Do highly contoured greens favor bad putters?

[Tom Huckaby]

Whoa.  I very much disagree with the second scenario... so at least you've defined our disagreement!

At least as I'm looking at this, I don't see the good putter doing nearly as well, nor the bad putter nearly as bad, on the contoured greens.

So there we have it.  The basis for disagreement.  Not much further we can go....

TH

[JESII]

That's Absurd.

[Tom Huckaby]

That's Absurd.

 
Of course it is!

[Doug Sobieski]

That's Absurd.

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Huck:

I think you are overestimating how often the good putter is going to three putt. By the sound of your position, I should barely be able to get it within 6 feet, and should have 36+ putts per round at places like Oakmont or Crystal Downs.

[Tom Huckaby]

Doug:

I've never been to either Crystal Downs or Oakmont.

But I'd defy you to have less than 36 putts at Pasatiempo if you let me set the pins and get the speeds up.

In any case, I don't think the good putter is going to go three-jacking every green... he just may have one or two... where he NEVER will on flat greens.  Hell I've explained it countless times before, as I see it.

So we shall disagree.

And neither position is absurd, as tempting as it might be to slam that back at you.  

[Doug Sobieski]

Doug:

I've never been to either Crystal Downs or Oakmont.

But I'd defy you to have less than 36 putts at Pasatiempo if you let me set the pins and get the speeds up.

In any case, I don't think the good putter is going to go three-jacking every green... he just may have one or two... where he NEVER will on flat greens.  Hell I've explained it countless times before, as I see it.

So we shall disagree.

And neither position is absurd, as tempting as it might be to slam that back at you.  

Huck:

I'll take that wager!! The only problem now is making it happen.

Sorry for not including a smiley after any "absurd" comment   Now if you want something REALLY absurd, you should see my lifelong struggle with the driver.

Is it OK if I still think you are insane?

Sobe

[Tom Huckaby]

Serenity now... insanity later.

 

You really do need to see how awful the pins could get at Pasa.  But of course it would be fun regardless....

TH

[David Stamm]

Doug:

 

But I'd defy you to have less than 36 putts at Pasatiempo if you let me set the pins and get the speeds up.
   

 

 

Tom, just the thought of 8,9,11,12,13,14 and 18 at tourney speeds makes me shutter.  

[Tom Huckaby]

David - you and me both, brother.  Now think of it placing the pins in the most awful possible places....

Of course it's silly, but this is the extreme which shows how things would be equalized.  ALL putters would just keep on missing and missing and missing....

TH

[JESII]

Tom, If the ball cannot possibly stop near the hole, and will always return to the same low spot it is not putting. If that is the scenario you are envisioning making your thesis hold then answer me this; after both players have putted their first ball and it ends up in the "low spot", who will hole that particular putt first? Considering your scenario in which the ball returns to the same spot say 20 feet below a hole, doesn't the better putter now have an incredible advantage because he holes infinitely more straight 20 footers than the lesser putter.[/i]

Seriously, try to envision this. Both players have now putted from 20 feet. The good player barely misses the hole and the ball runs down the slope to a low point 20 feet below the hole. The lesser putter might miss the hole by a foot, but the ball still goes to this same low spot. This is now a pretty straight putt that cannot stop near the hole. The 20 footer is to be repeated until the ball is holed. The Tour caliber putter will make after just a few tries, while the mediocre putter could be there for a long damn time.

Any chance? Or are you so entrenched in agreeing to disagree that this line of reasoning can't crack through?

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully, I get that.  Just remember we're now talking about a very silly extreme that is darn unlikely to ever occur, one I mentioned only to try to get you guys thinking about what might happen on severely contoured greens.

So I get that the 20 footer eventually gets made, and quicker, by the better putter.  But change it to a pin where the common low is only 6 feet away... or 3 feet... then see how it works?

The point is more how things get equalized and skill is rather removed from the equation.

Because what's far more likely to occur is the pro misses barely, the am misses by a few feet, then both make, and 2=2.

TH

[JESII]

That's where it shocks me that you concede the second putt to the lesser so easily. When you play at Pasatiempo and the pins are tame (which I am sure is still very difficult) how often do the mediocre putters you play with putt their 20 footers up to easy tap in range? I just can't see it happening all that often. the conspiracy of issues fighting them doing that seem to make it unlikely.

[Doug Sobieski]

Sully:

That example convinced me even more, and I was already 110% on your side of the fence!!!

I wonder if Huck considers himself as someone that benefits from more highly contoured greens according to his position on this matter.  

Sobe

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully:

What I see happening - and I say this in all sincerity and honesty - is a lot of times where both putters do two putt.  Combine that with the infrequency of one-putts by the good putter just due to the contour, and it plays out as I say.  I understand you disagree.  But having seen it play out at Pasa, well... your words are powerful and your logic sound, but it doesn't trump experience.

Doug:  I am a profoundly average putter - great at times, awful at times, streaky at best.  I have no personal stake in this.  That being said, I am among the better players in my tournament group, and kinda sadly I generally do play with players far worse than me.... such that I am definitely a better putter darn near always than my playing partners.  And again in all candor and honesty, I find my advantage negated at Pasa.  Again I understand that your experience differs.  But differing on this point, we must remain.

 

[Doug Sobieski]

Again I understand that your experience differs.  But differing on this point, we must remain.

 

No problem there. The more important thing for me now is to find the type of golf course that turns my diving hook into an advantage!  

Now for the big question.... Do you think the Simpson's Movie coming out next year will disappoint us, or will it exceed our expectations?

[Tom Huckaby]

 
Now THAT is a solid question, one worthy of 14 pages of discussion.

I'm leaning toward disappointment... but that being said, perhaps low expectations will mean higher satisfaction?

 

TH

ps - Pebble Beach - at least 15 holes all the trouble is on the right.  

[Doug Sobieski]

ps - Pebble Beach - at least 15 holes all the trouble is on the right.  

We can't forget about The Old Course!

I'm worried that the movie will mark the point where they finally jump the shark.  

[Tom Huckaby]

The Old Course - great call!

And that is a very valid worry.  It's amazing they haven't vaulted el tiburon yet.  

[George Pazin]

David - you and me both, brother.  Now think of it placing the pins in the most awful possible places....

Of course it's silly, but this is the extreme which shows how things would be equalized.  ALL putters would just keep on missing and missing and missing....

TH

Have you seen the greens at The Masters on TV? How about Oakmont or Shinnecock, under US Open conditions? Sure, the pros 3 putted a few times, but generally not.

What really differentiates good putters from bad putters is lag putting, not holing 30 footers.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

"A few times" is more than none.  And therein lies a very key part of this whole thing.

And I agree with your differentiation assessment.  But my conclusions after that obviously differ with yours.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm glad to have indirectly started a topic that generates an unlucky 13 pages of response.

To clarify my initial thoughts on contoured greens, my comments came from Larry Nelson when we were collaborating on our first design (Brookstone in Atlanta) He felt contoured greens took away the advantage of his competitors who were better putters, but less accurate in iron play.  In essence, the comparison was between similarly skilled players (ie tour level) with some being better putters and others scoring through accuracy (ie leaving shorter putts).  
 
Given that tour level guys aren't going to three putt that often, the question remains if contoured greens reduce the amount of one putts of the best putteres, while not increasing three putts of other good players.

I think the answer is yes, because a good player who never seems to make a decent putt doesn't necessarily miss by ten feet, he just misses, probably by a faulty stroke, but possibly because of reads.  Either way, a good putter who has more trouble reading the contoured greens (or matching reads to speed, etc.) will make less, narrowing the differential in that part of the game.  I agree contoured greens (or any other difficulty factor) affect a handicap player 4 times as much as the Tour pro.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff:

Remember this thread would be many more pages if the change to 35 posts per page hadn't been implemented.  

As for the substance, of course I am with you, and it plays out even more obviously if the comparison is between tour pros, one being a good putter, one not so good - because the not so good is still going to be pretty damn good... and what's going to happen then is a lot of two putts by both.  The good putter barely misses, the lesser putter misses by a few feet, both then make the 2nd.  The good putters advantage is thus negated.

I'd say this same scenario plays out a lot more often than just with tour pros also... any time you have two players where the putting difference is not extreme, the advantage for the better one will be negated on contoured greens - just as you and Larry Nelson have described.

It does get a little more difficult to visualize on the extremes, but I am sticking with my take even there.  But this example does clearly show what the main point is here.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

And I am sticking with my contention that many three putts and four putts of average golfers will be conceded out of mercy, negating the downside for average players and poor putters.

I admit to not having read all 13 pages.  Has anyone even broached how a contoured green green helps the "feel" guy, ie, better chipper or factored that into the "how many putts" calculations?

[JESII]

Hold on a second there Tom. Go back and re-read what Jeff said there. According to his statement, Larry Nelson felt contoured greens took away the advantage of a great putter that is not as accurate with approach shots as he was. In other words Nelson observed that he was consistently closer to the hole than some of his opponents on approach shots but their odds of making their first putt went down. His comments take the entire game into account and do not address the issue of this thread of putting, and putting from the same position on every green.

Now, I did read Jeff's opinion that among Tour players he feels this phenomenon may play out but read his last sentence. It is 180 degrees from your position. He sees what I see.

Now back to Tour players, or any fairly equal level player that have some discrepency in their putting game, I'd have to see it. You and I see this completely differently and that's great, but another one of your guys just jumped off your wagon and we are happy to take him.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully - I don't read it that way - Jeff is very much with me.

He's just brought up a different comparison, that's all.

A powerful point is indeed that the better player will get the ball closer and thus generally have easier putts.  I thought I conceded that long ago... if not, well, I do understand this.  I just don't believe that negates anything I've been saying... his putts will be easier, but not THAT much easier such that all else is negated.

And I don't think that's what Jeff, or Larry Nelson, was saying - Nelson was rather pointing to one specific thing.  I keep trying to refer to the general, overall.

And no, Jeff''s last sentence is not 180 degrees from what I've been saying, far from it.  I can take that and STILL make my contentions.  But do you really want to go through all of that again?

TH