[THuckaby2]

John K.:

Now that is a good test.  My feeling is that the delta will be greater on the flat greens, for all the reasons I've mentioned too many times already.

But of course I could be wrong, and I have a lot of faith that the good putters will make putts on flat, and NOT make putts on HIGHLY contoured, and that the bad putter just misses no matter what.

If you disagree with any of that, than you disagree with my overall assessment.  And that is just fine!

I feel pretty confident in this, though.  

[THuckaby2]

George:

Just how many people have gone through an entire Masters with no three putts?  Isn't that an EXTREMELY rare occurrence?  And we're talking the best putters in the world here... If anything the results of the Masters proves my point that even the best do 3putt when contour is severe enough. And sure, a bad putter might 4putt.... but not more than the good putter 3putts.  Contour remains an equalizer.

I've also never made the assumption that highly contoured greens are slow.  I just don't think speed changes any of the factors here relevant to the overall assessment.

TH

[JakaB]

The proof lies in the fact that great ball strikers win the Majors all most exclusively every year while great putters can win on tour any day of the week....Nicklaus and Palmer own the Masters because the great greens put a higher premium on ball striking than putting...

[THuckaby2]

Damn good putters make slightly fewer long first putts on highly contoured greens.  They do not double their 3-putt quotient, however (maybe more like 1.3X).

Disagree.  Damn good putters damn near NEVER 3putt on flat greens, whereas they sure as hell do on contoured greens.  That's a very key point in my argument here.

So I'd say their 3putt quotient goes up at about a 10x clip.  That is, one 3jack for every 100 on flat, 10 for every hundred on HIGHLY contoured (think #8, 11, 16 Pasa).

Perhaps I've seen too few truly great putters to make this statement based on observation, though.  I just do know that I surely have seen plenty of players who THINK they are great putters 3jack all over Pasa, for example.  
 

[THuckaby2]

And ANGC is hardly the place to make any intelligent conclusions regarding putting, generally.

Concur with that.  Use of extremes in arguments never really works.  I'm sure putting on the moon changes all this due to the absence of gravity, but what does that matter?

So take Pasa as a worthwhile example.  I like John K's proposed test.  I think it comes out one way, I gather he thinks it comes out another, fair enough.

TH

[TEPaul]

I'm actually one of those people who thinks the green and green-end and complicated play on and around the green is a wonderful thing---one of the real essences of golf and architecture actually. Why? Because I see the green and green end as what I've called that democratic area of golf and architecture.

On and around the green is that area the Tortoise can catch back up to the Hare. The green and green-end doesn't take the strength and the athletic ability "through the green" does. And as such I look at the green and green-end as the potential great leveler.

Some good golfers and even very good architects thought putting should be minimized because it allowed the tortoise to potentially catch the hare and some thought that wasn't right or wasn't fair, or something?

Why isn't it fair? Matter of fact it makes golf that much more interesting as it really is the place where imagination and concentration not just strength and athletic ability can allow perhaps even a little old lady to catch up to a good player. The other interesting thing is this actually adds to the frustration of the good player and has a net negative effect on him simply because he can't handle it psychologically.

What could be better?

[JakaB]

Speaking of the moon....Shivas says he is a good putter...a damn good putter sometimes....If he were a bad putter where would his first putt at Pasa ended up on 17....the moon..

[THuckaby2]

Concur with all of that, TEP.  That's what makes this all fun to conjecture about, as well.

Could we have a discussion of who's better off, the longer hitter or the shorter, assuming they both hit it equally straight?  Seems pretty bloody obvious (though I wouldn't bet against SOMEONE here trying to say the shorter hitter has the advantage).  

Putting and short-game play is a great equalizer indeed, and that's what makes it fascinating.  It doesn't take strength particularly, so no body type has an advantage.  The tortoise can catch up to the hare for sure on the greens.  And yes, that is one of the things that makes the game great.  Sans that, we wouldn't really need to leave the range.

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH;

On the other hand, George Thomas's "half strokes for putts" really was an interesting proposal. It wasn't that Thomas didn't like putting, just that he could see with half strokes for putts was a way of minimizing the fact that the tortoise could sneak up and catch the hare on the greens so easily---and that could produce an interesting consequence----eg allow architects to design more holes in that so-called "half par" range and with a lot less bunkers and such---all resulting in Thomas's real goal--to build less expensive and less costly to maintain golf architecture.

[Andy Hughes]

Concur with that.  Use of extremes in arguments never really works.  I'm sure putting on the moon changes all this due to the absence of gravity, but what does that matter?

Generally that may make sense, but using ANGC allows us all to have a common baseline.  We all have either been there or watched the Masters a zillion times.  When you mention a putt at Pasa, well, some of us have played there, and many others have not so it loses some relevance.
But we can all imagine and think back to great putters at the Masters, and then try and imagine lousy putters trying to cope with those same greens.  It could easily be very ugly and 3, 4 and 5 putts are very believable (granted, ANGC just may be a bit on the extreme side  )

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom Huckaby,
I agree with you that the good putter will three putt more often on the contoured green.  However, doesn't that mean that:

1. the contoured green MUST, by definitition, be more difficult than the flat green

2. the more difficult contoured green would cause the poor putter to increase his/her 3 putts at an even greater rate than the good putter

If number 1 is true and number 2 isn't, then the contoured green would have to be harder for the good putter and easier for the poor putter at the same time!  I can't imagine this being possible.

[BCrosby]

TEP -

Your post #59 is superb.

There have been a lot of brain cells killed today on the main thread topic. I'm not sure I get it.

Good putters have better strokes, more imagination and better vision than less good putters.  That is true without regard to green speeds, contours or putting surfaces. In my experience, the gap between good putters and not so good putters does not vary much with conditions.

At least that seems to be true in the narrow little world I live in.

Fast greens, slow greens, flat greens, sloped greens - it doesn't matter - good putters always beat me up and take my money.

Bob

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Good point.  There are no easy answers in this life, my friend.  

Andy - also good point re Augusta.  We all do know it.  I just do know that Dave S. and both John K's know Pasa as well, thus the preference for that, especially when one considers the relatively absurd extremes the Augusta greens reach.  But it is a good common ground, anyway.

AGC:  I'm not sure I agree with point 2.  The bad putter 3putts no matter how the green is.  Sure he'd 3putt MORE on a contoured green, but not enough more to overcome the fact that the good putter 3putts on a contoured green whereas he nearly never will on a flat green.

Whew!  This is rather difficult to quantify and try to explain.

 

[JakaB]

If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..

[THuckaby2]

Fast greens, slow greens, flat greens, sloped greens - it doesn't matter - good putters always beat me up and take my money.

Bob

Of course that's true, Bob.  But the killing of brain cells here is in trying to determine where it happens more often.  I'm convinced it happens more often on flat greens.  So save some money and play Augusta more often, betting solely on the putts.  

[THuckaby2]

If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..

RIGHT ON!
That explains it perfectly.  If it's me against Brad, shit yeah put me on Augusta and I have a chance, just due to the luck factor.  Put me on a flat piece of turf and it's game over.

[JakaB]

Shivas,

My point being that even a bad putter could have kept up with you on that near impossible putt.....he might have even four putted and waxed your ass...

[TEPaul]

The premise of this question to me is a little like saying a complicated race track favors a bad driver over a race driver compared to a staight country road. To me that premise just makes no sense at all---it's totally illogical.

[A.G._Crockett]

If you had to challenge Brad Faxon in a putting contest where you putt ten putts for $1,000 a piece....would you choose 10 flat putts where if you choke and make no putts you lose $10,000...Or would you introduce a measure of luck and choose ten twisting impossible putts where you might actually win with a maximum exposure of $3000....when it comes to playing against a more skilled putter I'm bringing luck into the game every chance I get..

RIGHT ON!
That explains it perfectly.  If it's me against Brad, shit yeah put me on Augusta and I have a chance, just due to the luck factor.  Put me on a flat piece of turf and it's game over.

But the problem with this is that golf is scored on total strokes!  It isn't just how many long, twisting putts you make out of luck; it's how many strokes you take TOTAL!  Faxon will 2 putt you to death on the contoured greens, and if he three putts, you will probably be 4 putting!  That's reality.

[TEPaul]

Tom Huckaby:

If it's you against Faxon and it's just about making a putt vs two putting I could see your point about a luck factor but if you roll in the likelihood of you 3 putting too on complex greens vs Faxon 3 putting the luck factor of you one putting would be more than completely nixxed. Plus when it comes to the luck factor of Faxon one putting you just might find day in and day out he might be a whole lot luckier than you are!  

[THuckaby2]

AGC:

Disagree.  Brad's gonna 3 jack from time to time on the long contoured putts, as will I... and I don't think I'm gonna 4 putt more than he 3putts.

Put us on straight flat putts and he's gonna make a bunch, whereas I never will until it gets inside 10 feet... and even inside 10 feet he's gonna make way more than me... and he's never gonna 3jack a long one, whereas I will.

So total putts are what I am considering, and I still say put us on the twisters where I will have a fighting chance.

TH

[George Pazin]

Think of this another way:

You seem to be saying that contours make it harder for the good putter to maximize his advantage.

Extend this to golf courses. Do harder courses make it harder for the better player to maximize his advantage? There is a lower bound to what Tiger could shoot at my rather easy home muni, even at his absolute best. There is probably close to no upper bound as to what I would shoot at Shinnecock under this year's conditions.

You have a much better chance at a 10 hole match against Faxon with 10 flat putts than 10 putts at ANGC, Huck. No way you beat him at ANGC. You might get lucky with 10 straight flat putts.

[henrye]

Guys.  I'm telling you, from a bad putter's perspective (I 3-putted 4 holes yesterday!) I can read a highly contoured green.  I might not execute the put as well as a good putter, but at least I'll get it to within 3 to 5 feet.  Subtle contours are often much harder to read.  Misread a put and forget it - the put will never fall.

If a green is perfectly flat, then you don't have to read it at all.  If it's highly contoured, most can read the line.  If the contours are subtle, you better have a good caddy.

[BCrosby]

A brief story -

When I was at Sand Hills several weeks ago, Ben Crenshaw was there too with a group of friends from Dallas/Ft. Worth, some of whom I knew. They had a putting contest on the practice green at SH. As many of you may know, that green redefines the concept of "contoured". Wild slopes, ridges, bumps, etc. Crazy stuff.

Crenshaw was incredible. A couple of times he took lines that made me wonder whether he had misunderstood where the next hole was. Boom, lip-out. He putted like a god. His imagination and feel for slopes and speed is beyond anything I had thought possible. He inhabits a different putting universe from mere mortals.

One thing is now clear to me. There is not a putting surface in the world - contoured or flat - where my skills even begin to nudge up closer to Crenshaw's skills. He sees and feels things that are simply not part of my mental equipment. I was deeply humbled.

Good putters are good putters are good putters. The rest of us just do the best we can.

The types of greens we putt on doesn't shrink or widen in any meaningful way the gulf that separates good putters from mediocre putters.

Bob  

[A.G._Crockett]

But Bob, what you are really saying here is that the abyss DOES widen on contoured greens!  You were much, much more impressed by what you saw Crenshaw do on that particular green than you would have been on a flat green somewhere else, weren't you?

Tom H,
Again, you are saying that the contoured green is harder for the better putter, but not for the bad putter.  This is very, very difficult for me to get my small head around!  The hypothetical contest between you and Faxon ONLY gives you a better chance on contoured greens IF you are talking about ONE putt!  The longer the contest goes on (say 18 holes, for instance), the worse you get your butt kicked.  Otherwise, you are saying difficult greens are more difficult for good putters than bad putters, which just can't be.  That's what "difficult" means!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()