The Great Debate of Our Time: Straight v. Breaking Putts
12-21-2013
, 09:51 PM
12-21-2013
, 10:05 PM
12-21-2013
, 10:27 PM
Quote:
Haha yea... except rather than a 100 foot dead straight/flat putt on glass he'd rather tilt the glass plane a few degrees so the putt breaks bc you have a better chance of making the breaking putt.
How much break does it have to have to all of a sudden be easier? Is there a limit to the amount of break? Certainly not since breaking putts are easier than straight ones right? The more break the easier it becomes right? LOL.
I also wonder at what distance the straight/flat putt becomes harder to make than one that breaks. And I'm very interested to hear how this physics defying discovery is explained.
How much break does it have to have to all of a sudden be easier? Is there a limit to the amount of break? Certainly not since breaking putts are easier than straight ones right? The more break the easier it becomes right? LOL.
I also wonder at what distance the straight/flat putt becomes harder to make than one that breaks. And I'm very interested to hear how this physics defying discovery is explained.
What I do find interesting and something the NXT siders should consider is that I called him a liar in absolutely no uncertain terms with regards to his trial. He did not refute this one bit. I am sure he will say it wasn’t worth his time, but we all know there is no chance he would let that go by without commenting. As more of you try this experiment you too will realize he did not perform it as stated. It is simply impossible to not have balls in your line after 10 putts that need to be moved to continue. If after 10 balls you don’t have some in your way that is evidence that you can not consistently hit a line and thus are a dog in this bet. Make sense? To take it one step further, he specifically laughed that I had the line after 4 rolls and said it would take 10-20 to figure out the line. Thus he does not have the ability to counter with “I knew the exact line and there weren’t any balls in the way”. Look again at his picture, the front of the hole is littered with balls. There is no chance they were not in his way. So, AGAIN, you are simply lying to attempt to help your case. That is absolutely beyond pathetic. Do I really want to win this debate at this point and have the people who still don’t get it understand? Sadly the answer clearly is yes. However at least I have not said “**** it, I’m going to lie and say I did this to show how easy it is”. That, as you would say NXT, is just pathetic.
Quote:
No they haven't. If they have, please link the scientific study plz. This simply doesn't stand to reason so at least link a study. Plenty of things in the world around us are counter-intuitive but it takes proof to see that and you can't link anything other than BO's Golf Digest for-profit article.
Wait - what? You are arguing that putts that break are easier to make. Now you are saying you would take the level putt. Does this mean you are arguing two sides, or does it mean you are slowly beginning to see the error of your ways?
If you disagree with what I actually said then just attack the point. I don't know why you have to get all metaphysical on me and claim my brain is not linked to some specific pro's. You and BO are the ones who claim pros are frightened to death by a straight putt, so why don't you tell us why? The burden of proof is actually on you guys. I was just trying to point out reasons why "straight" putts can be unnerving.
Wait - what? You are arguing that putts that break are easier to make. Now you are saying you would take the level putt. Does this mean you are arguing two sides, or does it mean you are slowly beginning to see the error of your ways?
If you disagree with what I actually said then just attack the point. I don't know why you have to get all metaphysical on me and claim my brain is not linked to some specific pro's. You and BO are the ones who claim pros are frightened to death by a straight putt, so why don't you tell us why? The burden of proof is actually on you guys. I was just trying to point out reasons why "straight" putts can be unnerving.
Again, with regards to the notion that there could be bot straight putts that are easier to make, as well as certain breaking putts that are easier to make I ask you to please refer to this fuzzy math concept of an inflection point. Wikipedia makes it sound real smart calling it a principle of differential calculus. That sounds super awesome, take that to 8th grade on Monday and really wow ‘em. Let’s poker it up, if you are trailing on the flop is it possible to have a certain number of outs that makes you a favorite? Let’s say 8 and you have an edge. But, what if you only have 7 outs? That’s called an inflection point. With just the blink of an eye, a turn of a card, a simple twist of fate, etc, you have a spot where 1 single digit changes the whole game. Amazing, I know. (yes I understand that certain bet sizes result in different equities so for the example here please assume all the money is already in the pot…it’s amazing the clarifications that must be made for the simpletons here)
I do not think they are frightened at all by a straight putt, simply that they recognize the margin for error is smaller. I, again, even stated that you don’t seem to give them enough credit to have the psychology to eventually pick a line, commit to it, and strike the putt. I have never once inferred they are scared.
On Tour last year there were 21,860 4 footers, 19890 were holed for an average of 90.9%
A hole is 4.25 inches wide so let’s say at a minimum the average miss is due to a 2” error meaning it at least lipped out. I’ll grant you that is speculation and I chose 4’ so that most of those would be pretty straight. Since that is 4’ and 4’ is 1/25 of 100’ that would put a PGA Tour window of results at 100’ about 4.16’. Let’s, again this is conjecture but it is based on some logic, suppose that a bogey golfer would have a window of AT LEAST 6-7 feet on either side. Of course this distribution should be relatively normal so the putts that are 7’ offline are the outliers, I certainly agree. But how many out of 100 putts that would be normally distributed over 168 inches and need to hit a 4.25 inch hole to have any chance of going in can we expect? I don’t feel like actually figuring out the number since this is all speculation, albeit pretty solid speculation, but let’s just guess there aren’t going to be many that hit the line. I’ll base the speed component on my test since NXT’s picture is of a fake experiment and I’d guess about 30% of my putts had the speed that would result in a make. So I’ll give the bogey golfer MAYBE 15%. For the sake of it I’ll note that in his fairy tale picture it looks like he has about 6 balls including the 2 in the hole that are within reasonable tolerance past the hole for 24%.
Now take the really low number of putts that will be hit online * the odds of having the correct speed and what do you get? Now compare that to the tests actually run on putts that did have break and which way does the greater than or less than hungry alligator face?
I am sorry if the ability to run a little math and thought in your head doesn’t work for you and you need to read a scientific report to come to a pretty simple conclusion. But this is all pretty straight forward, and I’d say pretty reasonable.
Again please don't criticize any basic errors, I'm not proofing this.
12-21-2013
, 10:44 PM
12-21-2013
, 10:47 PM
12-21-2013
, 10:58 PM
12-21-2013
, 11:00 PM
Quote:
My comment about in a vacuum I’d take straight refers to putts under around 15 feet, and as I’ve stated countless times, yes there is a point where there is too much break to be beneficial. Obviously this relates to NXT’s question below of “How much break does it have to have to all of a sudden be easier?” I guess at this point I am seeing more why you can’t get it. There is a concept, not really a concept as much as a quasi law I guess, called an inflection point. I now get it that you guys can only see in black or white and pass/no pass. As I’ve stated numerous times (repetition is, again, the foundation of learning) I do not think that all breaking putts are easier than straight putts. I’ve even cited the example of #9 at Augusta where a MUCH long straight putt would be easier than a much shorter breaking putt due to the severity of the break.
Back to the thought of you must be trolling or simply not even reading my comments (again, I applaud the commitment to the trolling). To make a blanket inference that I said breaking putts are easier is simply wrong. It’s not really worth beating this horse further if you won’t even use my thoughts correctly.
What I do find interesting and something the NXT siders should consider is that I called him a liar in absolutely no uncertain terms with regards to his trial. He did not refute this one bit. I am sure he will say it wasn’t worth his time, but we all know there is no chance he would let that go by without commenting. As more of you try this experiment you too will realize he did not perform it as stated. It is simply impossible to not have balls in your line after 10 putts that need to be moved to continue. If after 10 balls you don’t have some in your way that is evidence that you can not consistently hit a line and thus are a dog in this bet. Make sense? To take it one step further, he specifically laughed that I had the line after 4 rolls and said it would take 10-20 to figure out the line. Thus he does not have the ability to counter with “I knew the exact line and there weren’t any balls in the way”. Look again at his picture, the front of the hole is littered with balls. There is no chance they were not in his way. So, AGAIN, you are simply lying to attempt to help your case. That is absolutely beyond pathetic. Do I really want to win this debate at this point and have the people who still don’t get it understand? Sadly the answer clearly is yes. However at least I have not said “**** it, I’m going to lie and say I did this to show how easy it is”. That, as you would say NXT, is just pathetic.
A Rod, if you must perform a scientific experiment please perform the dead straight 45 degree angle example and see if a ball started inside right breaks right or not. I highly doubt Harvard will be doing a study on something that you can simply see in your head quite clearly.
Again, with regards to the notion that there could be bot straight putts that are easier to make, as well as certain breaking putts that are easier to make I ask you to please refer to this fuzzy math concept of an inflection point. Wikipedia makes it sound real smart calling it a principle of differential calculus. That sounds super awesome, take that to 8th grade on Monday and really wow ‘em. Let’s poker it up, if you are trailing on the flop is it possible to have a certain number of outs that makes you a favorite? Let’s say 8 and you have an edge. But, what if you only have 7 outs? That’s called an inflection point. With just the blink of an eye, a turn of a card, a simple twist of fate, etc, you have a spot where 1 single digit changes the whole game. Amazing, I know. (yes I understand that certain bet sizes result in different equities so for the example here please assume all the money is already in the pot…it’s amazing the clarifications that must be made for the simpletons here)
I do not think they are frightened at all by a straight putt, simply that they recognize the margin for error is smaller. I, again, even stated that you don’t seem to give them enough credit to have the psychology to eventually pick a line, commit to it, and strike the putt. I have never once inferred they are scared.
On Tour last year there were 21,860 4 footers, 19890 were holed for an average of 90.9%
A hole is 4.25 inches wide so let’s say at a minimum the average miss is due to a 2” error meaning it at least lipped out. I’ll grant you that is speculation and I chose 4’ so that most of those would be pretty straight. Since that is 4’ and 4’ is 1/25 of 100’ that would put a PGA Tour window of results at 100’ about 4.16’. Let’s, again this is conjecture but it is based on some logic, suppose that a bogey golfer would have a window of AT LEAST 6-7 feet on either side. Of course this distribution should be relatively normal so the putts that are 7’ offline are the outliers, I certainly agree. But how many out of 100 putts that would be normally distributed over 168 inches and need to hit a 4.25 inch hole to have any chance of going in can we expect? I don’t feel like actually figuring out the number since this is all speculation, albeit pretty solid speculation, but let’s just guess there aren’t going to be many that hit the line. I’ll base the speed component on my test since NXT’s picture is of a fake experiment and I’d guess about 30% of my putts had the speed that would result in a make. So I’ll give the bogey golfer MAYBE 15%. For the sake of it I’ll note that in his fairy tale picture it looks like he has about 6 balls including the 2 in the hole that are within reasonable tolerance past the hole for 24%.
Now take the really low number of putts that will be hit online * the odds of having the correct speed and what do you get? Now compare that to the tests actually run on putts that did have break and which way does the greater than or less than hungry alligator face?
I am sorry if the ability to run a little math and thought in your head doesn’t work for you and you need to read a scientific report to come to a pretty simple conclusion. But this is all pretty straight forward, and I’d say pretty reasonable.
Again please don't criticize any basic errors, I'm not proofing this.
Back to the thought of you must be trolling or simply not even reading my comments (again, I applaud the commitment to the trolling). To make a blanket inference that I said breaking putts are easier is simply wrong. It’s not really worth beating this horse further if you won’t even use my thoughts correctly.
What I do find interesting and something the NXT siders should consider is that I called him a liar in absolutely no uncertain terms with regards to his trial. He did not refute this one bit. I am sure he will say it wasn’t worth his time, but we all know there is no chance he would let that go by without commenting. As more of you try this experiment you too will realize he did not perform it as stated. It is simply impossible to not have balls in your line after 10 putts that need to be moved to continue. If after 10 balls you don’t have some in your way that is evidence that you can not consistently hit a line and thus are a dog in this bet. Make sense? To take it one step further, he specifically laughed that I had the line after 4 rolls and said it would take 10-20 to figure out the line. Thus he does not have the ability to counter with “I knew the exact line and there weren’t any balls in the way”. Look again at his picture, the front of the hole is littered with balls. There is no chance they were not in his way. So, AGAIN, you are simply lying to attempt to help your case. That is absolutely beyond pathetic. Do I really want to win this debate at this point and have the people who still don’t get it understand? Sadly the answer clearly is yes. However at least I have not said “**** it, I’m going to lie and say I did this to show how easy it is”. That, as you would say NXT, is just pathetic.
A Rod, if you must perform a scientific experiment please perform the dead straight 45 degree angle example and see if a ball started inside right breaks right or not. I highly doubt Harvard will be doing a study on something that you can simply see in your head quite clearly.
Again, with regards to the notion that there could be bot straight putts that are easier to make, as well as certain breaking putts that are easier to make I ask you to please refer to this fuzzy math concept of an inflection point. Wikipedia makes it sound real smart calling it a principle of differential calculus. That sounds super awesome, take that to 8th grade on Monday and really wow ‘em. Let’s poker it up, if you are trailing on the flop is it possible to have a certain number of outs that makes you a favorite? Let’s say 8 and you have an edge. But, what if you only have 7 outs? That’s called an inflection point. With just the blink of an eye, a turn of a card, a simple twist of fate, etc, you have a spot where 1 single digit changes the whole game. Amazing, I know. (yes I understand that certain bet sizes result in different equities so for the example here please assume all the money is already in the pot…it’s amazing the clarifications that must be made for the simpletons here)
I do not think they are frightened at all by a straight putt, simply that they recognize the margin for error is smaller. I, again, even stated that you don’t seem to give them enough credit to have the psychology to eventually pick a line, commit to it, and strike the putt. I have never once inferred they are scared.
On Tour last year there were 21,860 4 footers, 19890 were holed for an average of 90.9%
A hole is 4.25 inches wide so let’s say at a minimum the average miss is due to a 2” error meaning it at least lipped out. I’ll grant you that is speculation and I chose 4’ so that most of those would be pretty straight. Since that is 4’ and 4’ is 1/25 of 100’ that would put a PGA Tour window of results at 100’ about 4.16’. Let’s, again this is conjecture but it is based on some logic, suppose that a bogey golfer would have a window of AT LEAST 6-7 feet on either side. Of course this distribution should be relatively normal so the putts that are 7’ offline are the outliers, I certainly agree. But how many out of 100 putts that would be normally distributed over 168 inches and need to hit a 4.25 inch hole to have any chance of going in can we expect? I don’t feel like actually figuring out the number since this is all speculation, albeit pretty solid speculation, but let’s just guess there aren’t going to be many that hit the line. I’ll base the speed component on my test since NXT’s picture is of a fake experiment and I’d guess about 30% of my putts had the speed that would result in a make. So I’ll give the bogey golfer MAYBE 15%. For the sake of it I’ll note that in his fairy tale picture it looks like he has about 6 balls including the 2 in the hole that are within reasonable tolerance past the hole for 24%.
Now take the really low number of putts that will be hit online * the odds of having the correct speed and what do you get? Now compare that to the tests actually run on putts that did have break and which way does the greater than or less than hungry alligator face?
I am sorry if the ability to run a little math and thought in your head doesn’t work for you and you need to read a scientific report to come to a pretty simple conclusion. But this is all pretty straight forward, and I’d say pretty reasonable.
Again please don't criticize any basic errors, I'm not proofing this.
You are pathetic, calling me a liar here.
I took the picture from the angle I hit the put. All the putts just left of the hole were not in my way, and I was lazy. The ball about 3-4 feet short of the hole was literally the last ball I hit.
12-21-2013
, 11:11 PM
12-21-2013
, 11:15 PM
12-21-2013
, 11:24 PM
12-21-2013
, 11:46 PM
12-21-2013
, 11:59 PM
Fyp
12-21-2013
, 11:59 PM
12-21-2013
, 11:59 PM
12-22-2013
, 12:00 AM