This is sad. You are sad, Ship.

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 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.

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

I just want to say I love stupid nitty arguments like this. Please continue

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.

sigh

and stop accusing me of skimming. i read all 4 pages of this thread for some reason

NXT,

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.

Now this makes sense but I don't think this is what Ship has been arguing all along, nor was it what he was attempting to illustrate with his example. All he showed was how 2 putts traveling different speeds went in on the same line as if that was only something you would witness on breaking putts. I showed above that it's also a phenomenon you witness on straight putts.

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.

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!

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.

I made this point earlier. Basically I said that removing 1 of the 2 variables (easily deciphering the line on straight putts) has to make it easier as removing variables from scenarios ALWAYS makes them easier.


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.


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.

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.

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.

Once I head into my office I'll reply to all the other comments. I just thought I'd get this out there quickly, I think that NXT is saying that all straight putts are easier than breaking putts of equal length regardless of amount of break. If I am incorrect about this I will agree we are simply talking past each other. I certainly know he is talking past my stance as I'll illustrate in a bit. How at this point in the conversation it could be miss that I think there are inflection points at virtually all putts over 15' where a slight break can increase equity is truly beyond me.

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."

Then change it to a 1 degree uphill putt so the question isn't pointless. I assumed you were smart enough to understand the concept behind the question.

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.

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?

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.

I do in fact think the overall sum of ranges that result in holed putts is bigger because once you aim high enough, you pass through the spectrum of putts that would normally pass the hole on the high side and you get a whole other range of putts that catch the hole.

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.

Thank you. This is a perfect place for this question. First of all, your statement of “it depends” is one I’ve agreed with from the beginning. I have never waivered from that whatsoever. I do not think that every single breaking putt is easier than a dead straight putt, nor have I ever said as much. NXT and A Rod seem to think that is what I have said and refuse to grasp that I have never taken that position. On the other hand, they have both emphatically stated that a dead straight 100’ putt is easier than any breaking putt regardless of what that breaking putt looks like.

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.


Here is NXT’s position from the beginning purely with regards to the debate.
Here I certainly poorly phrased “introducing luck” prior to really thinking this through during the course of this debate. What I should have said was “introducing EQUITY”. Not to derail from keeping this manageable, but I also said “like a hole in one”, not “with the same odds as a hole in one”. But we’ve gone over that already.
However, I maintain consistency in my stance and have purely been addressing the 100’ putt:
I fully agree with all of this about lines and speed. Where NXT is off is that the sum of lines + speed will be greater for the breaking putt than the dead straight putt. Again, please refute the normal dispersion problem that I have asked repeatedly.

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.

Here I should have first noted (since every single word must be said in order for people to follow) that there is no such thing as a straight AND flat 8’ putt. I will also grant you that on this 8’ putt my answer would be “it depends”. If the 8’ putt in question is up a relatively severe slope (yet one that a pin could be placed on) it is possible the right lip putt would be easier. The 8’ putt from the lip *could* be downhill at the same grade and all you need to do is get it started and it will trickle down the hill and with the aid of gravity have a tendency to correct itself. Thereby being EASIER. I will grant you this is not what I was thinking when I posed this question below, but since we have gone down this path I just figure I’d point out an example from prior that clearly shows an easier putt.

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.
Again, what is the relevance of your derails and constant avoidance of the actual question.

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.
Here I both maintain my position and integrity. I have yet to shrink to the gif and hahahahahahahha nonsense you need. Instead I try to describe the putt and maintain civility. I didn’t say “go sit in the corner and don’t come out until you get it lololololololol”. I simply asked you to stop banging on the keyboard and actually consider what I am saying. I have done that with every one of your posts. At this point I did think a light would go off in your head and you would get it, that’s not derogatory, that’s just the way learning often occurs.
Again, you are wrong here, breaking putts CAN BE harder than straight putts if you know the speed and line. Inflection. Learn it. The next flaw in this is your statement that breaking putts are harder to read. That implies that every straight putt is read correctly, which is not the case. Some straight putts are read right lip and missed….actually not some, tons are. Just as some breaking putts are under read.

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.
I start to try to help you realize that we can solve the expectation of your putt and then compare it to what our forum average is, again about the 100’r. Yet again I acknowledge that I could be wrong on the expectation of the bet.

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”.

Consistency. Clear view. I’m really not sure how my position could be misunderstood, other than trolling and again I really applaud the effort if so. Valiant commitment to the role.

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 not a simple 11th grade algebra problem that has as few combinations as you think. Every single increase in speed results in a different line for dead center results which also results in different edge putts that will go in. So there are virtually infinite combinations of line and speed for a breaking putt. Before you point out “so you are saying a 100’ have billions of combinations so how is it possible to ever miss?” A billion combinations with extremely small values does not add up to a huge equity from 100’. Simply that those combinations will add up to more equity than the straight putt will. Again, this is speaking in regards to my specific putt vs a dead straight 100’ putt. I do believe I could find numerous putts that fit this bill and I didn’t just find a miracle funnel. Which is why, again, my stance has always been that a bogey golfer should choose a breaker vs a straight putt. Not any breaker, but the right one.

Please note the law of Physics that is violated for this to occur.
This is my point. Nobody has failed to do it on putts that, again, I presume had break. I am not sure if the die-hard referenced is me or not, but please post where I definitively state otherwise if it is. I am pretty sure all relevant comments are here so point it out. I did say if they had a straight putt they were dogs, but obviously that is the point of the entire derail.

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.
More credence for the breaking putt, ldo. Yes it also proves the bet is likely easier than expected, I’m still surprised by that fact. I would have lost money all day long on the bet. Still waiting on you to show the dispersion that will yield (your figures) 8% makes with a 4’ speed range. At those numbers we need 32% of putts (assuming 20% have the correct speed) to hit the inner most 5.57% of the dispersion pattern (I reduced the dispersion for a bogey golfer to 3’ on either side for you which is beyond laughable,ldo, but a number you through out).
Sorry for again quoting you, but I’m just grabbing the relevant comments. I think we both agree your annoyance earlier was due to misunderstanding my point, but your comments still stand as written. They also show then new age idea of inflection points in different verbiage. Repetition is after all the mother of learning.
No, your stance is that a 100’ have more equity than a putt I could find on virtually any putting green. Reference your own words above if need be. The 3 foot putt was introduced by you and not involved in the actual debate. I have long conceded that there are straight putts that are clearly easier than breaking putts, ad nauseam. What you have contended all along about the 100’derives nothing from a 3’ putts equity thus I’m really not sure why you keep referring to it. Aside from distraction from the actual topic. That’s actually good debate practice, you saw it in the presidential debates quite often.

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.
We agree that a dead straight putt is very hard to read. I stated so earlier so I’m not sure what your point is…not that that’s anything new though. Tard on I say!


I truly think this represents the debate and until somebody takes a stab at the probability thoughts settles the discussion.

I do have a few other posts to respond to and might have time in a bit.