[Erik J. Barzeski]

Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.

No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.

[Rob Marshall]

Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.

No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.

So please tell me what part of my statement is not correct. Please enlighten me.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Worth a read and/or Podcast listen - USGA’s Mike Whan - https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/
Make of it what you wish.
Atb

Agreed definitely worth a listen, although Andy really lobbed some softballs for Whan to clobber before getting to the meat of the conversation. Whan's comments makes me think that the USGA will drag this process out as long as possible. Distance Insights, then some vague interim report, then comments/gnashing of teeth, etc. etc. The timeline sounds like a decade at best at that rate.

[jeffwarne]

Worth a read and/or Podcast listen - USGA’s Mike Whan - https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/
Make of it what you wish.
Atb

Whan's comments makes me think that the USGA will drag this process out as long as possible. Distance Insights, then some vague interim report, then comments/gnashing of teeth, etc. etc. The timeline sounds like a decade at best at that rate.

You mean another decade(after two already)
ship sailed long ago, but hey, they can torture Phil(and Bryson) I guess

[Ken Moum]

Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.

No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.

You, my friend, are full of it on the subject of bumpy greens.


Having grown up on Poa annua greens and having played at least a hundred tournament matches on them, I assure you that putting on them is a skill.


And it's a skill that can be learned. 


And if you really believe that dropping the weight of the ball by something like 0.05 oz. will show up in putting...

[Mike_Clayton]

Ian Baker-Finch was a great putter and I always thought he putted bad greens really well because he was usually hitting great putts - putts which seemed to me had a better chance of going in than putts not quite so purely hit or rolled.
And the greens at Birkdale were really bad the year he won The Open.

[jeffwarne]

Ian Baker-Finch was a great putter and I always thought he putted bad greens really well because he was usually hitting great putts - putts which seemed to me had a better chance of going in than putts not quite so purely hit or rolled.
And the greens at Birkdale were really bad the year he won The Open.

The best putters putt better everywhere, but really shine on bad greens because they simply give the ball more chances to go in.
They alos are far less likely to lose their confidence on poor greens,secure in their knowledge that they are indeed good putters,unlike poor or average putters who can lose their stroke even more on a poor surface.
The ball is far smaller than the hole, and a dead center putt that wobbles and bumps has a better chance to still go in than one that was only marginally online to start. Also better putters have a knack for reading grain/bumps and even know who to add enough loft(ball forward and/or hands back) to avoid early grain or bumps.

[Ken Moum]

Ian Baker-Finch was a great putter and I always thought he putted bad greens really well because he was usually hitting great putts - putts which seemed to me had a better chance of going in than putts not quite so purely hit or rolled.
And the greens at Birkdale were really bad the year he won The Open.

The best putters putt better everywhere, but really shine on bad greens because they simply give the ball more chances to go in.
They alos are far less likely to lose their confidence on poor greens,secure in their knowledge that they are indeed good putters,unlike poor or average putters who can lose their stroke even more on a poor surface.
The ball is far smaller than the hole, and a dead center putt that wobbles and bumps has a better chance to still go in than one that was only marginally online to start. Also better putters have a knack for reading grain/bumps and even know who to add enough loft(ball forward and/or hands back) to avoid early grain or bumps.

Also, some of them, like my brother who was a scratch golfer until he had a stroke at about age 60, and still stayed in single digits after, had a knack for getting the ball rolling on top of the grass.


Dave Stockton was like that, in fact I recall a report of him putting in the SAM lab and that no one they ever tested had less skid of the ball.  My brother, like Stockton, used a forward press, and he also had a bit of upward movement in his follow through.


When he was on, the ball went in the hole like a mouse. Even on Poa annua.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So please tell me what part of my statement is not correct. Please enlighten me.

I'll re-state/clarify, even though I think the majority won't need this.

I have said that when you increase randomness or "luck," you decrease the effects of skill on the outcome. An event that's 100% random has no room for skill, and a game that's 100% skill (chess is close, except by luck white plays first) has little room for luck.

Take anything and make it "more random" and you reduce the role or influence of skill in determining the outcome.

A lighter ball would be subject to more random little bounces and whatnot, thus, better putters in particular would dislike it as it would reduce their advantage.

It's just logic.

[Rob Marshall]

So please tell me what part of my statement is not correct. Please enlighten me.

I'll re-state/clarify, even though I think the majority won't need this.

I have said that when you increase randomness or "luck," you decrease the effects of skill on the outcome. An event that's 100% random has no room for skill, and a game that's 100% skill (chess is close, except by luck white plays first) has little room for luck.

Take anything and make it "more random" and you reduce the role or influence of skill in determining the outcome.

A lighter ball would be subject to more random little bounces and whatnot, thus, better putters in particular would dislike it as it would reduce their advantage.

It's just logic.

This was my statement….” Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.”
[/size][/color]
[/size]You didn’t answer the question. What is not true?[/color]

[Rob Marshall]

Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.

No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.

You, my friend, are full of it on the subject of bumpy greens.


Having grown up on Poa annua greens and having played at least a hundred tournament matches on them, I assure you that putting on them is a skill.


And it's a skill that can be learned. 


And if you really believe that dropping the weight of the ball by something like 0.05 oz. will show up in putting...

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been playing on Poa greens for nearly 50 years.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You didn’t answer the question. What is not true?

I wasn't even addressing anything you said there (because none of what you are talking about is at all provable, and falls under "myth" or "anecdotal" headings). I was addressing Ben's incorrect comments about skill and randomness.

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been playing on Poa greens for nearly 50 years.

People used to think "drive for show, putt for dough" was true, too.

Increase randomness and you decrease the separation in skill. Just logical.

[Ken Moum]

You didn’t answer the question. What is not true?

I wasn't even addressing anything you said there (because none of what you are talking about is at all provable, and falls under "myth" or "anecdotal" headings). I was addressing Ben's incorrect comments about skill and randomness.

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been playing on Poa greens for nearly 50 years.

People used to think "drive for show, putt for dough" was true, too.

Increase randomness and you decrease the separation in skill. Just logical.

What we're saying is that the bumpiness that occurs in putting greens doesn't so much create actual randomness, as it creates a situation where truly good putters' roll of the ball is affected less than the roll of poorer putters.


The explanation I have used that gets the most resonance with good players is that it's like playing in the wind.  Well-struck shots are less affected by the wind, and perfectly rolled putts are less affected by the surface.


What I have seen playing tournaments against even good players who have all or most of their experience on smooth, fast greens is that their strokes are good at two things, line and speed.  But many, many of them don't get the ball turning end over end very effectively.


I don't have access to putting lab equipment, but I would love to see the effect of a stroke like Dave Stockton's on balls rolled on "imperfect" greens vs. a stroke of someone who didn't roll it like he did.


They measure the amount of skid and bounce, but everything I have seen from the labs leaves out what that means on various "quality" of surfaces.


I figured it out for myself when I moved from a town where the only course had small, fast greens that were walk mowed seven days a week, to one that had huge greens that were triplex mowed. 


And the first course was in an area where cool nights all summer long, and reasonable humidity and precip. meant that the greens weren't very stressed.  My new home had hot, dry, windy weather in the summer, and a lot of exposed, elevated greens, so the superintendent was very cautious about height of cut.


As a consequence, at age 28 I almost had to start over with my putting technique.  But the exercise taught me a lot about how my stroke determined the roll of the ball, not the surface.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What we're saying is that the bumpiness that occurs in putting greens doesn't so much create actual randomness, as it creates a situation where truly good putters' roll of the ball is affected less than the roll of poorer putters.

Y'all can believe what you want. That doesn't make it true. You have anecdotes, not proof.

Increase the role of randomness and skill plays a lesser role. A lighter ball will be deflected more than a heavier ball.

It's anecdotal as well, but:
https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/

The New York Times reported later that year that the primary complaints by players about the ‘balloon’ ball were that ‘they were losing distance on their shots, found it increasingly difficult to play into the wind and finally that the ball did not have the true putting qualities of the old ball on the green.’

Once the hot weather arrived the players found that the balls didn’t roll as accurately either.

[JESII]

But Erik, their position is that the poor putters will be effected more than the good putters by this increased randomness. It’s not a zero sum game like chess or the lottery where increasing luck must have an offsetting reduction in skill.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But Erik, their position is that the poor putters will be effected more than the good putters by this increased randomness. It’s not a zero sum game like chess or the lottery where increasing luck must have an offsetting reduction in skill.

100% is 100%. What other inputs are there beyond "skill" and "randomness" in saying "those two things determine the outcome"?  What else is there? Because I think everything you could tell me fits into "skill."

You're seemingly buying in to the stuff they're selling you. Good putters are good putters. Good putters putt well on all types of surfaces. You're getting caught up in the fact that some players can prefer (because they grew up playing, perhaps) one type of grass over another. But they're still going to be good putters, and on the PGA Tour, they get pretty good at playing all types of surfaces. Brandt Snedeker has a reputation for playing well at Pebble, and by extension putting well there, but that requires people to both ignore the times he doesn't play well there, and the times he doesn't have a great putting round there, and that he's a pretty good putter everywhere else, too. (Top 40 in SG:P every year, often top 15 or 10, going back to 2014 when I stopped looking, so probably before that too…)

So, yes, some players slightly prefer one surface over another — it can take a little while to learn to adjust for the slight speed change found in grainy Bermuda if you grew up playing on poa as I did — but putting is about reading the green, hitting your line, and controlling your distance, and those skills translate across all putts everywhere. Good putters all tend to hit putts similarly, and bad putters tend to have poorer speed control and poorer start line control (and/or poorer reads, of course).

So just as with Brandt, you can say "oh, Jordan Spieth putted better than Dustin Johnson at Chambers Bay" but look past the fact that you're talking about a guy who finished second, and clearly played (and putted) better than many, many others there. And ignore that even 72 holes is a pretty small sample size when you're talking about "luck" in putting, while these guys would be putting with a ball that weighed maybe 4-5% less with every putt forever, over far more than 72 holes. You can say things like "oh he gets the ball rolling on top of the grass" or "his ball looks like it dives in the hole like a mouse" but that's all just gobbledygook that reinforces what you think you see. It's the same type of thinking that led to "drive for show, putt for dough" type comments. If Strokes Gained type stuff has taught us much, it's that some of these things aren't grounded in reality.

Guys on the PGA Tour are measured with many, many measuring devices. Quintic, SAM, Capto… They all "get the ball rolling on top of the grass" pretty well — you can't really make the ball roll "through" or "under" the grass. It's not physically possible. And this isn't the 1970s when greens were cut longer — PGA Tour players putt on 10-11 stimp greens week in and week out — and when a lot of these types of "phrases" were born. Some players still deliver a bit too much loft, or hit down a bit and get a tiny bit of "backspin" (which can negatively affect distance control/speed a bit), but even those who deliver great launch conditions are getting only the tiniest bit of "forward roll" on the ball. The difference between good and bad putters is generally not their true "launch conditions" — it's read, bead, and speed. The balls of good and bad putters still launch a bit in the air, lands and bounce ever so slightly, and as friction grabs the ball, converts the ball to forward roll where the rotation rate matches the linear rate (i.e. true roll). Good putters read putts a bit better, or control distance a bit better, or hit their intended lines a bit more often.

And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.

And it's just one of the side effects of one of the "ideas" for rolling back the ball — it won't putt the same, and putting will be a lower or lesser "separator" than it is now. (Maybe some people would like that!) And like I said, if you want anecdotes, they also support what I'm saying — read the article here on GCA by JVB and it said twice about the lighter ball that players didn't like how it putted — likely because it was "more random" and "less skill."

Is it the biggest factor? No. Is it likely to be measurable? Yes, I think so. Are there other things, too: yeah, of course: a lighter ball will sit up in the rough more, or even sit up in the fairways more. It'll sit up in bunkers more. It'll be more affected by the wind. It'll go perhaps farther for a slower swinger (narrowing the gap non-linearly, as the Tutelman graphs show). Balls might land at sharper angles because they might launch a bit higher or rise a bit more… all kinds of things will change. If there is to be a rollback, I'd just hope that all things are considered. Imagine how much of a pain it would be to roll the ball back, and then find out that either a) engineers or whomever just "work around" it in a year or two, or b) that there are two or three "bad" and unintended but unforeseen consequences?

This is the kind of thing — putting performance — that could be tested. Get a Perfect Putter and roll thousands of putts on actual putting greens and see how many are made (and where the misses finish) with a lighter ball and a current ball. You'll see a larger distribution pattern on the lighter ball. So, if the "lighter ball" is chosen as the way to go forward… I just hope they know what they're getting, and they've tested and planned for every outcome, including the narrowing of "separation" between good and bad putters.

[Ben Hollerbach]

And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.

For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.

You have anecdotes, not proof.

As you above statement is pure opinionated anecdote, I'm eagerly awaiting statistical proof to back up your claims.

[Ken Moum]

And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.

For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.

You have anecdotes, not proof.

As you above statement is pure opinionated anecdote, I'm eagerly awaiting statistical proof to back up your claims.

There's got to be a way to get the data one way or the other.


Maybe separating SGP by surface type would get us something useful.


Better would be using a putting robot set up to emulate the best and worst rolls of the pros and putting with it on pure vs. "bumpy" surfaces.  Noting, however, that the pros don't ever see actually bumpy greens




FWIW,  I saw a quote from Max Faulkner about picking up debris on his putting line when asked why he hadn't.  Didn't he worry about it knocking his ball off line?


"Just as easily knock it back on line."


Also, the putting quote from Jon VDBs essay was both clearly anecdotal and involved balls that were both bigger and lighter than previously.


If the point of this argument is that pros aren't going to like balls that are different...well, duh.

[Ben Hollerbach]

And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.

For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.

Considering the above statement.


A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.


The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.

[A.G._Crockett]

And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.

For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.

Considering the above statement.


A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.


The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.

Ben, if I'm reading your post correctly, you are making Erik's point for him, aren't you?

When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.


Better putters start the ball online more often than lesser putters, don't they?  So the better putter doesn't need the "help" in having the ball knocked online you are talking about, even if it's only in one direction, as often as the lesser putter.  Meanwhile, the better putter's online putts, which are more frequent to begin with, will also therefore more often be knocked offline, and in two different directions. 


That's randomness, for sure, and there is NO way that doesn't impact the better putter more.  The lesser putter is going to miss more often anyway; the better putter is going to miss more than they would have otherwise.  Again, there is just no way around that. 


Randomness in sports, ALL sports, reduces the gap between better players and teams vs lesser players and teams.  I have NO chance of beating Lebron in basketball, but I might be able to take him in a coin flip contest. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.


The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.

Ben, if I'm reading your post correctly, you are making Erik's point for him, aren't you?

When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.

AG,

The same logic was once thought to apply to making the hole larger. A larger hole would hurt the better putters because others near misses would go in more frequently. What was found was a better putter's advantage actually grew. A good putter makes more putts than an average putter AND a good putter has more near-misses than an average putter.

For a misdirection to matter, the magnitude of the misdirection must be in proportion to the line of the putt. A ball that has a perfect line would need to be misdirected more than 2 inches left or right to miss the hole. A ball that is 1" wide of the hole would need a misdirection of ~1.25 inches in the correct direction to be turned into a made putt. As the magnitude needed to impact the putt's outcome grows, the probability of that outcome diminishes.

So you are correct, the better putter will be impacted more, but in a positive way for them. The misdirection does not hurt a good putter who's ball is online. As they have more near-misses than the average player, they have more opportunities to capitalize on a positive near-miss misdirection than the average player. Their putting advantage is heightened.

[jeffwarne]

This thread is a perfect illustration of the how the USGA's inaction over 20 years has allowed them to perfect the art of distraction, much to the glee of the manufacturers.
Mike Whan's recent "Christmas Tree presents" analogy being the icing on the cake for their status quo justifications.

[A.G._Crockett]

A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.


The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.

Ben, if I'm reading your post correctly, you are making Erik's point for him, aren't you?

When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.

AG,

The same logic was once thought to apply to making the hole larger. A larger hole would hurt the better putters because others near misses would go in more frequently. What was found was a better putter's advantage actually grew. A good putter makes more putts than an average putter AND a good putter has more near-misses than an average putter.

For a misdirection to matter, the magnitude of the misdirection must be in proportion to the line of the putt. A ball that has a perfect line would need to be misdirected more than 2 inches left or right to miss the hole. A ball that is 1" wide of the hole would need a misdirection of ~1.25 inches in the correct direction to be turned into a made putt. As the magnitude needed to impact the putt's outcome grows, the probability of that outcome diminishes.

So you are correct, the better putter will be impacted more, but in a positive way for them. The misdirection does not hurt a good putter who's ball is online. As they have more near-misses than the average player, they have more opportunities to capitalize on a positive near-miss misdirection than the average player. Their putting advantage is heightened.

I don't see those two things as analogous in the least; one makes putting easier and is in NO way random, while the other "punishes" randomly, regardless and to the detriment of skill.  One rewards good putting even more, and the other penalizes better putting disproportionately, since the lesser putter was already going to miss.  They don't match up even a little bit.

[JMEvensky]

So a lighter ball would affect putting, driving, and presumably iron play. Any way to figure out if the effects would fall disproportionately on any particular skill set?

[JESII]

AG and Erik,


You see the lighter ball bouncing out of the hole on good putters having a greater effect than on bad putters who will already miss.


What happens on the second putts?


I see the good putters missing one or two putts because of this but see the bad putter missing several second putts because their first putt is now further away.


Thoughts?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()