refute any laws of physics or sports.  Golf just remains a unique game in terms of how results are measured.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

Good putters will ALWAYS outperform weaker putters irrespective of the configuration of the green.

One of a good to great putter's skill is "reading"

Without adept "reading" skills, and the ability to combine pace and break golfers are "lost" on the putting surfaces, especially as the speed of the green increases.

If a putt breaks four feet and the higher handicap reads it at eight feet, he's going to have a longer, more difficult recovery putt, and, if he mis-hits it on the wide side, an even longer, more difficult putt,

The converse is also true.

I think much "slower" greens narrow the gap between the good to great and the mediocre putter, but, not contouring.

You fellows are erroneously focused on one putts while ignoring the likelihood of three and four putts by the inferior putter on highly contoured greens.

P.S.

A ten handicap golfer can be a better putter than a 6 handicap golfer, so don't view this exercise in the context of handicap, rather, confine it to putting skills.

[Jason Topp]

The best way to resolve this issue is to hold a putting contest using a highly contoured putting surface in one instance and a flat surface in another instance.  If the spread in scores increases on the contoured surface, then such greens favor the better putter.  If the spread decreases, contoured greens favor the poorer putter.

The next Kings Putter?

[JSlonis]

Tom,

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can just look at this hypothetical from just the number of putts holed.  When you say putts "holed", am I to assume that you mean 1st putts?  You have to look at it from the context of TOTAL putts.

If you have a good putter, they are still going to hole a couple of 1st putts, even with increased difficulty, while the poorer putter won't make any and will three putt more so.  

For the two sides of this issue, the argument boils down to whether or not you think a good putter will hole more 1st putts on flat greens to widen the gap...OR you believe the poor putter will 3 putt the tougher greens more often.  

I didn't see Pat's response before posting the above, but it seems as if he is 100% correct...yet again.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Not that you and I need ANOTHER thing to disagree about... but... methinks you are not getting our point.

This isn't about one-putts, it's about how it works out in total over the course of a round of golf.

And I continue to believe the take of Jeff Brauer, as put very simply above, and as quantified by Mike Nuzzo.

I do believe that the gain in one-putts on flat greens (by the better putter) does off-set the loss the lesser putter gets on contoured greens.  I really don't think he's going to 4-putt more than the better putter one-putts on the flat.  And since neither one of them is going to one-putt very often on the contoured greens, this is what it boils down to.

Thus I agree with your comments... just not your conclusions.

And I've seen it play out too many times at Pasatiempo.  Of course that takes it to the absurd... but when no one can make any putts, how does anyone have any advantage?

It remains an interesting argument anyway, even here 10 pages and nearly two years into it.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can just look at this hypothetical from just the number of putts holed.  When you say putts "holed", am I to assume that you mean 1st putts?  You have to look at it from the context of TOTAL putts.

If you have a good putter, they are still going to hole a couple of 1st putts, even with increased difficulty, while the poorer putter won't make any and will three putt more so.  

For the two sides of this issue, the argument boils down to whether or not you think a good putter will hole more 1st putts on flat greens to widen the gap...OR you believe the poor putter will 3 putt the tougher greens more often.  

Jamie - I am absolutely looking at it in the totality of the golf round, as I just explained to Irish-man.  But yes, we have boiled it down - just as you say.  And I continue to believe the good putter WILL hole more 1st putts on flat greens than the bad putter will three and four putt more than him on the contoured.

TH

[JSlonis]

Tom,

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can just look at this hypothetical from just the number of putts holed.  When you say putts "holed", am I to assume that you mean 1st putts?  You have to look at it from the context of TOTAL putts.

If you have a good putter, they are still going to hole a couple of 1st putts, even with increased difficulty, while the poorer putter won't make any and will three putt more so.  

For the two sides of this issue, the argument boils down to whether or not you think a good putter will hole more 1st putts on flat greens to widen the gap...OR you believe the poor putter will 3 putt the tougher greens more often.  

Jamie - I am absolutely looking at it in the totality of the golf round, as I just explained to Irish-man.  But yes, we have boiled it down - just as you say.  And I continue to believe the good putter WILL hole more 1st putts on flat greens than the bad putter will three and four putt more than him on the contoured.

TH

Well...now we're getting somewhere!

We should've agreed to disagree 5 pages, and two years ago, and saved ourselves all this FUN.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jamie - didn't we do that?

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

Remember, the issue is in the context of HIGHLY CONTOURED greens.

As such, the better putter, the better player will have easier putts.

He'll be able to get closer to the hole on approach and recovery, and he'll be more inclined to have the prefered line to the hole.

And, you're forgetting another element.

The bad putter will be even more out of his comfort zone on highly contoured greens.   His bad putting will be accentuated, thus the gap, the disparity will increase, not decrease.

Put a good putter and a bad putter on the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th, 12th and 15th greens at NGLA, stimping at 10-12 and the disparity will become clear to you.

Put them on the same greens stimping at 6 and you'll see the gap close.

Highly contoured greens favor the good player and the good putter.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Agree to disagree.  I have taken all of that into consideration, and I just plain disagree.  And remember, I have seen this play out at Pasatiempo, whose greens make NGLA's look positively tame.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Thanks for the support of simple logic.

My father used to tell me that the value of an idea is usually inversely proportional to the amount of words used to describe it, making most of Pats arguments suspect.

Was if FLW or another architect who coined the phrase, "Less is more?"

[ForkaB]

Was if FLW or another architect who coined the phrase, "Less is more?"

Jeff

That was Old Tom Morris when some Englishman asked him how to score the bloody game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Actually, it was Mies, from the Chicago School.

A friend just returned from Scotland, telling the story of being so nervous on TOC, that he shanked it between his own legs over on the 18th green.  The caddy tells him "make that putt, and you'll be round in 2"

Think that's what old Tom had in mind?

[Dan Kelly]

Was if FLW or another architect who coined the phrase, "Less is more?"

See http://tinyurl.com/vto2z

I thought Mies said: "God is in the details."

As for who really said "Less is more," see: http://tinyurl.com/y6hcu6

[A.G._Crockett]

I think much "slower" greens narrow the gap between the good to great and the mediocre putter, but, not contouring.

You fellows are erroneously focused on one putts while ignoring the likelihood of three and four putts by the inferior putter on highly contoured greens.

Pat,
We agree completely.  Every golfer holes one putt per green eventually.  The issue is the number of putts taken prior to that.  The bad putter will accumulate HUGE numbers on contoured greens because they repeatedly miss by relatively large distances.  This is added to by the fact that the bad putter can't get the speed right, so they leave putts way short much of the time, whereas the good putter leaves himself a relatively short, straight putt coming back after the contour feeds the ball down a slope.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC:

Suffice to say I continue to disagree.  I don't see the volume of 3 and 4putts that you guys do, and I think you sell short the number of made first putts by the better putter on flat greens.

Now ask yourself, who would you really rather have on your side in this?

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I think the fallacy in thinking that poor putters will four putt as much as good putters two or three putt is that most folks will concede the third or fourth one, having the necessary compassion to NOT want to see a grown man cry.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I think the fallacy in thinking that poor putters will four putt as much as good putters two or three putt is that most folks will concede the third or fourth one, having the necessary compassion to NOT want to see a grown man cry.

And of course that too is a very good point.

 

[George Pazin]

Golf is not measured by how close you get the ball to the hole, but rather by how many strokes it takes to get the ball IN the hole.

Who said anything about distance from the hole?

When did I say anything about distance from the hole?

I find the notion that contoured greens are going to cause Ben to 3 putt disproportionately more than me to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

And by funny I, of course, mean bizarre and incorrect.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

And who said Ben Crenshaw is going to three putt more than you on highly contoured greens?

What I find funny (and by that I mean bizarre and incorrect) is how you continually put words in my mouth that were never said.  Of course it makes sense given you have Mucci on your side here, the king of that particular tactic.

Please read back to my exchanges with Sully, Jamie, AGC from today.  That spells it all out.  You likely will disagree also... and that's fine.  Then at least we'll come to some sort of acceptance rather than pithy word-insertion.

 

[JESII]

Come on George, didn;t you see how it happens. Mike Nuzzo laid it all out right here.

Same with the putting....  
It is the disparity that shrinks

I think you will beat me at putting at Bethpage 21 putts to 29, but at Pine Valley you'll only beat me 26 to 33.  

Hey Jamie, 21 putts is about right for you, huh? 26 at PV? How many did you have in the Crump?

Any chance an average putter (or whoever it is in this argument) has less than 40 putts during either of those qualifying rounds? 50 would be closer if you also count the chips that come between some of their putts....

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully - I doubt Mike Nuzzo meant those as real numbers - note the smilies.

How's this for a real estimate though:

San Jose Muni (flat greens, easy course, take my word for it):

Ben Crenshaw - 26 putts at most.
Bad amateur putter - 35 putts at least.

Pasatiempo (highly contoured greens, sometimes absurd pin placements):

Ben Crenshaw - 31 putts at least.
Bad putter - 39 putts at most.

Thus 9 v. 8.  And I really do think that's how it would tend to work out.  I've seen it in action at Pasa.  Let's just say if the pins are silly enough, it becomes worse for Ben... while the am eventually gets it in pretty much the same... as all misses roll to pretty much the same spot.

TH