One more

http://aimpointgolf.wordpress.com/20...correct-speed/

The highlights:

When it comes to holing putts the formula is simple – the right read, the right speed and the ball needs to be started on the correct line…
Get these factors correct and the ball will go in…

Somehow he fails to mention that more break(on putts outside of 15' according to SHIP hahaha) will allow more putts to find the bottom of the cup. Hmmm wonder why?

However it’s possible to have an incorrect read, start the ball on yet another line, and still hole some putts. But if you have an incorrect read and start the ball on that line, then the only way you can attempt to hole the putt without manipulating path is to vary the speed accordingly. Not something we could even practice, changing the speed of the ball subconsciously!

You don't say!

I thought the argument was about the mathematical probability of making a breaking putt where we know a specific line/speed. Green reading isn't part of it once you know the line...quoting what you just posted about removing variables to make things simpler, the only variables we're discussing are speed and line, and both of these are still variables in the mechanics of making both a straight and a breaking putt. We've removed the green reading if we're just talking about the physics of what happens during a stroke. Variability in speed, direction, and then the unchangeable physics of what happens after that point.


Obviously if we're in a tournament and we're seeing a putt for the first time, green reading comes into consideration, but if BO's comment about whether or not you'd want a putt that breaks toward or away from you can be so readily dismissed with 'LOL PHYSICS' (which is precisely how you answered it), then you are granting that we know the perfect speed and line and only have to perform. This goes directly opposite to all the AimPoint stuff you're pasting now. I don't want to forum-warrior against you here, NXT, but it seems like you're moving the goal posts when it suits your argument. boom.gif?

All that commentary is assuming you're physically performing everything exactly as planned. We're talking about malfunctions of performance. Obviously if we can hit every putt PRECISELY where we want to and with the exact speed we want to, the whole argument is moot and comes down to an obvious "straight putts are easier".

You're exactly right. From the beginning I have stated if we know the exact line and speed of a breaking putt and the exact line and speed of a straight putt then the 2 putts are identical.

I have explicitly talked about removing having to read the green, as this makes it not even a close decision.

BO's comment was about a golfer reading the exact same amount of break, the only difference being one broke left and one broke right.

Again here he apparently "knows" the ideal line and speed for each putt, therefore his make % is the same. The left to right putt for a right hander doesn't just get harder bc it breaks right.

It does not go against the AimPoint stuff im quoting at all. I am also not moving the goal posts.

No it does not come down to "straight putts are easier". Again I have NEVER argued that if you know the line and speed of both a straight putt and a breaking putt the straight one is "always" easier. I am simply refuting the statement that if you know the exact speed and line of 2 putts of equal length it is impossible for the breaking one to be easier. And if you don't know the exact optimal speed and line(according to AimPoint this would be a ball that goes into the dead center of the cup, based on approach angle and would have rolled roughly 9" past if it missed) then breaking putts become exponentially harder. Especially as you get further away from the hole bc's human's ability to read greens correctly is generally bad.

A golf hole is always the size of a golf hole. You always hit a putt straight and gravity affects it. It can't affect it more than one way simultaneously, so there is only one path of a line + speed combo that can lead to a made putt. A breaking putt abides by all the same rules as a straight putt, there are just less variables for a human to consider with a straight putt and will therefore lead to better results. For a robot it's the box of marbles example, because a breaking putt or straight putt would have exactly the same difficulty - both with the same rules and the same number of solutions.

Sorry to quote this again but I may have a better explanation.

Here is what we are assuming. That we know the ideal line and speed of a straight putt, and the ideal line and speed of a breaking putt. You might as well throw a line down on the green.

The entirety of this argument comes down to whether or not we think a bogey golfer can put a good enough stroke on the ball. Each putt has the same TOTAL margin of error which is just a combination of line and speed. Again you don't magically get more margin of error on breaking putts, the laws of physics don't allow it. The straight putt has more lee way on speed, the curved one requires a better blend of both. (see combinatorics and my combination example earlier)

We might as well not even conduct this experiment on an actual putting green. We could easily take the luck of how the ball bounces and rolls across the putting surface out of it.

The player could stand and hit putts off a cliff in front of a SAM putting machine, it doesn't matter. We just give him a set of parameters that he must stay within with regards to face angle and ball speed. We just have to run a model that accurately maps how the two variables interact and whether the stroke he just produced would go in.

And even if we humans could solve all the variables in the putt before we hit it, we still can't exactly control our actions. If we hope to make a putt with a flawed stroke, we must rely on another flaw to correct the path into the hole. This path is the same as every other made path and requires just as much precision to go in.

So saying a breaking putt leaves you with more options if you have a flawed stroke just can't be true. If speed is a constant, you need precisely the right line. If line is a constant, you need precisely the right speed. If neither are constant, both line and speed need to precisely match up. All of these things are exactly as rare as hitting your putt perfectly.

I feel like you guys are ignoring the fact that in a breaking putt, there is more than one line for some speeds. Those lines need to be added to the range of successful puts, no?

Depends on how wide the total spectrum of lines is. In a straight putt, it's really not just one line. It's a bunch of lines that all end up passing through a 4 inch wide gap, with the slower speeds having slightly more lines.

This is the math part that we talked about earlier IMO.

everything you said here is also true of straight putts we are already accounting for this starting like 200 posts ago

There are exactly the same number of paths. If speed is constant, only one line combo will match it regardless if the putt breaks or not.

There is also more than one line for some speeds on straight putts...

Take a straight putt where you get the line exactly right. As long as you get it there and don't hit it maybe more than 4 feet too hard its going to go in. Now try to wrap your head around the number of line + speed combos this would be.

On a 10 footer it would start with this.

Exact line + 10 feet
Exact line + 10 feet 1/4 of an inch
Exact line + 10 feet 1/2 of an inch

Now of course I'm increasing by 1/4 of an inch but if you wanted to get very specific you would have to go more precise than that.

And as you move the line off center in either direction the number of speed combos that will go in decreases until you reach the edges of the hole.

By comparison there is not a single line on a 10 foot breaking putt where you could start it on the exact same line, hit one putt exactly 10 feet and hit the other 14 feet, and have them both go in. It's not possible. Each line has a much more defined speed that is required.

For example let's take a 10 foot breaking putt again. Let's say you play it right edge. For it to go in dead center it can only have 1 speed. Any faster and it runs through the break to the high side of the hole. Any slower it takes to much break and veers to the low side.

So for it to go in dead center on that starting line you have to hit it 10 feet 9" exactly. And now rather than have the 4 foot range of speed you had on the straight putt on the dead center line yours is lowered significantly. Now if you only hit it 10 feet 3 inches you miss the hole on the low side. If you hit it 11 feet 3 inches you miss the hole on the high side.

Your margin of error on the speed went from 4 feet at dead center to 1 foot. This is then countered by the more starting lines a breaking putt allows. According to physics and the laws of gravity you have to make that difference up somewhere and it is in having more starting lines to choose from. 4x more, which results in a net wash.

Does this help you understand where we are coming from?

I don't think it's as clear cut as some of you think it is, especially on the margins.

The lateral margin for error is less on uphill putts, more for downhill putts, when compared to their flat counterparts. Everyone knows that.

I don't know that it does, but it could be that the same type phenomenon happens on cross slope putts as well, making a certain type of breaking putt more forgiving to a degree.

That ignores speed ramifications, but for the sake of throwing the broad idea out, whatever.

Everything can be more forgiving at the sake of something else.

Uphill straight putts are more forgiving when related to speed, but less forgiving with line. The opposite for downhill straight putts, which are less forgiving to speed and more forgiving to line.

The same is true for breaking putts. It's always an exact give/take relationship. The box of marbles will always have the same ratio of blue to red.

Okay let's go extreme. Let's fire a projectile straight into a sphere. In a gravity free environment, there is a range that the projectile can be fired within that will result in travel through the sphere. The range of successful hits is a cone that produces straight lines that pass through the sphere. Easy enough.

Now let's add gravity. Now there is the cone aimed at some point above the original cone. There is also now an additional cone of range well above the 'straighter' cone. When you sum these together, it's a greater total range of possible aiming points. No matter how small of an additional cone, it is a non-zero addition to the original range.

No because whatever you gain by aiming high and letting gravity bring it back down to the target is countered by what you lose at the bottom of your original cone that is now a miss bc gravity dragged it down.

One of the aim point articles I linked talked about exactly what your talking about except they used baseballs instead of missiles.

As for these two posts, in my entire TL/DR post above I was making my commentary ABOVE each post, not the standard below. So the quote you are referencing I did in fact attribute to NXT. It was post 391 in case this does not format well enough to see what I mean, here are the relevant comments I actually made to you Brock:

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brocktoon View Post
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.

The quote you thought was directed at you was in fact regarding a post from NXT that followed the comments.



I do recognize that I did this particular post out of normal order. I did that so I could make my comments and then the readers could reference the post I was referring too. My goal was to illustrate a point and then have the reader see the relevant text somewhat knowing what they are looking for. My format with regards to this was uniform the entire post. I do recognize that is not the norm, but I thought it would help in this particular post since I was summarizing my stance throughout the thread, as well as NXT’s.

I do once again applaud NXT for trying to make it seem as though I am disingenuous and just can’t be trusted at all. But we have yet again found another easily refuted “holy **** ship---this is clueless” attempt.

As for the Tiger quote I’ll see what I can drag up but clearly since it was 7 years ago I’m not sure what I’ll find. I do remember it though as you can see it left an impact on me after I pondered the implications of what he said. I truly can’t believe that NXT would show a quote from Tiger and state “let’s start with the actual quote”. That alone is simply awesome. Apparently the Sunday media room is the only place Tiger spoke. I guess I just happened to pick the 2006 PGA at Medinah and got lucky the greens that week were indeed slow which DOES IN FACT OPEN UP OTHER STRATEGICAL DECISIONS FOR GOLFERS ABOVE A +3 HANDICAP (I know BO is smiling somewhere right now).


To make the leap that one week since the greens were slower than usual for a major, AND RELATIVELY FLAT WITH THE PITCH BEING RELATIVELY UNIFORM FROM FRONT TO BACK, that he should just use that strategy every week is obviously invalid. I know you don’t seem to think too in depth about the game, but sometimes greens have very small areas to hit to so you are simply taking a more direct line. However, there are times that yes, a professional will actually aim to specific parts of the green to assist in the putt they are left with for birdie. But as they say, these guys are good.


Still waiting on the explanation of how you are going to get all those putts to go towards the hole exactly….

And now I have to make tacos for 15....SWEET!

Ok. Well since most tour events have greens slower than majors why doesn't he just stick to the strategy at regular stops and apparently win them all by 5.

Also given that I found a quote from the exact tournament you referred to what is more likely. You are misremembering the actual quote or he actually did say he preferred downhill putts in another interview but in the big interview after the win he simply stated he wasn't afraid of the downhiller.

??

Lol what is this?

Originally I thought it was an issue with your browser seeing as his original post reads just fine. But since you never make a mistake in this forum, that dumbass ship must have made a typo that further proves his ignorance.

BO

Apparently a typo, I'd think the reference is pretty clear I would like you to solve the probability exercise I've requested you to do.

Ahh, who cares, you simply can't.

Yea and I just want to know how your gonna hit all those breaking putts where you miss your exact line the precise speed necessary to go in, especially since when you miss your line it requires a completely different speed than you initially tried to impart on the putt.

DUCY?

I'm also quite sure I have solved your probability exercise (I solved one for sure, did you have multiple?)

Go ahead and post it again.

Is it though?

Yes. Physics doesn't allow anything else.