Oh ****!

It's back.

So - anyways - how many people are going to try this in the next few weeks or so?

The making a putt from 100 feet thing....

That was the original topic ffs!

Please try putting the breaking/straight putt thing away for Xmas, because, let's be honest, nobody has a green where they can make a straight 100 foot putt anyway!

I will definitely try this in the next few weeks - as said before, 18 h/c, was down to 10 a few years ago, but probably a top 5% putter at my club.

OP - are you spending time getting ready for your bet?

Or are you just going to wing it on the day?

All of that is true. But the opposite holds true as well. A putt hit straight down a slope that is hit slightly offline will hold its line. So.....?

So the box of marbles.

So.... ship this is good at golf but is terrible at applied physics which is a branch of mathematics despite this having nothing to do with math.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

Now I've said some arrogant things in this forum, but this statement is downright hilarious.

How about this, you both putt 15-footers. Yours is as straight as possible, ship has to putt one that breaks 4 inches or so. Best out of 100 wins for $1k. Then you guys take an IQ test for another $1k.

BO

I will do the experiment sometime next week. The practice green at my course will be hard pressed to provide a 100 foot putt but I'll do the best I can.

Why would I do that? I never called Ship a "****ing idiot at putting".

Logic, how does it work?

According to your logic, ship has a much, much tougher putt than you do. Longer as well. You seem confident you will always win the IQ test, so the golf is a freeroll for you. No way for you to lose the bet, you either break even or win $2k. You'd be silly not to freeroll for $2k.

BO

If there's one thing this thread needed, it's IQ tests for rollz.

I have no chance at beating him at that putt, though. And I never called him the equivalent of a "****ing idiot" wrt putting skill. So he should feel no reason to challenge me to a putting contest. And no, I'm not going to ****ing challenge him to a putt-off when it decreases my EV.

But as usual, your penchant for being the third-man-in to a debate not concerning you is really awesome and helpful for everyone involved.

لواء دكتور محسن الفحام-خبير امني و استراتيجي و دكتور باكاديميه الشرطه و العضو المنتدب لشركه تراك

Yeah exactly. I'm not offering the original bet, I think its clearly too easy to be a fair bet. I am having second thoughts about the 50 putts honestly, you probably should have snapped that up already. Let's just forget it, I've lost money on some dumb props in my life but this one is already less fun that it started out.

sigh. I really wish I still had access to the various engineering departments at OSU, but it's winter break and I'm certain that I can't get in there to use the computers with appropriate software to model what I would like to model for definitive results on what I was talking about.


I will be the first to admit that I don't even know that I'm correct, but here again is the reason I think that in the scenario I mentioned (where the speed is correct on a breaking putt on an intended line that is known to work), the margin for directional error is greater than those of a flat putt.


Firstly, if you miss left of the intended line, I think intuitively it's obvious that the range for margin for error(1) is smaller than that of a flat putt because the putt will move away from the center of the hole...for an arbitrary example, if you miss it low by 1% of face angle on a flat putt, it will catch the left side of the hole and go in, but on the breaking putt, you can only miss by 0.5%. I will grant that. If you miss higher on the line, this continuum(2) of misses catch the high side of the hole. The next section(3) of the continuum starts as holing out on the high side and moves through results back to the center of the hole (picture a parabola going higher but ending shorter). Now if we hit the putt even higher offline, there is a range of misses(4) that catch the lower side of the hole until we start to see misses.


I really think in comparison to a flat putt that the total sum of angles of "high misses" 2, 3, and 4 is an amount greater than what "low misses" loses, resulting in an overall greater margin of error for direction. This is my idea, and I don't know if it's right or wrong, but please read on as I'm starting to think it might not even matter if the range of successful right/left misses is the same as a flat putt. This idea in itself takes zero consideration into account for the fact that the golfer now knows he can lose it a little to the high side and still be okay (thus guarding against a low miss...as opposed to a straight putt that has a smaller absolute margin for error in either direction).

I know twizen said "you gain margin of error high side but lose it all on the low side". I wish I had a way to prove this one way or the other. Perhaps it really is the same as the tee shot fading/drawing example earlier about hitting fairways. Maybe it even IS the same total margin for error, but in practice, consciously knowing to avoid one side allows for a greater number of successes. I understand that in a vacuum, the left/right error should be an even distribution, but on breaking putts where you know that you can miss it high side (whether you consciously know this or not, or if it's just unconscious intuition from years of practical experience), I would think that the distribution of misses would be skewed to the high side, thus resulting in more made putts.

NXT, what do you think? Obviously there is a point where the golfer will see diminished returns.



p.s. Ship, don't leave

Oh, and for the record, sometime when Spring hits, I'll go out to the course putting green and run some experiments. I'll build an appropriate small ramp and be very scientific about various trials involving constant and variable speeds and angles and distances on various flat/sloped putts. I'll take pics and everything and make it a new thread. I'm super serious about this.

If someone could control against a miss like this then they should aim just inside the edge for a straight putt as well, and just guard against a further miss to that side.

Assuming a constant slope I'm not sure why the benefit of hitting it higher and more up the slope, and thus gaining the lose speed faster break more scenario, would outweigh the losses of the hit it lower and more across/less up the slope. Seems like it should be equal.

Since it appears this was lost in the shuffle, I'm going to quote it.

Here's the conclusion if you don't want to muddle through it.

From 15 feet, in a controlled experiment, a group of college golfers made:

51% of their straight putts
41% of putts that had roughly 4 inches of break
11% of putts that had roughly 8 inches of break.

So.......?

I read the abstract. I wrongly assumed (as a student researcher with experience in having to pay for articles presented like this) that I wouldn't be able to view the pdf. I see that I can and will check the paper out a little later today.


I'll draw a picture when I get home later tonight. I'll show you why I think it allows for greater deviation when missing higher than what would normally be found on a flat putt. Like I said, I could be wrong.

I know exactly what you're saying, i just think it's probably a really specific math/physics problem that nobody here has the credentials to answer.

We can boil the question down to this (I think):

Does a ball moving across a slope at varying speeds and angles end up having a tighter distribution at a given point than a a ball moving at those same angles and speeds?

The flaw in this experiment is pretty simple, and one I’ve noted about 20 times. To be honest I am pretty surprised the results were not MORE skewed to the holing of the straight putt which is EVEN MORE data supporting my assertion. So for that I thank you.

The straight putt in this instance is straight and FLAT. I’m surprised that college golfers did not hole a HUGE % of straight FLAT 10’ putts on a perfect surface rolling at 12.5. Furthermore, I would assure you that a green rolling 12.5 is significantly faster than they are used to which would certainly hinder their performance on the breaking putts. So all in all I would say this helps the argument since in reality, again, there is not a straight and FLAT 10 foot putt. Clearly there is not a straight and flat 100 foot putt either.

With regards to these:
I was actually waiting for one of the dissenters to point that out. Yes, it is true that a downhill and straight putt will tend to correct to the desired line, not “hold its line” as you state. It does not revert to the intended line, instead it will eventually follow a parallel path depending on the normal variables of degree offline at impact, speed of green, and severity of downhill slope.

Let’s apply this idea to the actual debate. On a 100 foot putt if you were able to select a dead straight and downhill putt but pushed it yes it would correct to a parallel path along the intended line. That is exactly why I had prepared the post below in advance as a counter to that argument, I certainly thought that NXT would be able to point that out since I had gone out of my way 20 times to capitalize the word FLAT so he could grasp that downhillers would benefit and make that claim. I agree I am not as good at applied physics as YB or Reid, but unlike NXT I don’t need them to point out a relatively simple flaw in my oppositions argument.


If NXT were as good at applied physics as implied via stating how bad I am at it he should have been able to point that out slight flaw on his own. Of course then I would have released the counter argument of a simple probability and distribution exercise below to him, yet again making every one of his arguments invalid.

But I guess at the end of the day since NXT agrees with this concept that a downhill putt will track via gravity to a straight yet parallel path he CLEARLY agrees with the opposite effect on the uphillers….I mean you can’t have one without the other, that’s the way physics works (I think).

YAY, I WIN!

I was going to guesstimate 103’ feet for total length traveled on my putt as it was basically flat until the last 8 feet or so. I’ll split the difference with you at 104’. How much equity do you think you lose moving from 100’ to 104’? I’d venture a guess of not much. This isn’t like moving from 5’ to 9’.

As for face angle margin of error, that is the specific point that you clearly lack the capability to grasp. There is less face angle importance on the breaker since it obviously has multiple lines it can go in on. There is zero margin for error on the straight putt. I do appreciate the fact you didn’t respond to the relatively simple (albeit hypothetical) probability thoughts I posted. I’ll just assume that you think that 10% of putts would be hit exactly perfect by a bogey golfer in order to yield roughly 2 makes due to approximately 20% having the correct speed? Bearing in mind the stroke must be long enough to hit the ball 100’. It’s truly amazing as I type that and think of the implications you think are possible in your arguments. I can’t believe I am falling for this trolling. I feel dirty.

When you run the trial you will see that you need to clear balls more than every 25 balls. Thinking about it though, if you are so narrow minded as NXT is and can’t accept a 100’ putt might be able to go in on multiple lines you don’t have to clear them every so often. I apologize NXT, you might have ran the experiment but your bias would not allow you to run it correctly.

You have no idea what that means? It’s a basic probability thought. You know, like if I flip a coin I wonder how many times will it be heads.

How can you possibly keep saying stuff like this and not realize the flaw in your thinking?

The reason the fast greens would hinder their performance on breaking putts is how incredibly precise they would have to be with regards to the speed since it has to be perfectly matched up with the line.

The straight putt didn't suffer from this bc speed is not as important on straight putts. Line is king.



With regards to these:



I was actually waiting for one of the dissenters to point that out. Yes, it is true that a downhill and straight putt will tend to correct to the desired line, not “hold its line” as you state. It does not revert to the intended line, instead it will eventually follow a parallel path depending on the normal variables of degree offline at impact, speed of green, and severity of downhill slope.

Let’s apply this idea to the actual debate. On a 100 foot putt if you were able to select a dead straight and downhill putt but pushed it yes it would correct to a parallel path along the intended line. That is exactly why I had prepared the post below in advance as a counter to that argument, I certainly thought that NXT would be able to point that out since I had gone out of my way 20 times to capitalize the word FLAT so he could grasp that downhillers would benefit and make that claim. I agree I am not as good at applied physics as YB or Reid, but unlike NXT I don’t need them to point out a relatively simple flaw in my oppositions argument.


If NXT were as good at applied physics as implied via stating how bad I am at it he should have been able to point that out slight flaw on his own. Of course then I would have released the counter argument of a simple probability and distribution exercise below to him, yet again making every one of his arguments invalid.

But I guess at the end of the day since NXT agrees with this concept that a downhill putt will track via gravity to a straight yet parallel path he CLEARLY agrees with the opposite effect on the uphillers….I mean you can’t have one without the other, that’s the way physics works (I think).

YAY, I WIN! [/QUOTE]

Except again in your downhill example you are missing how important pace will be.

You may be able to get more putts to actually hit the hole but you will likely experience more lip outs bc as it's tougher to control the pace.

So an experiment where good players make more straight putts than breaking putts supports your theory that breaking putts are easier than straight putts to hole? Ooooooookkkkkkkkkkk.

Hahaha

Can't wait until he again counters with the fact that straight/flat putts are incredibly rare in the real world as if that somehow helps his side the discussion

Ship, to follow up on that, let's assume that the testers also included trials where they raised the hole side of the platform to create a 4 degree uphill putt, and then tested both the straight and breaking putts again.

The golfers would hole:

What percentage of straight putts that were 4 degrees uphill?
What percentage of putts that broke as designated in the experiment while also 4 degrees uphill?