Rollback alliance

[Ken Moum]

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?

Because the effect on full shots is determined by ballistics, it should be somewhat proportional to ball speed.


Hence Dave Tutelman's conclusion that the shortest hitters would gain from a lighter ball. If his math is right,  and I think it is,  long hitters would see drives impacted but not irons.


The actual change in weight would determine where the "no effect" zone would be.


Re. putting we're talking about 0.05 oz. change certainly no more than the 0.07 oz. change in 1930.


This is not a Cayman ball bouncing all over. (The Cayman was about half the weight of a normal ball.)


This has me intrigued though, and i intend to take the Cayman I have out for a test when I get to AZ in a week or so.

[Kalen Braley]

So far I've yet to see any scientific evidence that suggests lesser putters would benefit (by being hurt less than by better putters) for a lighter ball or bumpier greens.

Anecdotally thou, I'd tend to agree that better putters both tend to get the ball online more AND are better at judging speed, so on a poor surface I don't see how they would be hurt more than lesser putters.  And bad bounces certainly don't all happen in one direction, pure randomness tell us sometimes they'll be knocked offline and others online, and on poor greens you can be looking at multiple bad bounces on just one putt!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

That's not how that works.

Imagine a basketball player who shoots at 80% and another who shoots at 60%. Something is installed in the basket that rejects 50% of the shots, randomly. What was a 20% gap in separation becomes a 10% gap: the 80% shooter makes 40%, the 60% shooter makes 30%.

Let's say that this thing also randomly directs 10% of the misses back into the basket. The good shooter now makes 42%. The bad shooter now makes 34%. That narrows the gap to an 8% difference, when they started at 20%.

Play with the numbers all you want: the effects of both, even if applied "equitably" as you said earlier, narrows the gap any way you cut it.

If both are done at 50% (which is silly, because putts are far more likely to be diverted out of the hole than misses are to be diverted into the hole), then both become 50% shooters. It's entirely random. If it's only 10% on makes an 1% on misses changing their outcomes, the 80% shooter becomes a 72.2% shooter and the 60% shooter becomes a 54.4% shooter - what was 20% becomes a 17.8% difference.

"Just as easily knock it back on line."

It doesn't work that way. More bumps = more offline on average (a wider distribution).

A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed.

I think you're grossly under-estimating how large the distribution pattern is for even a good putter. Are you only thinking about like 4' putts or something? I'm talking about ALL putts.

A ball that is going to go in and which is "deflected offline" is going to miss most of the time, while a ball that is going to miss can only go in if it's mis-directed the proper direction — a putt missing only barely left can only go in if it's mis-directed to the right, not if it's mis-directed to the left (or not mis-directed at all).

A "made" putt has a nearly 100% chance of missing if it's "misdirected," while a missed putt (assuming it's mis-directed the proper amount) has a 50% chance of going in if it is mis-directed in the proper direction.

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

A 0.6° deviation is enough to divert a putt that is going to roll about 18" (capture size is about 2.3" at that speed) away from the hole (outside 1.15") from as little as just inside 10' from the hole.

Look, I can take a Perfect Putter and roll balls from the same height to a hole 20' away. I did this the other day, and 2 out of 7 went in. Three missed low and finished about 13-15" past the hole. Two missed high and finished the same distance past the hole. That's due to randomness. If the green was a billiards table (but a bit slower, of course), I could up that make %. If the green was bumpier, I'd miss more.

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.

Thank you! Yes! Mark Broadie talked about the effects of a larger hole in his book, and many (like Ben) thought a bigger hole would favor good putters. People (like Ben, apparently) thought that good putters just missed or nearly made a lot more putts, so with a larger hole, those that just missed would go in, while bad putters missed badly enough that they'd just keep missing them.

This "larger hole" effectively creates the same situation as increased randomness resulting in a larger finish position distribution of putts. Broadie's conclusion?

Luke Donald and Gene Sarazen were right: Poor putters would benefit from a larger hole more than good putters. Simulation results with an eight-inch-diameter hole show that a typical pro putter would gain five strokes from a larger hole; a 90-golfer would gain 6.5 strokes. The gap between good and poor putters narrows with a larger hole. Here’s the intuition: Poor putters have more room for improvement, so the larger hole will benefit them more. Pro putters rarely three-putt and they average about seven one-putts and 11 two-putts in 18 holes. The only room for improvement is turning some two-putts into one-putts. With a larger hole, a 90-golfer will eliminate most three-putts and will have a bigger increase in one-putt holes. A larger hole narrows the difference between good and poor putters, making putting less important.

If you want to question Mark Broadie's grasp of probability and statistics, go ahead. Since it aligns with all that I've been saying and the guy probably knows his stuff… I'm going to go with it.

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 almost exactly the same wording as Broadie used above.

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. 

Yep.

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.

Indeed.

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.

OMG! I'd written all of what I wrote above before I read this response of yours.

Also, you seem to contradict yourself: you said a larger hole would "hurt" the better putters, then you talk about how the better putter's advantage grew. Also, I don't think the second statement is true. Broadie found the opposite to be true, as I quoted above.

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.

Only golf balls that barely reach the middle of the hole will go in "more than 2" left or right" of the hole. You're not factoring in capture size on putts hit past the hole, and again, 1.15" is enough to misdirect a ball from under 10' out after less than a 0.6° misdirection.

So you are correct, the better putter will be impacted more, but in a positive way for them.

Nope. Good putters aren't missing the hole by only a teeny amount. Their distribution pattern — like those of bad putters — only grows with more "randomness."

--------------

Imagine this: players are given a ball that they have to slide or throw into a basket or bucket or hole. There's nothing in the way, there's no wind, the hole doesn't randomly move, etc. This is a game where skill is almost entirely determines the outcome (I'm saying "almost" because I'm reluctant to say always/never). It's like shooting free throws in basketball in an empty arena, except that there's really only one fairly narrow path that really works (like in putting, where the highest and lowest lines aren't all that far apart).

Again, it's a game that's nearly entirely skill-based.

Now imagine instead of just having a free throw or a free line to drop the ball into the bucket, a single "object" is put somewhere in the way. Maybe it'll be along the chosen path, maybe it won't be. This favors the bad player, but not much: when it's on the correct line, the good player is more likely to hit this object and "miss" what would have been a made shot than the bad player. When it's not on the correct line, it doesn't "help" either player on a good shot, but it helps the bad player more often than it helps the good player only because the bad player has more chances for it to help them.

That's just one object in the way.

Now imagine a Plinko field full of objects in the way: the good and bad player would have almost no separation between them at this point. It's almost entirely luck. Sure, the good player's distribution will still be a little bit narrower, but it'll be much wider than it used to be, and the bad player will STILL have more chances for the ball to be diverted into the hole than the good player, and the good player will have more chances for the ball to be diverted OUT of the hole when it was going to go in than the bad player.

Or, as I said a few days ago:

More luck, more randomness, decreases the separation between higher skilled and lower skilled players.

And

A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.

====================

Edit to add this:

Now, since that should put that to bed (and if not, seriously, take it up with Mark Broadie or something), could we get back to talking about the "rollback" since the comment I made which got this started was that a lighter ball would not be enjoyed by good putters as they'd lose some of their advantage over worse putters? It's a tiny little side topic to this point: IF the ruling bodies do eventually do something in this area, I hope they consider and understand ALL of the ramifications.

[Rob Marshall]

2 for 7?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEXESf5tSF8


John was 3 for 3. I guess he was on better greens. Amazingly they all enter the hole at the exact same spot.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I think poor/bumpy greens putting needs to be kept in perspective.  Even on the best greens, anything from even 15-20 feet, a great putter is still going to be lucky to make half of them. (Last year, only one guy did better than 50% on tour and the Tour average was 18%). So if those greens are now bumpy, its basically a complete crap shoot for everyone and difficult to measure.

I think its more interesting to look at say 7 foot putts, where last year on Tour the best player holed 79% of them, the worst 36% of the time, and the Tour Average was 61%.

Lets imagine two putters attempting a 7 footer on a bumpy green: one a very good putter, the other mediocre/average. For the sake of the exercise, we will assume the putt is basically flat and the very good putter has lined it up correctly and starts the stroke at the center of the cup, while the poor one is lined up wrong and starts at the right edge. 

There are 5 basic scenarios that could happen for a putt of this length, assuming some type of random bounce left or right.

                                   Very Good Putter         Mediocre Putter
                                    (Starts center cup)   (Starts right edge)
Stays on line                      Goes in (1)            50/50 (.5)
Small kick left                     Goes in (1)            Goes in (1)
Small kick right                   Goes in (1)            Miss (0)
Bigger kick left                     50/50 (.5)            Goes in (1)
Bigger kick right                   50/50 (.5)            Big miss (0)

In this circumstance:
- The good putter will hole out 3 of 5 times, and still have a chance the other 2 times.
- The mediocre putter will hole out 2 of 5 times, have a chance one other time, but definitely miss 2 other times.

I'll take the odds on the better putter here.  Every. Single. Time.

[JESII]

Erik,


The large hole test doesn't replicate the bouncing ball hypothetical at all because it's a test of making things easier as opposed to more difficult.




This idea of more difficult putting came up years ago and I asked this simple question; in all the activities in the world, which other one becomes relatively easier for the lesser participant as conditions become more difficult?

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.

Player A hits 100 putts on pure greens.  20 of them dead center.  12 of them go in on the right half, 12 go in on the left half.  10 of them miss just left.  10 of them miss just right.  The other 42 putts miss by a couple inches.

Player A made 44 Putts on pure greens.

Player B hits 100 putts on pure greens.  18 are dead center.  10 of them go in on the right.  10 of them go in on the left.  6 of them miss just left.  6 of them miss just right.  The other putts miss by a couple inches.

Player B made 38 putts on pure greens.             

Player A is clearly a better putter on pure greens, as they make 6 more putts per 100 putts.

Now they do the same thing, but on bumpier greens.  For this model, the bumpier greens mean half of the putts go 1 inch right of where they would on pure greens and half go 1 inch to the left.

Player A’s 20 putts that would have been dead center still go in, just on the left or right side.  Half of the putts they would have gone in on the left bounce right and still go in, the other half bounce left and miss.  So 6 makes.  The opposite happens on the right, leading to 6 more makes.  Half of the putts that just missed right on pure greens now bounce in, leading to 5 more makes.  Same on the other side misses, leading to 5 more makes.  The rest of the putts are too far away for the bounces to matter.

Player A makes 42 putts on bumpy greens.

Player B’s 18 putts that were dead center all still go in, but now on the right or left.  Half of putts on the left and right sides of the hole go in now, so 5 and 5.  And half of the puts that would have just missed on pure greens now go in.  3 and 3.  The rest of the putts are too far ways for the bounces to change the outcome

Player B makes 34 putts on bumpy greens.

Player A is relatively an even better putter on bumpy greens as they make 8 more putts than player B.

The randomness of the greens affected the amount of putts the better putter’s made less than the bad putters because they had more putts struck in the middle that couldn't miss, and more putts just off the edges that could get favorable bounces.

The idea that randomness always favors the poorer, less skilled, player is not true.

[JESII]

Ben,


Where are those numbers from?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Jim,

This model illustrates that distribution of performance is what determines how randomness impacts a particular player.

A blanket statement can not be made that randomness always helps the lesser player.

[JESII]

I agree with you...was just curious.


What's been left out of this conversation is what happens to those putts that miss. The lesser player will sure miss more of those second putts for a whole host of reasons.


As Ken has said though...we're talking 0.05oz so not exactly moving to ping pong balls.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Mark Broadie talked about the effects of a larger hole in his book, and many (like Ben) thought a bigger hole would favor good putters. People (like Ben, apparently) thought that good putters just missed or nearly made a lot more putts, so with a larger hole, those that just missed would go in, while bad putters missed badly enough that they'd just keep missing them.

This "larger hole" effectively creates the same situation as increased randomness resulting in a larger finish position distribution of putts. Broadie's conclusion?

Luke Donald and Gene Sarazen were right: Poor putters would benefit from a larger hole more than good putters. Simulation results with an eight-inch-diameter hole show that a typical pro putter would gain five strokes from a larger hole; a 90-golfer would gain 6.5 strokes. The gap between good and poor putters narrows with a larger hole. Here’s the intuition: Poor putters have more room for improvement, so the larger hole will benefit them more. Pro putters rarely three-putt and they average about seven one-putts and 11 two-putts in 18 holes. The only room for improvement is turning some two-putts into one-putts. With a larger hole, a 90-golfer will eliminate most three-putts and will have a bigger increase in one-putt holes. A larger hole narrows the difference between good and poor putters, making putting less important.

If you want to question Mark Broadie's grasp of probability and statistics, go ahead. Since it aligns with all that I've been saying and the guy probably knows his stuff… I'm going to go with it.

Gene Sarazen did think that poor putters would benefit from a larger hole, and he was a big proponent of increasing the hole size.
 
In 1933, Sarazen was instrumental in getting the Miami-Biltmore  pro tournament  to use 6” holes instead of 4.25” holes.  So this idea has been tried in actual professional competition.
 
The result was Paul Runyan won.  Paul Runyan was likely the shortest player in the field, It’s been said that Sam Sneed would out drive him by 75 yards, however he is largely thought to have had one of the best short games in the history of golf.
 
Runyan didn’t just win, he won by 10 shots!
 
That’s where the idea that a bigger hole helps the better putter comes from.  An actual tournament where the best putter destroyed the field.
 
This should hopefully get you to reconsider Broadie’s simulation which is just math, and statistics fit to a curve.  Some of the assumptions in that study are not very sound, but more importantly it’s not structured to actually compare how an amateur would putt vs a professional with larger holes.
 
This is because Broadie modeled professionals putting on greens running at 11 ft, and putting from the places they usually put from, and compared them to a different model of amateurs on greens running at 9 ft at the places they usually putt from. They were 2 different simulations and he somehow tried to correlate the two.
 
You can’t make any sound conclusions about how hole size affects putters of different skill, when the study doesn’t equalize other variables, like greens speed and length of putts, when making the comparison.  That paper would be laughed out of any reasonable statistical review.

[Rob Marshall]

The Paul Runyan story is mentioned in one of Bob Rotella’s books.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't understand the line of thinking that a bigger hole would give the lesser player a bigger advantage.  The only reason I thought they should do it is to make casual rounds go faster with more holeouts...

If they made a basketball hoop 24 inches in diameter, up from 18...yes other players would make more 3s, but Steph Curry might not ever miss a 3 for the rest of his career!

[Ben Hollerbach]

The Paul Runyan story is mentioned in one of Bob Rotella’s books.

"In 1933 Gene Sarazen and some other touring pros decided that there was entirely too much emphasis on the short game, particularly putting. They wanted to redesign golf to favor “shotmaking.” So they prevailed on the organizers of some winter tournaments in Florida to expand the diameter of the hole from 4 ¼ inches to 8 inches.
 
The first tournament conducted with the big hole was called the Florida Year-Round Open. Most players began charging every putt. It didn’t work. Sarazen had several three-putt greens. Runyan had no three-putts. He played his normal game on the greens, and won by 11 strokes.
 
The advocates of the big hole decided this must have been an aberration. They staged another big-hole tournament, this one in Tampa, at match play. The finalists were Paul Runyan and Willie McFarlane, who was also a great short-game player. Runyan won again.
 
The experiment with the big hole ended abruptly that day. It proved only that there is no getting around the importance of the short game."


~Bob Rotella, Golf Is A Game Of Confidence

[Erik J. Barzeski]

John was 3 for 3. I guess he was on better greens. Amazingly they all enter the hole at the exact same spot.

Call John and ask him how random putting can be from 20'. That wasn't a 20-footer, and even at the shorter distance, he missed putts 4 and 6 (and all of putts 7-9 but they weren't ever going in).

I think poor/bumpy greens putting needs to be kept in perspective.  Even on the best greens, anything from even 15-20 feet, a great putter is still going to be lucky to make half of them.

Of course. But that doesn't change what I've been saying: the gap still narrows.

And https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.406.y2021.html shows the "leader" at 30.67%.

Lets imagine two putters attempting a 7 footer on a bumpy green: one a very good putter, the other mediocre/average. For the sake of the exercise, we will assume the putt is basically flat and the very good putter has lined it up correctly and starts the stroke at the center of the cup, while the poor one is lined up wrong and starts at the right edge.

You're assuming things that aren't accurate: the good putter doesn't aim at the center of the hole, and the bad putter doesn't aim at the edge. At best, you could say they do those things the % of the time they make or miss putts. You, like Ben later on, are just making things up, and yet…

In this circumstance:- The good putter will hole out 3 of 5 times, and still have a chance the other 2 times.- The mediocre putter will hole out 2 of 5 times, have a chance one other time, but definitely miss 2 other times.

You've made up some good "fauxtistics." And even making things up… your conclusion is the same as what I've been saying: the gap that was 43% (79-36) is now 20% (3/5 - 2/5). The better putter's advantage, the gap, is decreased.

The large hole test doesn't replicate the bouncing ball hypothetical at all because it's a test of making things easier as opposed to more difficult.

Maybe. Maybe not. But it shows how easy it can be to have something that seems intuitive actually be the opposite.

Player A hits 100 putts on pure greens.  20 of them dead center.  12 of them go in on the right half, 12 go in on the left half.  10 of them miss just left.  10 of them miss just right. The other 42 putts miss by a couple inches.

Ben, you're literally just making stuff up at this point. You've started with the conclusion, and are just making stuff up to try to support your pre-determined conclusion. Fortunately, it's easy to ignore.

How much skill is involved in flipping a coin? Luck or randomness decreases the effects or influence of skill.

A blanket statement can not be made that randomness always helps the lesser player.

Randomness doesn't really "help" any player. Nobody's said that it does. It narrows the gap, or reduces the influence of skill.

I don't understand the line of thinking that a bigger hole would give the lesser player a bigger advantage.  The only reason I thought they should do it is to make casual rounds go faster with more holeouts...

I guess… take it up with Mark. Did you read that part of his book?

And once again, it's not about "helping" or "gaining an advantage" — it's about whether the gap or "separation" would be narrowed or increased.

As Ken has said though...we're talking 0.05oz so not exactly moving to ping pong balls.

Maybe it won't do much. All I'm saying is that, well, I'll just quote myself again:

IF the ruling bodies do eventually do something in this area, I hope they consider and understand ALL of the ramifications.

The JVB article about the "balloon ball" had a 1.55 ounce ball (i.e. only 0.07oz less) and players apparently hated putting with it.

[Rob Marshall]

"Call John and ask him how random putting can be from 20'. That wasn't a 20-footer, and even at the shorter distance, he missed putts 4 and 6 (and all of putts 7-9 but they weren't ever going in)."

I did and he agreed with you. His video was only about 8 feet.

[A.G._Crockett]

The Paul Runyan story is mentioned in one of Bob Rotella’s books.

"In 1933 Gene Sarazen and some other touring pros decided that there was entirely too much emphasis on the short game, particularly putting. They wanted to redesign golf to favor “shotmaking.” So they prevailed on the organizers of some winter tournaments in Florida to expand the diameter of the hole from 4 ¼ inches to 8 inches.
 
The first tournament conducted with the big hole was called the Florida Year-Round Open. Most players began charging every putt. It didn’t work. Sarazen had several three-putt greens. Runyan had no three-putts. He played his normal game on the greens, and won by 11 strokes.
 
The advocates of the big hole decided this must have been an aberration. They staged another big-hole tournament, this one in Tampa, at match play. The finalists were Paul Runyan and Willie McFarlane, who was also a great short-game player. Runyan won again.
 
The experiment with the big hole ended abruptly that day. It proved only that there is no getting around the importance of the short game."


~Bob Rotella, Golf Is A Game Of Confidence

Ben,

This debate has gotten so weird that I've sort of lost track, but your point with this anecdote from Rotella's book just escapes me; I don't think it's EVIDENCE for anything.  Paul Runyan was a great player, and indeed had a great short game.  I've used his Rule of 12 (although it was 11 when he developed it) for chipping for 35 years now; I can't believe more ams don't use it.


But Runyan won 9 times in 1933, and that doesn't even include two tournaments Rotella references; it was the best year of his career, so it wasn't like he was a plumber except when there was a big hole.  Then or now, to win 9 times on the PGA Tour is some pretty serious ball striking; there is just no other way, because those guys ALL have good short games.

If Rotella's point is that the short game is important, then he is, of course, correct, and Runyan is as good an example of that as ever played the game.  But this particular anecdote, absent a LOT more information about those weeks, just doesn't mean a thing, does it?  For instance, when he says the other guys "began charging every putt" that doesn't really mean anything unless you see some "before and after" stats, does it?

I just don't get it.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,


The large hole test doesn't replicate the bouncing ball hypothetical at all because it's a test of making things easier as opposed to more difficult.

Sully nails it!

[Ben Hollerbach]

AG,

The Rotella quote was a follow-up to a previous post that might provide more context. (#635)


Runyan winning on the large hole illustrates that the larger hole did not provide an advantage to weaker putters, which is what Sarazen incorrectly hoped would happen. Of Runyan's 7 stroke play individual victories that year, his winning margins were as follows:

• 2 strokes
• 10 strokes
• 4 strokes
• 2 strokes
• 1 stroke
• Tie
• 3 strokes

The one that stands out the most was his dominant performance on the 6-inch cup. Not only did the large hole fail to provide an equalizer for lesser putters, it helped a great putter distance themselves even more.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,

I believe you are depending on Brodie's result for total putts improving to make your argument. With a larger hole the poorer putter has a much greater chance of his second putt going in, thereby gaining advantage in lowering his total putts. With randomness, the poorer putter will miss more often, as will the better putter. So Broadie doesn't apply, as the result of randomness is directly opposed in results to larger hole results.

Everyone else has rightly been discussing the holing of a single putt, which you label as just making things up.

You are the king of just making things up as witnessed by your making up a correlation of Broadie's work to this issue.

[Pat Burke]

We messed around with the larger holes a few years ago.


For what it’s worth. I was a very good putter from 0-5 feet. Mediocre by tour standards from 6-20
Rarely three putted


I could not miss from 10 feet and in


But more important.   I holed chips and pitches often.  It was easy to be aggressive and go at these tubs because my short putts of 6 feet and less were gimmes


my students who were mini tour and club champion type players saw little gains. Made some more long putts, but made aggressive errors too. 


I grew up on great greens, and I don’t think it is a coincidence I -payed my best in Australia. Being on perfect fast greens made putting easier for me, and I consider myself “mediocre” by tour player standards

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I believe you are depending on Brodie's result for total putts improving to make your argument.

I used Broadie's analysis of the effects of a larger hole to demonstrate that what many think is the obvious answer is often the opposite of what's true, just like how more random bounces on a green would narrow the gap between the best and worst putters. I didn't make up what Broadie wrote; I quoted it. If you want to talk about that (off-topic) subject, maybe take it up with Mark?

When you increase luck/randomness, you decrease the role of skill in determining the outcome. There's no skill in Plinko, or in flipping a true coin, and that's basically all I've been saying here. If the ruling bodies roll the ball back by making it lighter, I just want them to be aware of all that it will affect.

Rob, credit where due to you for your post a few up. John stopped bowling because he was tired of how "random" it seemed to him at the time, and I laughed and said "So now you teach putting?!?!?"

[Garland Bayley]

...
The fun in golf is not relative to the distance one is able to get out of the equipment, but rather shot-making ability relative to the course on which one is playing.   
...

[Matthew Mollica]

Some fascinating comments from Patrick Cantlay recently regarding distance...


“Theoretically, the golf ball needs to go shorter,” he continued, “Every golf course I go to has different tee boxes farther back than even 4-5 years ago when I visited the golf course. It’s getting to the point where the tee boxes are already to the perimeter of the property, so much so that Augusta National has been buying up all the adjacent pieces of property so they can put more tee boxes and change the holes.
“That’s not sustainable. Not only that if pace of play is one of your biggest concerns, how many golf course do I go to on Tour where the tees are 100 yards back? They can’t keep going in this direction.
Cantlay added: “The technology isn’t only better but young guys are trying to hit it farther and farther because the stats say the farther I hit it, the better I’ll play. Something has to give.
“I think the biggest shame is that I can’t go to Cypress Point and play the course the way the designer designed the golf course to be played. The biggest problem for me is when we lose the architectural integrity of the golf course. We’re to the point where that’s where we are. Something has to give.”

[Niall C]

On another thread we have another professional golfer getting slaughtered for being selfish. So do we do the same with Cantlay for selfishly wanting the ball restricted so he, a professional golfer, can play Cypress Point "the way the designer designed the course to be played" irrespective that it would turn it into a slog for the majority of us ?


Niall


ps. if he truly wanted to play it the way the architect anticipated it would be played should he not just go and buy some equipment from the 1920's ? I'm sure some of you hickory enthusiasts could help him out