Common Knowledge Golf Strategy

[Tom_Doak]

In the Midwest, the closer I am to the green, the better I'm going to do.  Getting clean contact isn't an issue at all.  It's like hitting off of a mat.

But if you put me at LACC or Memorial Park, I would struggle a lot with shots in the 30-70 yard range out of the fairway.  Maybe I'd get used to it if I played there all the time, but for a visitor, it's tough.  I'd be seeking to have a shot with a full swing instead of a partial one in those conditions.

That's interesting.  I'd guess it's mostly a matter of confidence.


Years ago I listened to Mike Holder debate with one of his former players, Bob Tway, about what sort of grass to use on the fairways at Karsten Creek.  The coach favored one of the new zoysiagrasses, because the lies were so good.  Tway responded that he would not want to get used to those perfect lies, and then have to go play a wedge shot from a downhill lie on Poa annua.  He favored something that made him learn to pick the ball cleanly.

[Mike Wagner]

What's the static speed in determining?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

a 20 footer has speed to pass the hole say 3 feet every time?

AimPoint typically likes to see a putt go about 18" past the hole. I'm also not sure why this is a question, or what you're asking here, either.

Grain is going to affect the putt more as it loses speed, no?

Why does it matter how much a putt breaks in the part of the putt that should be past the hole? It either went in at that point or already missed.

For a numbers guy to call a 1/2 inch negligible is kind of surprising. I won't put words in your mouth, but that's surprising to hear that 12% of the hole doesn't mean all that much in making your point.

On a putt that breaks 3'… it's < 1.4%. On a 20' putt, a half an inch is also… 0.119°. It's a very small amount.

I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down. I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting .. 18 inches past the hole, etc, etc. For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt. Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck, so it makes me very curious on the testing. Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool. Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down.

Your experience isn't reality. Golfers think they see balls on poa or bent greens "break more" as the putt slows down. And it does… but it's more a matter of acceleration and time. The grain doesn't really increase this much. (Putts accelerate downhill, plus the putt covers the last 3' in more time than it covers the first 3').

The difference is how much that varies on "grainy" greens versus non-grainy greens. And that difference is not much at all.

I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting

No. You've misunderstood that part.

For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt.

It affects it — albeit very, very little — the whole putt.

Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck

That's true of "break" too.

Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool.

It's not about getting on the same page. It's about you valuing what you think you see over what are basically facts.

Here's the deal, in a nutshell.

Mark would measure a green every cm with lasers that were accurate to a millimeter, and his mathematical model could predict the path of a putt hit everywhere at any speed to any distance. The model just assumed a uniform surface (i.e. no grain), and when he tested his model against the grainiest greens… he found that it was off only about 1/2" on a 20' putt across the grainiest greens (I think a 2.5% slope IIRC).

Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.

That's the thing with advancements, science, etc. And kinda the point of this topic: a lot of what people think is true, it turns out, is not.

[Mike Wagner]

I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down.

Your experience isn't reality. Golfers think they see balls on poa or bent greens "break more" as the putt slows down. And it does… but it's more a matter of acceleration and time. The grain doesn't really increase this much. (Putts accelerate downhill, plus the putt covers the last 3' in more time than it covers the first 3').

The difference is how much that varies on "grainy" greens versus non-grainy greens. And that difference is not much at all.

I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting

No. You've misunderstood that part.

For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt.

It affects it — albeit very, very little — the whole putt.

Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck

That's true of "break" too.

Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool.

It's not about getting on the same page. It's about you valuing what you think you see over what are basically facts.

Here's the deal, in a nutshell.

Mark would measure a green every cm with lasers that were accurate to a millimeter, and his mathematical model could predict the path of a putt hit everywhere at any speed to any distance. The model just assumed a uniform surface (i.e. no grain), and when he tested his model against the grainiest greens… he found that it was off only about 1/2" on a 20' putt across the grainiest greens (I think a 2.5% slope IIRC).

Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.

That's the thing with advancements, science, etc. And kinda the point of this topic: a lot of what people think is true, it turns out, is not.

If it's one thing I've learned the last few years, it's always question the science.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If it's one thing I've learned the last few years, it's always question the science.

But experience and anecdata, that's the stuff you lean on! 

[Mike Wagner]

If it's one thing I've learned the last few years, it's always question the science.

But experience and anecdata, that's the stuff you lean on! 

Do you somehow think I was coming at your personally?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do you somehow think I was coming at your personally?

No. Do you somehow think I was being super serious or something, emoji and all?

[David Ober]

That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).

Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.

My own addition to this list will be how players allot their practice time: the majority should NOT be on the short game. GIR is King, and absent a glaring weakness, you should work on the skills that leads to more GIR. In the short term, short game is the quickest way to lower scores, but on the whole, the best long-term strategy is to improve the driving and approach shots (with customization for the length of typical approach shots you face) and to hit more greens (and hit it a tiny bit closer, too).

LOTS of club players having glaring weaknesses, though…


More than Broadie, Fawcett, et al. care to discuss. They are outliers, but they are legion.


I used to make a modest living off them. [size=78%]The “low single digit” group has quite a few, I can tell you for certain. [/size]


I would love to see a study of those players. The bell curve outliers. If you add up the two ends of the bell curve, that is hundreds of thousands if not millions of golfers.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I would love to see a study of those players. The bell curve outliers. If you add up the two ends of the bell curve, that is hundreds of thousands if not millions of golfers.

They're still a pretty small minority. "Common knowledge" should generally apply to the majority, or at least a large minority.

[Jason Topp]

That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).

Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.

Dave Pelz preached this in the 90's at the latest. 

[Charlie Goerges]

That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).

Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.

Dave Pelz preached this in the 90's at the latest.

That's what I thought as well.

[Ken Moum]

In the Midwest, the closer I am to the green, the better I'm going to do.  Getting clean contact isn't an issue at all.  It's like hitting off of a mat.

But if you put me at LACC or Memorial Park, I would struggle a lot with shots in the 30-70 yard range out of the fairway.  Maybe I'd get used to it if I played there all the time, but for a visitor, it's tough.  I'd be seeking to have a shot with a full swing instead of a partial one in those conditions.

That's interesting.  I'd guess it's mostly a matter of confidence.


Years ago I listened to Mike Holder debate with one of his former players, Bob Tway, about what sort of grass to use on the fairways at Karsten Creek.  The coach favored one of the new zoysiagrasses, because the lies were so good.  Tway responded that he would not want to get used to those perfect lies, and then have to go play a wedge shot from a downhill lie on Poa annua.  He favored something that made him learn to pick the ball cleanly.

We know who won that argument. 


Having played a lot in Kansas on Zoysia, and a few rounds at Karsten Creek I agree with Tway.  It's like hitting off tall range mats.


It's the hacker's best friend.  Every high handicapper I knew there could scoop their tree wood happily and never worry about hitting the ground behind the ball.