Wooooooooooosh

No it doesn't.

grunch...i putt heavy breakers much better then straight putts. i cannot see subtle breaks in the green.

Ship, did this inspire the work you did with DECADE course management system?

bumping another one for the new folks

I sure as **** ain't diving into the substance of the discussion, but I will say that pretty much everyone comes off as pretty embarrassing over the first couple of pages.

Going to save this for later, not drunk enough to truly appreciate ARC going full ARC.

It's a pretty good glimpse into my future Twitter feed.

I wouldn't take much from what Nxt claims as serious. He "proved" in multiple ways (in another thread years ago) that split tee times do not speed up play in full field tournaments than single #1 tee times.

After reading some of the first page I'm leaning towards breaking putts being easier in some cases. It was after I saw a quote from the original thread where ship states I believe on the 100 footer that there was a graduated break toward the hole that funnels the ball towards it so that with similar speeds you could get the ball into the hole on different lines. I'm also influenced by the feeling that breakers are often easier when I practice putting, but the idea of a graduated break specifically lends clarity to why that is. Furthermore, the break you would think is generally graduated in most cases since they tend not to punch the hole directly on a spot with the most severe break as that would make the putt potentially too difficult.

lol, what a thread

i'll try to summarize:

-straight/flat putts in the real world where they don't exist are more difficult than funneling breaking putts

-straight/flat putts are easier in controlled settings where they do exist than breaking putts

-convex greens (ie. the majority of the surface area of real world greens) are ignored

did i miss anything?

"Short" straight putts are easier than short breaking putts. Short subject to debate but less than 50/50 length (8 feet)?

btw, XGD and other modern greens technologies permit relatively large flat green surfaces. But in general these features are unattractive and not desired by architects/designers.

Putting is more mental than anything else, even ahead of technique. If you think a breaking putt is easier than a straight one then you'll make more breaking putts and vice versa.

As far as the scientific answer, every putt is a straight putt. If you read a putt to break 1 ball to the right, then you'll aim 1 ball to the left and make the same stroke. You aren't (or shouldn't) be changing your stroke or trying to roll the ball any different based on if it breaks or is straight.

For one to be harder than the other scientifically, then the ball would have to roll different for a breaking one than a straight one but this isn't the case. It doesn't wobble or roll different if it's a breaking putt or if it's a straight one. It rolls end over end and if the ground is sloped, it will go in that direction and if it is flat, then it won't. Gravity is gravity and the hole is still the same size and the stroke is the same so I don't think one is harder than the other.

Yes, putting is mostly mental, but this is more of a technical discussion. As far as you're other statements, you are missing some things.

Let's look at two putts, one dead straight uphill, one dead straight downhill. To make this easier to envision, let's make the putts on a 20 degree slope.

Putt 1, straight up a 20 degree slope. What happens if you start the putt 1 foot to the right? It will break right away from the hole. What happens if you start the putt 1 foot to the left? It will break left away from the hole. If you don't start the putt precisely on line, it breaks away from the hole.

Putt 2, straight down a 20 degree slope. What happens if you start the putt 1 foot to the right? It will break left towards the hole. What happens if you start the putt 1 foot to the left? It will break right towards the hole. No matter where you start the putt, it breaks back towards the hole.

So it's pretty obvious which putt is easier to make. Extrapolate from there and see what you come up with as to the title of this thread. Hopefully you have or will read the entire thread, while there is much laughable BS from certain posters, there are also some really interesting thoughts and proofs.

I feel this is an under discussed topic and I definitely have some confusion with it. I see pros always picking up their ball and placing it back down fairly quickly. Everybody uses a line of some sort on their ball to help line up the putt and view the roll quality but where to point the ball's line? Do you point the line directly at the hole for a breaking putt or at the point you are aiming for? If you point the line to your aim point, reasses the break, are you then allowed to pick up the ball again and point the ball's line at your new target? If you did align the ball line directly at the hole in a breaking putt wouldn't it appear wobbly since you arent hitting the ball towards the target line?

Not everybody uses a line when they putt.

Those that do aim that line on their starting point. They keep the ball marked until they get the line where they want it.

I've read this 5 times and can't figure it out. Why is the putt breaking towards the hole if you start it left or right of the hole and it's a straight (downhill) putt?

A breaking putt with ball at same elevation as hole will be going downhill at some point approaching the hole.

This is the basis of ship's POV. Makes sense to me as downhill straight putts theoretically are easier to make than flat or straight uphill putts.

Another important point ship makes is the player does not know the exact break, straight or otherwise.

That's why I suggested imagining a 20 degree slope so it makes sense. Aim 60 degrees left of the hole and try to hit it only 1 foot, which way will gravity take it after that initial 1 foot? Towards or away from the hole compared to the initial line? Now aim 60 degrees right of the hole and hit it only 1 foot, which way will gravity take it after that 1 foot? Towards or away from the hole compared to the initial line?

Another example: hole on top of a volcano at the putt-putt park. Or, hole at bottom of deep funnel. Which putt is easier to make?

I try to put the volcano with the hole into the funnel with the hole. But that's just me.

yeah, yeah, i get it now. i think i remember someone saying once that if you're ball was on the very edge of a slope, like the VERY EDGE, that instead of putting towards the hole, you'd hit the putt like one inch, directly right or left, and let it feed on down.

I'm also reading the thread from the beginning. yeeeeeeesh.

OMG I'm on post #630. this is painful. can anyone just tell me who was right?

Well, it's either the guy who invented a mathematical system currently used by many PGA Tour players or some yahoo that got banned for posting craziness in infinite threads. You decide.

This sub forum used to have a lot more traffic, but way too many yahoos who lived to post as much as they could regardless of content. The really fun part was in the Sports forum there was always a thread for each major, the unbelievable stupid stuff those guys would post was off the charts.

oooooooh i've arrived at the good part.