The Great Debate of Our Time: Straight v. Breaking Putts
This is sad. You are sad, Ship.
Your posts are now rife with humblebrags, regular brags, and terrible logic.
Get well soon.
Your posts are now rife with humblebrags, regular brags, and terrible logic.
Get well soon.
Against my better judgement I'm going to interject and attempt to clear something up.
I think what ship is saying is that there are some (not all) putts that exist which can be hit:
a) on 2 different lines at the same speed where both go in; or
b) on the same starting line at 2 different speeds where both go in.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Please note that I don't think answering this question does ANYTHING to suggest that breaking putts are "easier" overall or in a general sense.
I think a big problem in this thread is that people are discussing specific individual situations and universal laws at the same time and interchangeably.
I think what ship is saying is that there are some (not all) putts that exist which can be hit:
a) on 2 different lines at the same speed where both go in; or
b) on the same starting line at 2 different speeds where both go in.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Please note that I don't think answering this question does ANYTHING to suggest that breaking putts are "easier" overall or in a general sense.
I think a big problem in this thread is that people are discussing specific individual situations and universal laws at the same time and interchangeably.
Against my better judgement I'm going to interject and attempt to clear something up.
I think what ship is saying is that there are some (not all) putts that exist which can be hit:
a) on 2 different lines at the same speed where both go in; or
b) on the same starting line at 2 different speeds where both go in.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Please note that I don't think answering this question does ANYTHING to suggest that breaking putts are "easier" overall or in a general sense.
I think a big problem in this thread is that people are discussing specific individual situations and universal laws at the same time and interchangeably.
I think what ship is saying is that there are some (not all) putts that exist which can be hit:
a) on 2 different lines at the same speed where both go in; or
b) on the same starting line at 2 different speeds where both go in.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Please note that I don't think answering this question does ANYTHING to suggest that breaking putts are "easier" overall or in a general sense.
I think a big problem in this thread is that people are discussing specific individual situations and universal laws at the same time and interchangeably.
Since you didnt post early in the thread (I think) Ill assume you have skimmed most of this ****. My putt was a tad uphill and breaking right for the last 8 feet. The interesting thing I learned from my trial was that I could hit a putt on the exact same line with 2 different speeds and have both go in. The one hit slightly harder (Id say 3 inches harder on a 100 putt, so not much) traveled on the same line but reached a slightly higher apex (told you guys Id work that word in soon). However, to reach that apex it rolled slightly further uphill. From there it took a more severe break and would be able to go in. So one putt, same line, 2 speeds, both makes. Expanded options.
Dude earlier today I hit 2 straight putts in a row and they both went in!
I hit them on the exact same line....
The first one trickled in...
But the 2nd one I hit probably 3" harder.
ONE PUTT
SAME LINE
2 DIFFERENT SPEEDS
BOTH MAKES
EXPANDED OPTIONS
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
I just want to say I love stupid nitty arguments like this. Please continue
I do not disagree with what you've said here, because the hole is wider than the ball. And at a micro enough level, there are dozens of lines that would appear as the same line to the human eye. Still doesn't make breaking putts easier to hole than straight putts.
Let me clarify what I was asking though. I'm talking about noticeably different lines and speeds, as in diverging Fidelity aimpoint lines.
Again, I'm just trying to clear things up, please don't jump to conclusions about what I'm saying or asking. I'm not taking any sides, I just want to facilitate a better discussion where people are on the same page.
I'm also pretty sure I'm going to fail miserably.
sigh
and stop accusing me of skimming. i read all 4 pages of this thread for some reason
Hahaha hahaha
Dude earlier today I hit 2 straight putts in a row and they both went in!
I hit them on the exact same line....
The first one trickled in...
But the 2nd one I hit probably 3" harder.
ONE PUTT
SAME LINE
2 DIFFERENT SPEEDS
BOTH MAKES
EXPANDED OPTIONS
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
Dude earlier today I hit 2 straight putts in a row and they both went in!
I hit them on the exact same line....
The first one trickled in...
But the 2nd one I hit probably 3" harder.
ONE PUTT
SAME LINE
2 DIFFERENT SPEEDS
BOTH MAKES
EXPANDED OPTIONS
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
You're probably my favorite poster in the forum, but I think you've let this one get too personal.
He's basically saying that he found a putt where a slope in front of the hole was functioning similarly to a parabolic microphone. Surely we can all imagine hole locations where the hole just happens to be in some sort of bowl with multiple contours funneling towards the hole.
This still does NOTHING to prove the blanket and silly statement, "breaking putts are easier than straight putts".
All I am attempting to do is to illustrate as simply as possible how easily it is to prove so much of what he says wrong.
It's basically like Ship explaining that 2^2 ( 2 squared) is equal to 4 bc you just have to add the big number and little number together.
I would then counter with well 3^2 equals 9, not the number 5 I get to by following Ships anectdote.
If he continues to set them up, I will continue to knock them down.
It's basically like Ship explaining that 2^2 ( 2 squared) is equal to 4 bc you just have to add the big number and little number together.
I would then counter with well 3^2 equals 9, not the number 5 I get to by following Ships anectdote.
If he continues to set them up, I will continue to knock them down.
He's basically saying that he found a putt where a slope in front of the hole was functioning similarly to a parabolic microphone. Surely we can all imagine hole locations where the hole just happens to be in some sort of bowl with multiple contours funneling towards the hole.
I believe it has been quoted multiple times that Ship's stance is that given putts of equal length Ship would prefer a breaking putt rather than as straight of a putt as you can find in the real world.
The funneling type action you are describing is quite different and obviously should be preferred over any non-funneling putt. I think everyone can agree that if there was a funnel surrounding the hole our chances of making the putt go up as the funnel is theoretically just making the hole bigger.
Why do you even feel the need to tell me this? Please read my post again, at no point would I ever make that argument.
Let me clarify what I was asking though. I'm talking about noticeably different lines and speeds, as in diverging Fidelity aimpoint lines.
Again, I'm just trying to clear things up, please don't jump to conclusions about what I'm saying or asking. I'm not taking any sides, I just want to facilitate a better discussion where people are on the same page.
I'm also pretty sure I'm going to fail miserably.
Let me clarify what I was asking though. I'm talking about noticeably different lines and speeds, as in diverging Fidelity aimpoint lines.
Again, I'm just trying to clear things up, please don't jump to conclusions about what I'm saying or asking. I'm not taking any sides, I just want to facilitate a better discussion where people are on the same page.
I'm also pretty sure I'm going to fail miserably.
I love how my side of the debate hasn't even had to play the "breaking putts are harder to read than straight putts" card yet. There is way more likelihood in human spatial error when trying to read a breaker than a putt that appears dead straight. I bet this is why airport runways are designed to be straight. Less work for the human eye to navigate. When you can't figure out the break of a dead straight putt, due to your human limitations, you are forced to just ****ing aim center of cup. But reading a break at Augusta (or anywhere) increases the probability that you **** up your read.
I mean for the sake of argument we're basically letting Ship get away with some idea that breaking putts are always read as correctly as straight putts, which is absolutely stupid and doesn't stand to reason at all. What about double-breakers? Even easier! So many breaks! So easy to read!
He's saying, "I found a particular putt here in Texas that can go in multiple different ways, including putts hit at the same speed on different lines!"
Then you say, "the laws that govern whether or not a putt will be holed do not result in breaking putts being easier to make than straight ones!"
I'm not sure it began this way, but right now I think you are both talking past one another and it is leading nowhere.
I wasn't meaning to "tell you" that. It was just a statement I made for everyone to read. I was not intending to ascribe a position to you. I mostly wrote that because I expected Ship to jump in and go "SEE! You agree!" when he read my post.
I love how my side of the debate hasn't even had to play the "breaking putts are harder to read than straight putts" card yet. There is way more likelihood in human spatial error when trying to read a breaker than a putt that appears dead straight. I bet this is why airport runways are designed to be straight. Less work for the human eye to navigate. When you can't figure out the break of a dead straight putt, due to your human limitations, you are forced to just ****ing aim center of cup. But reading a break at Augusta (or anywhere) increases the probability that you **** up your read.
I mean for the sake of argument we're basically letting Ship get away with some idea that breaking putts are always read as correctly as straight putts, which is absolutely stupid and doesn't stand to reason at all. What about double-breakers? Even easier! So many breaks! So easy to read!
I love how my side of the debate hasn't even had to play the "breaking putts are harder to read than straight putts" card yet. There is way more likelihood in human spatial error when trying to read a breaker than a putt that appears dead straight. I bet this is why airport runways are designed to be straight. Less work for the human eye to navigate. When you can't figure out the break of a dead straight putt, due to your human limitations, you are forced to just ****ing aim center of cup. But reading a break at Augusta (or anywhere) increases the probability that you **** up your read.
I mean for the sake of argument we're basically letting Ship get away with some idea that breaking putts are always read as correctly as straight putts, which is absolutely stupid and doesn't stand to reason at all. What about double-breakers? Even easier! So many breaks! So easy to read!
BO scoffed that this premise.
Hilarious because it rather easy to see that the more variables you add to a situation the more complex/difficult it becomes.
Yeah, I get it. I'm saying that at this point it seems like he is focusing on 1 highly specific example, and you (and ARC) are answering him by focusing on the overall principle.
He's saying, "I found a particular putt here in Texas that can go in multiple different ways, including putts hit at the same speed on different lines!"
Then you say, "the laws that govern whether or not a putt will be holed do not result in breaking putts being easier to make than straight ones!"
I'm not sure it began this way, but right now I think you are both talking past one another and it is leading nowhere.
He's saying, "I found a particular putt here in Texas that can go in multiple different ways, including putts hit at the same speed on different lines!"
Then you say, "the laws that govern whether or not a putt will be holed do not result in breaking putts being easier to make than straight ones!"
I'm not sure it began this way, but right now I think you are both talking past one another and it is leading nowhere.
I believe it has been quoted multiple times that Ship's stance is that given putts of equal length Ship would prefer a breaking putt rather than as straight of a putt as you can find in the real world.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that at this point he's trying to provide a counterexample to your axiom.
The problem is that you're not contending that every breaking putt is necessarily more difficult than a straight one of identical length, and I believe he would tell you that he never said a breaking putt is necessarily easier than a straight one.
We just seem to disagree here. Again, I don't think Ship is citing this putt in Texas as singular occurrence. He is extrapolating it into a theory that breaking putts are easier than straight ones.
Can someone explain to my why this putt is famous? I can't figure out why.
This is a great video of what Ship is talking about (though obviously extreme)
But still, before Faldouche strikes the ball, he is picking a line and speed. Which is the same as picking a line and speed for a straight putt. It doesn't matter that it can also go in if he hits it straight toward the hole, because his miss will never be there, anyway. He's facing away from the hole. He'd have to get the line and speed so wrong that he actually hits it the wrong way and straight into the hole - sinking the 1 footer. That's an extreme example but the principle applies.
But still, before Faldouche strikes the ball, he is picking a line and speed. Which is the same as picking a line and speed for a straight putt. It doesn't matter that it can also go in if he hits it straight toward the hole, because his miss will never be there, anyway. He's facing away from the hole. He'd have to get the line and speed so wrong that he actually hits it the wrong way and straight into the hole - sinking the 1 footer. That's an extreme example but the principle applies.
Yeah, that's how I remember his initial position as well. But based on what he's written recently I think he often switches between speaking generally and about specific examples. I think this is leading to confusion about what is even being debated at times.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that at this point he's trying to provide a counterexample to your axiom.
The problem is that you're not contending that every breaking putt is necessarily more difficult than a straight one of identical length, and I believe he would tell you that he never said a breaking putt is necessarily easier than a straight one.
Fair enough.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that at this point he's trying to provide a counterexample to your axiom.
The problem is that you're not contending that every breaking putt is necessarily more difficult than a straight one of identical length, and I believe he would tell you that he never said a breaking putt is necessarily easier than a straight one.
Fair enough.
I'm interested to see how I phrased my stance early in the thread prior to realizing that every word would be nitted up. I've even recently gone back through my early posts to show the origination of this debate.
As for my switching between specific examples that is because they are the ones who keep bringing up 4' putts and flawed experiments about a 10' putt. Then when I show why that experiment was flawed they don't acknowledge "hey that's relevant that putt doesn't exist" instead say what if we put it at a 4 degree slope....which again was easily shown to be just as invalid as the way they actually ran the experiment.
Oh yeah, still waiting for an answer on the probability thingymabob. But I'm clearly the one who doesn't answer questions. How many times do I need to ask for some insight before it becomes apparent to all that it is quite obvious that you won't hit the inner most 3.5% of a dispersion pattern often enough to match the speed to yield more makes than our initial PERfORMEDtrials have? All our putts presumably had some break, I know mine did. For all the physics and mathalete's we have here I would think it would be easy to show where that is wrong.
One last thought before I make some omlets for the family....I love that ARod challenges me to an IQ challenge which I say no to but go ahead and post my results from a test and prior bet. To which his only reply has been "nuh uh". Clearly the markings of a wizard
So I'm not accused of avoiding questions, I will address the other posts in a bit when I can multi quote easier from my office.
I think everyone in this thread should phrase their argument in one sentence that can be empirically tested.
For example "all straight putts are easier than breaking putts of equal length regardless of the amount of break."
or
"all breaking putts are easier than all straight putts regardless of the amount of break."
Obviously neither of these sentences is true. So either phrase your argument in a coherent form or stop arguing, since the only answer is "it depends."
For example "all straight putts are easier than breaking putts of equal length regardless of the amount of break."
or
"all breaking putts are easier than all straight putts regardless of the amount of break."
Obviously neither of these sentences is true. So either phrase your argument in a coherent form or stop arguing, since the only answer is "it depends."
We all agree AimPoint is pretty good, right? Is it a perfect science, no, but as I stated earlier in the thread it is relatively decent. Especially on the shorter putts. Your question of 4 degree shows again where somebody who doesn’t quite understand golf fully (that’s not an elitist knock, it’s just a fact based on your question) can mess up an otherwise well intentioned experiment.
Where your question is flawed and thus useless is that you can’t put a pin location on a 4 degree slope on a green running at 12.5 and have the ball rest. It will not stay in place. So your question is pointless. I did miss replying to it earlier but since I had dismissed its legitimacy when reading it I didn’t make a strong point to remember to answer it.
If you purely want to ask hypothetically I’d say the straight putt. But, AGAIN, 10’ < 100’ and useless even without the fact it is an absurd question. I don’t fault you for the question, it seems a good one to a lay person. Lay with regards to high level golf that is. You are clearly a very smart person.
Where your question is flawed and thus useless is that you can’t put a pin location on a 4 degree slope on a green running at 12.5 and have the ball rest. It will not stay in place. So your question is pointless. I did miss replying to it earlier but since I had dismissed its legitimacy when reading it I didn’t make a strong point to remember to answer it.
If you purely want to ask hypothetically I’d say the straight putt. But, AGAIN, 10’ < 100’ and useless even without the fact it is an absurd question. I don’t fault you for the question, it seems a good one to a lay person. Lay with regards to high level golf that is. You are clearly a very smart person.
So it's make percentage on a:
Straight putt on a 1 degree uphill slope
4 inch breaking putt on a 1 degree uphill slope
I'm just talking about a cushion in left/right misses on breaking putts. I believe that as a putt gets longer, the weight of the variables change drastically. I believe the absolute tolerances of speed matter less than the absolute tolerances of face angle, as the putt increases in length. Put more plainly, I think that the difference of being off by +/- 0.5 mph on a 100 foot putt and being +/- 0.5 mph on a 15 foot putt has less weight than the difference of being off by +/- 0.1 degrees of face angle on a 100 foot putt and being off by +/- 0.1 degrees on a 15 foot putt.
As you add length to the putt, I think for most players (good AND bad putters alike), you will see more absolute variability in the face angle than the absolute variability of the speed. Putts left high will slow down a bit and break more than a putt hit on the intended line. This allows for cushion in the left/right tolerance, which is important as direction has more weight on the success of a trial as the putt becomes longer. I won't post any more of this again until I can get some actual math/physics modeling. I just wanted to keep it fresh in my mind and talk through a few things to better understand my ideas. NXT, feel free to refute all of this at any point. I'm easy to sway.
As you add length to the putt, I think for most players (good AND bad putters alike), you will see more absolute variability in the face angle than the absolute variability of the speed. Putts left high will slow down a bit and break more than a putt hit on the intended line. This allows for cushion in the left/right tolerance, which is important as direction has more weight on the success of a trial as the putt becomes longer. I won't post any more of this again until I can get some actual math/physics modeling. I just wanted to keep it fresh in my mind and talk through a few things to better understand my ideas. NXT, feel free to refute all of this at any point. I'm easy to sway.
Reid, none of that is untrue. But it doesn't change the idea that a given line has a corresponding speed to go in. Just like a straight putt.
Imagine a machine that rolls a ball 103 feet every time. All you have to do is aim it. If you have a straight putt, you have a 4 inch target to aim at (taking away the extreme edges). Do you think that if you are putting a breaking putt, and rolling it at that same 103 foot speed, that the target is bigger?
Imagine a machine that rolls a ball 103 feet every time. All you have to do is aim it. If you have a straight putt, you have a 4 inch target to aim at (taking away the extreme edges). Do you think that if you are putting a breaking putt, and rolling it at that same 103 foot speed, that the target is bigger?
If anyone wants to actually take the other side vs. a bogey golfer then I am willing to try 100 putts with 1 make or more from 100 feet for $100-500 at even odds. I played about 6-7 rounds this year and shot between 85 and 113 in those rounds (those two scores were the only ones not in the 88-95 range). I am in ATL and could do this challenge at any putting green we can get onto sometime late morning or early afternoon on Friday whether on a course you have access to or a practice green. All I ask is that the green putt true (no angles for greens that are torn up or aerated or whatever), the putt not have any unreasonable breaks (like holes cut in borderline legal locations, triple breakers, etc.), and that I get to at least hit some 10-25 footers for 5 minutes prior on a different line in order to understand the speed of the greens.
If someone not from ATL wants action then I am fine having a poster from around here come and video it if that evidence would suffice.
If someone not from ATL wants action then I am fine having a poster from around here come and video it if that evidence would suffice.
Reid, none of that is untrue. But it doesn't change the idea that a given line has a corresponding speed to go in. Just like a straight putt.
Imagine a machine that rolls a ball 103 feet every time. All you have to do is aim it. If you have a straight putt, you have a 4 inch target to aim at (taking away the extreme edges). Do you think that if you are putting a breaking putt, and rolling it at that same 103 foot speed, that the target is bigger?
Imagine a machine that rolls a ball 103 feet every time. All you have to do is aim it. If you have a straight putt, you have a 4 inch target to aim at (taking away the extreme edges). Do you think that if you are putting a breaking putt, and rolling it at that same 103 foot speed, that the target is bigger?
You have the width of the cup (which I will grant may possibly be narrower than on flat putts but definitely doesn't get any wider) for putts that hit the hole at a "good pace"...and then you have a whole range of putts that are hit too high that come back to the hole and die into the cup. This range of putts is found after a certain range of high misses.
There are multiple lines for each speed...It is my assertion that this summation of possible left/right ranges is greater than the range of flat putts.
You said you understood what I was saying with parabolas earlier in the thread, but with this question of yours, I'm not sure we were on the same page.
I think everyone in this thread should phrase their argument in one sentence that can be empirically tested.
For example "all straight putts are easier than breaking putts of equal length regardless of the amount of break."
or
"all breaking putts are easier than all straight putts regardless of the amount of break."
Obviously neither of these sentences is true. So either phrase your argument in a coherent form or stop arguing, since the only answer is "it depends."
For example "all straight putts are easier than breaking putts of equal length regardless of the amount of break."
or
"all breaking putts are easier than all straight putts regardless of the amount of break."
Obviously neither of these sentences is true. So either phrase your argument in a coherent form or stop arguing, since the only answer is "it depends."
The quotes below are all from the first 250 posts ITT. I will agree that I could have phrased my initial statement more clearly with regards to the fact that MY PARTICULAR putt would be more makeable than a dead straight putt as well as I could find other breaking putts that are more makeable. I can see where potentially it could initially be read as though I said ALL breaking putts are easier. Of course the initial statements were all prior to the debate beginning and I never realized that every single point I wished to make should be perfectly clear for future reference. My first statement was merely that if they took a straight putt I would putt them massively –EV vs picking a breaking putt. Had I know what this would devolve to I would have said “if they took a straight putt vs THE CORRECT breaking putt I would put them massively –EV”. I am in no way changing my stance with that clarification as they have consistently maintained that a dead straight putt is easier than ANY BREAKING PUTT.
Furthermore, as noted earlier and often, I was adult enough to agree that I certainly far undervalued the odds of this bet being profitable. I undervalued both my own equity as well as the bogey golfer, I was never an elitist with regards to saying I was a lock and they had no chance. I would still say that my odds on the dead flat 100’ putt are very slim.
I picked a 100 footer that turned a bit at the end on the putting green. I had 10 balls and could average about 6 per try before I felt the hole might be blocked and retrieved them. I made 2 of 54 and they were numbers 46 and 50. I was actually surprised how decent my speed was within about a 5 foot circle of the hole overall. Some sat on the lip and others were nowhere close. I think if I had a person near the hole removing the blockers and throwing the balls back to me I would probably make about 4-6%. Maybe a tad higher, but not less than 4% overall.
Sooooo.....I really don't know what to think of a bogey golfers chances. I agree it isn't massive EV (I never did though) but I do think they would be -EV in this bet.
As for straight vs breaking, if they took a straight putt I would put them MASSIVELY -EV. You need a breaker in order to have multiple ways of the ball going in. Needing the putter to be perfectly square on the one that happens to come off with the right speed simply isn't going to happen outside of pure luck. That is why in the "I always chip a few in" scenarios mentioned as reasoning work.
Sooooo.....I really don't know what to think of a bogey golfers chances. I agree it isn't massive EV (I never did though) but I do think they would be -EV in this bet.
As for straight vs breaking, if they took a straight putt I would put them MASSIVELY -EV. You need a breaker in order to have multiple ways of the ball going in. Needing the putter to be perfectly square on the one that happens to come off with the right speed simply isn't going to happen outside of pure luck. That is why in the "I always chip a few in" scenarios mentioned as reasoning work.
However, I maintain consistency in my stance and have purely been addressing the 100’ putt:
Do you really not understand that a breaking putt can be made on a host of lines and speeds but a straight putt can only be made on ONE line? Making a 100 footer is almost exclusively luck, like a hole in one. So introducing luck to the equation is almost a must. My two make and several of the other putts that were close probably had 3+ feet of variance in the line they started on. However, the break at the end is what brought them all near the hole.
As for the derail and where I find it funny that I am accused of having multiple beliefs, here is where NXT changed the debate from the 100’ putt which rests well on the other side of the inflection point to a 3’ putt. I have never said anything about increasing the size of the hole anywhere along the way, not once. So I’m not sure why he chose to put a conclusion in my mouth that I never said nor thought. Unless of course he recognizes that in saying that it might be construed that was my position. At this point I had never addressed a putt other than mine or the straight 100’ nor mentioned making the hole bigger.
Yes there are more lines that lead to the hole on breaking putts, but all of those lines have much smaller windows of speed necessary to go in.
On breaking putts you have to match up both speed and line almost exactly.
On straight putts you mostly just have to match up line as you have a larger margin of error in the speed department.
Answer this for me. Would you rather hit a straight 3 footer or a 3 footer that breaks 6 inches?
Apparently you want the breaker bc it somehow makes the hole bigger?
Hint there is no such thing as an exact line on breaking putts as the line is dictated by the speed. One line could be great for a putt that dies into the hole, could be terrible for a putt with a little more speed to it.
What I am happy to point out as well is that I immediately tried to get back on track to the 100’r. That was my focus from the beginning despite ALL other attempts to take it another direction.
As for the idea of a straight 3 footer vs a 6 inch breaking 3 footer, that is clearly a dramatic and absurd example. But I will counter with a relevant question. Would you rather putt a straight 6-8 footer or one that breaks perfectly from the lip? I’ll give you a hint, a straight putt of that length actually breaks AGAINST you if you push or pull it. Meaning you have to hit a better putt for a straight putt to go in than a slightly breaking putt. So, back to the 100 footer, you have to have such a precisely aligned face to make the putt it is literally virtually impossible to nail the line perfectly. When you do happen to nail the line you also must have the correct speed for the putt to drop.
The next paragraph you give the window of speed 3.5-4’. Just thought I would note that I was giving an extreme allowance of up to 5’ for your straight putt to have a wreck with the hole. If you want me to tighten the speed requirements of my probability question to reflect the tighter range I’d say that instead of the 25% figure I gave it would certainly slip below 20% to as low as 10-15%. Let’s just use 20% and say I’m still waiting on the rebuttal there.
4th paragraph, you would be potentially be losing equity if you were indifferent. I guess if you are Pelz’s Perfy it wouldn’t matter but you are human. Please reference the Exeter experiment to see where yes you could be gaining equity from selecting the straight putt. Then reference my point above where I show that you could be gaining equity from the breaker. So your exact statement of “there would be no difference” is apparently incorrect. And what do you know, we even have an experiment ITT that showed that to be the case exactly. Even though the experiment was indeed flawed it was performed basically identically as you describe the putt you would be indifferent too. The only difference is magnitude of break, but that would simply mean your equity is closer on the two putts, but not identical.
Before people obviously say “SEE! You think breaking putts are easier please review that I have always maintained a point of inflection exists. Did I specifically use those words early in the thread, no, but the implications are throughout my posts.
5th paragraph, I never said it was impossible, and if I knew how to get my quote imbedded here I would (**** I hate being 40) I would show that I said “you have to have such a precisely aligned face to make the putt it is literally virtually impossible”. So we agree on this, but you chose to change my words (even when you had actually quoted them as saying VIRTUALLY) since you are failing.
I still stand by my prediction that a bogey golfers can hack 8-12% of their 8 footer(compared to 50% for Tour players), and 1.5-2% of their 25 footers(compared to 10% for Tour players). Do you not think a bogey golfer can manage these numbers?
If you hit it dead straight on line, as long as you have an OK range of speed(aka somewhere between it's dying in the hole and maybe would run 3.5-4 feet by) it's going to go in. Every variation of face angle brings down the fastest speed the putt will go in. If the face is pointed towards the right center of the cup, now your speed range can be from dying into the cup to maybe 2.5-3 feet by, any faster and it will lip out. As you continue to stray from the center of the cup towards the edges the same phenomenon occurs until you reach the very edges of the cup and only a putt that dies at the hole will fall in.
Back to your question, I will take the straight 6-8 footer because again I remove a variable from the process. However if I were to know the ideal speed and line(yes this exists, say it was a chalk line on the green) there would be no difference between a 6-8 footer that breaks off the lip or a straight 6-8 footer.
No, it is not impossible. Is it unlikely? Sure but again you are making putting seem way more impossible than it actually is. It's by far the easiest swing in golf. If you think squaring the face on a 100 foot putt is impossible
If you hit it dead straight on line, as long as you have an OK range of speed(aka somewhere between it's dying in the hole and maybe would run 3.5-4 feet by) it's going to go in. Every variation of face angle brings down the fastest speed the putt will go in. If the face is pointed towards the right center of the cup, now your speed range can be from dying into the cup to maybe 2.5-3 feet by, any faster and it will lip out. As you continue to stray from the center of the cup towards the edges the same phenomenon occurs until you reach the very edges of the cup and only a putt that dies at the hole will fall in.
Back to your question, I will take the straight 6-8 footer because again I remove a variable from the process. However if I were to know the ideal speed and line(yes this exists, say it was a chalk line on the green) there would be no difference between a 6-8 footer that breaks off the lip or a straight 6-8 footer.
No, it is not impossible. Is it unlikely? Sure but again you are making putting seem way more impossible than it actually is. It's by far the easiest swing in golf. If you think squaring the face on a 100 foot putt is impossible
I should describe the exact nature of the break for the 100 footer I tried so maybe you can understand better. The green was gradually falling right where the hole was and that slope got more severe over the 5 feet just left of the hole. So the ideal correct speed line was about 1 foot outside left. But, if I pulled it the slope would become more severe and force the putt to break more and thus still have a chance of going in. This putt could be made if it started anywhere from about 1-3 feet outside left with relatively similar speed. But in the straight putt scenario you do not have that kind of cushion.
Does that make it any clearer? If not please sit down and really think about it. You seem smart and I just think it doesnt intuitively make sense to you and thus you can't wrap your head around it. But like I said above, once the light goes off in your head you will easily see what I'm saying.
Does that make it any clearer? If not please sit down and really think about it. You seem smart and I just think it doesnt intuitively make sense to you and thus you can't wrap your head around it. But like I said above, once the light goes off in your head you will easily see what I'm saying.
You again reiterate your incorrect stance that one (Tiger specifically here) should be indifferent. That is not true, have I shown why? If not please reference the Exeter experiment (albeit flawed it refutes your claim as made). Morale of the story, sometimes we are ALL wrong. As for the last paragraph, I certainly agree that it would be a great benefit to have a putt read for you rather than do it yourself. It might, depending on the putts though, still be losing equity. It isn’t black and white, yet your stance on the 100’r in question is black and white, and wrong.
Why? Nobody is arguing(or at least I'm not) that breaking putts are HARDER than straight putts if you know the ideal combination of line + speed. It's the element of having to read break that makes them more difficult. You guys are arguing that breaking putts are EASIER because of the many different lines the ball can take to get to the hole and that is simply not true(see: physics and geometry).
If you gave Tiger a choice of a dead straight 15 footer with a chalk line, or a slightly breaking 15 footer with a chalk line showing the ideal line + speed combo he should be indifferent to them.
However if you gave him the choice of a dead straight putt or a 15 footer which he had to read, even if he thought it was a right edge putt, the presence of the chance that he misreads the putt is enough to make it a "no brainer" chose the straight one.
If you gave Tiger a choice of a dead straight 15 footer with a chalk line, or a slightly breaking 15 footer with a chalk line showing the ideal line + speed combo he should be indifferent to them.
However if you gave him the choice of a dead straight putt or a 15 footer which he had to read, even if he thought it was a right edge putt, the presence of the chance that he misreads the putt is enough to make it a "no brainer" chose the straight one.
My stance on straight and flat is the same. Then without saying inflection point reference the idea, showing my position has never changed, even before this got ugly.
4th paragraph I agree with you that a perfectly paced putt does not increase the size of the hole regardless if it is a straight putt or breaking putt. Note, perfectly paced. You have already tried to put words in my mouth of increasing the size of the hole, I never contended that, said that, or believed that.
Next I acknowledge that a far shorter breaker can be harder in certain circumstances than a putt of twice the length. Consistency. Learn it. Or, as somebody once said “if you tell the truth you don’t have to worry about contradicting yourself ever”.
I don’t know any more than you if they are 4-6 times better. I have acknowledged I am speculating in an argument that most likely can’t be proven. Many debates are theoretical until proven and I don’t anticipate we ever truly solve this bet in a relevant sample size, I doubt it. What is not theoretical is the debate about a straight 100 footer vs the putt I described in a real world example. The best you can come up with is “gibberish” which clearly shows you read the description once and were too hurried to think it through. You were to excited thinking about how awesomely sweet you were going to look from your MORTAL COMBAT FINISHING MOVE comment or perhaps how great one of your absurd gif’s would be received.
As far as the bet is actually concerned I have stated I think the bogey golfer is a dog in this bet. Furthermore, I also acknowledge I very well could be wrong with regards to that. I certainly performed much better than I expected in my small sample size trial.
As for your fantasy land world question of “is a perfectly flat non uphill or downhill putt easier than a breaking putt” I will agree with you that a straight AND FLAT putt is easier from inside 8 feet than a breaking putt. However, your putt does not exist in reality. Not to mention that I still think that as the putt gets longer than about 15 feet the breaking putt (breaking within reason, not 6 inches from 3 feet) will actually be easier due to the amount of times you will in fact hit a putt that is not perfect
I also agree with your comment the putt doesn’t care what line it is coming in at the hole as dead center is relevant to the angle the ball is approaching the hole. Which is yet another way you are confirming my argument that both putts if hit perfectly have the same chance of going in. What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that a breaking putt has more than one perfect/ideal/makeable/holeable/sinkable/get-in-da-hole line and speed, something a straight putt does not have in its corner.
Thanks for thinking. What I still think you are missing is the same phenomenon is present on all breaking putts. Again, I am stating this with the disclaimer that there is no such thing as a straight AND flat 8 foot putt. I should also state that this is based on a putt that breaks within reason. I can concede that a straight 15 footer is likely easier than a pin high 8 footer on #9 at Augusta. Golf course design simply does not allow a 16 foot dead flat circle to occur. Blame God if you must.
As far as the bet is actually concerned I have stated I think the bogey golfer is a dog in this bet. Furthermore, I also acknowledge I very well could be wrong with regards to that. I certainly performed much better than I expected in my small sample size trial.
As for your fantasy land world question of “is a perfectly flat non uphill or downhill putt easier than a breaking putt” I will agree with you that a straight AND FLAT putt is easier from inside 8 feet than a breaking putt. However, your putt does not exist in reality. Not to mention that I still think that as the putt gets longer than about 15 feet the breaking putt (breaking within reason, not 6 inches from 3 feet) will actually be easier due to the amount of times you will in fact hit a putt that is not perfect
I also agree with your comment the putt doesn’t care what line it is coming in at the hole as dead center is relevant to the angle the ball is approaching the hole. Which is yet another way you are confirming my argument that both putts if hit perfectly have the same chance of going in. What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that a breaking putt has more than one perfect/ideal/makeable/holeable/sinkable/get-in-da-hole line and speed, something a straight putt does not have in its corner.
Thanks for thinking. What I still think you are missing is the same phenomenon is present on all breaking putts. Again, I am stating this with the disclaimer that there is no such thing as a straight AND flat 8 foot putt. I should also state that this is based on a putt that breaks within reason. I can concede that a straight 15 footer is likely easier than a pin high 8 footer on #9 at Augusta. Golf course design simply does not allow a 16 foot dead flat circle to occur. Blame God if you must.
3rd paragraph shows that I understood and applied the Exeter experiment prior to the its even being posted. The inference from my comments is one of the reasons why in a controlled setting the kids make fewer putts, poor speed control.
This is why I have been very clear in stating this argument is fully theoretical. Obviously there is not a dead straight putt from 100 feet, but in this argument NXT and others are taking the side that if there was it would be easier than my putt.
The tolerance of how hard a ball can hit a hole and still have a chance to go in is somewhat proven within reason. From 100 feet you have about a 4-5% window of speed that will result in a make. Harder than that and it simply won't drop.
What's funny to me is that I believe that notion actually helps NXT's argument that a dead straight putt does in fact have a slightly wider speed range than a breaking putt to go in, but he actually argued counter to that. I didn't see the need to help his argument so I let it pass. The straight putts larger speed cone is a similar concept as the idea a breaking putt has more combinations of line and speed to go in. However, the breaking putt has more combinations than simply a wider tolerance of speed.
The tolerance of how hard a ball can hit a hole and still have a chance to go in is somewhat proven within reason. From 100 feet you have about a 4-5% window of speed that will result in a make. Harder than that and it simply won't drop.
What's funny to me is that I believe that notion actually helps NXT's argument that a dead straight putt does in fact have a slightly wider speed range than a breaking putt to go in, but he actually argued counter to that. I didn't see the need to help his argument so I let it pass. The straight putts larger speed cone is a similar concept as the idea a breaking putt has more combinations of line and speed to go in. However, the breaking putt has more combinations than simply a wider tolerance of speed.
Please note the law of Physics that is violated for this to occur.
Think of it this way, a straight putt may have 5 simple lines with each line averaging 6 speeds they can go in on. So in a very simplified example you have 30 combos of speed and line that will find the bottom of the hole.
A breaking putt may open your world to 5 more lines for a total of 10, but instead of each line averaging 6 speeds that will go in the speed and line have to match more perfectly. Now there are on average 3 speeds for each of the 10 lines. Again you have a total of 30 combos of putts that will fall.
Do you really not see how stupid this is? You are literally describing defying the laws of physics. But hey that cool!
A breaking putt may open your world to 5 more lines for a total of 10, but instead of each line averaging 6 speeds that will go in the speed and line have to match more perfectly. Now there are on average 3 speeds for each of the 10 lines. Again you have a total of 30 combos of putts that will fall.
Do you really not see how stupid this is? You are literally describing defying the laws of physics. But hey that cool!
My ideal putt would actually be the exact one I hit. It was perfect, I hope to film it at some point this week so you guys can see it roll. Christmas might hinder that though.
As for the last paragraph I guess I did prove myself wrong, but admitted as much immediately. I’m sorry that I am on occasion wrong but I am proud I was able to state as much. I did not come close to beginning the derail as noted above.
My post that you quoted was in regards to the OP. So far, of the people who have tried this "experiment", no one has failed to do it, yet a couple of die-hards cling to the belief that the putter has the worst of the prop bet.
I am not really interested in the "breaking putt is easier" de-rail as any 100-foot putt will have some break in it. But, for the sake of argument, if you were offered the same prop bet as OP, but with fewer attempts allowed due to your renowned putting skills, and allowed to select the putt, what would be your ideal putt? A typical 100-footer with a few gentle breaks, a severely breaking right-to-lefter, a double- or triple-breaker with severe slopes, or something else?
It has been interesting, but not entirely unpredictable, that the posters who were quickly proved mistaken on the originally question quickly de-railed the thread to the argument of a proposition in which they chose their side first.
I am not really interested in the "breaking putt is easier" de-rail as any 100-foot putt will have some break in it. But, for the sake of argument, if you were offered the same prop bet as OP, but with fewer attempts allowed due to your renowned putting skills, and allowed to select the putt, what would be your ideal putt? A typical 100-footer with a few gentle breaks, a severely breaking right-to-lefter, a double- or triple-breaker with severe slopes, or something else?
It has been interesting, but not entirely unpredictable, that the posters who were quickly proved mistaken on the originally question quickly de-railed the thread to the argument of a proposition in which they chose their side first.
I never said that you were correct or that one is necessarily easier than the other. What I said, and what anyone with a modicum of objectivity would have easily understood me to have said, was that there are SOME specific breaking putts that CAN BE easier to make, then I used the extreme hypothetical of a funnel shaped green. HOWEVER, there are also many breaking putts that are far more difficult to make than flat ones (did you not read this part of my post), in fact there are undoubtedly putts involving ridges and pin positions that make them virtually impossible to hit.
My stance the entire argument, as noted, is that adding break CAN make it easier than its straight counterpart, specifically the appropriate break at the right place in the putt.
You again derail with a 5’ foot example that is completely irrelevant to the actual debate regarding a 100’ putt. As for the added length of the 100’ vs approximately 103-104’ putt I know I have thought it but I am not sure if I posted it….how much equity do you think you lose adding 3’ to a 100’r? I agree there is diminished value, but it will not offset the increased combinations. Yet again I enjoy how you speak for me and select my answer and the repeat “can you really be this dumb?” I’m not really sure if it has been your intention, but you have really done a nice job throughout of stating things for me that are not indicative of my views and then calling those views dumb. It is a great tactic to make the casual reader see something and think it is what I said and agree “man that’s ****ing stupid!” Kudos.
So the dead straight(or as real world straight as you can get) 3 footer would be easier than a 3 footer up a 45* slope? This has been my stance the entire time, introducing slope, be it uphill/downhill/sidehill cannot possibly make it easier due to the laws of physics.
However your whole stance in this entire argument is that adding break to a putt makes it easier than it's straight counterpart. So I guess if given the choice between
A. 5 foot, real world straight putt/flat putt
B. 5 foot putt up a 45* slope
C. 5 foot putt breaking 45* from right to left
you would somehow pick an answer other than A?
Can you really be this dumb?
As a side note, and not something anyone on the breaking putts side has mentioned is how a breaking 100 footer would have to travel further than 100 feet to get to the hole due to going along the break line. Did you guys forget about this factor? So instead of hitting a 100 footer, your adding a few feet and I'm sure that everyone can agree on this one thing, adding distance to 2 similar putts makes the longer one harder to make. And that is irrefutable thanks to a little thing called geometry.
However your whole stance in this entire argument is that adding break to a putt makes it easier than it's straight counterpart. So I guess if given the choice between
A. 5 foot, real world straight putt/flat putt
B. 5 foot putt up a 45* slope
C. 5 foot putt breaking 45* from right to left
you would somehow pick an answer other than A?
Can you really be this dumb?
As a side note, and not something anyone on the breaking putts side has mentioned is how a breaking 100 footer would have to travel further than 100 feet to get to the hole due to going along the break line. Did you guys forget about this factor? So instead of hitting a 100 footer, your adding a few feet and I'm sure that everyone can agree on this one thing, adding distance to 2 similar putts makes the longer one harder to make. And that is irrefutable thanks to a little thing called geometry.
No, we are not. The reason why a pro is bothered somewhat by a "straight putt"... first of all I define a real-world straight putt as a putt that is basically impossible to read. In the real world, there is no such thing as a completely straight putt. This is why pros don't like them, because if they play center of the cup and don't know if the ball will break a milimeter left or a milimeter right... it matters, because they are automatically foregoing a milimeter of cup width. So they "like" breakers because they THINK they can pick a line whose cone encompasses the entire cup. But this doesn't change the fact that this line is equally hard to pick as the line they pick on the "straight" putt. They just feel warm and fuzzy inside because they think it does.
I do have a few other posts to respond to and might have time in a bit.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE