Wasn't the original contention that (within reason) a breaking putt was easier to make than a straight putt?

BO

Okay, I've had a good rest and I'm looking at the paper once again...

Taking the concepts from Figure 14 and tossing in a splash of Figures 9 and 10 pretty much sum up my argument...HOWEVER:


I don't know what the distribution of misses is on a 100 foot putt, but I think it's fair to say that the set of misses for both distance and direction will be a normal distribution: a bell shaped curve (although a very low riding curve with low probability even for the center of the bell).

The window for speed on a straight putt of that length is going to have a range of about 1.5 m/s (if you look at Figure 9, you'll see this is a fair estimate...I can do the actual math if you want) while the window from left to right on misses is only going to be around 0.1 degrees (taken from post 69 in this thread).

Figure 14 clearly shows that within a certain range of speeds (granted, less range than the speeds required to hole a flat putt if the direction is correct), a breaking putt has a much wider window of left/right range.

So what we need to do is to get a distribution of speeds for various length attempts and a distribution of the left/right results of those same length attempts. It then just becomes a simple statistics problem:

Using some arbitrary numbers, on a whatever distance flat putt, let's say 20% of the attempts come to a makeable speed. Let's say there is a 20% chance that the face angle falls within the makeable range. That leaves us with (0.2)*(0.2) = 4% chance of making the putt. Of course, this is slightly simplified just for this post and to do it properly, we would have to use a proper data set where we can get as specific and as accurate as we want by adding the combinations of speed/angle and coming up with the exact probability for each.

We can do the same for a breaking putt to find the probability for holing the putt. Once we do, we can compare. Until then, I really don't think either camp can say that any side 100% right or 100% wrong.


So if we can get some good data, we can actually do some math and answer the following questions which are the crux of this entire thread. I think this is exactly what ship was asking for earlier.

It's been a while but I'm almost certain his original contention was that breaking putts (plural) were easier to hole than straight, flat, putts because more linez.

Hundreds of posts ago somebody (Brocktoon?) pointed out that certain downhill-triple-breakers would be simple to hole if the hole was somewhere in the valley.

But what Ship was actually saying was that (all) breaking putts are easier than all straight putts of the same distance.

Gotta go trim my beard and get ready for Christmas activities so I may not be responding here for a while. If so it will be short phone posts.

But the fact that putts break come after the physical act of striking the ball. When it comes to launch angle and speed, the distribution of launch and and speed aren't affected by anything after impact, so the data from flat putts cannot be discounted. The distribution of these stats will pretty much be the same, barring some weird psychological affect that breaking putts have on players trying to hit the ball a certain speed and direction.


Iron Byron doesn't care if a putt breaks or not, he's going to have the same distribution of launch stats.

I think that once a certain distance is reached, more lines become available for specific speeds. The reason you want a flat 5 footer as opposed to a breaking 5 footer is because you won't be shanking any putts high enough up the hill for them to come back, so you don't have the advantage that a longer putt has in that regard and now your speed needs to be more specific for the line you're attempting.

At the same time, as a putt gets longer and breaks more, the distance control needs to be tighter, but we have a wider range of makes at specific ranges of speed, so it's not just black and white "breaking putts are easier". In fact, they may not even be. We need to do the statistical analysis to figure it out. It's going to be different for various distances, slopes, and green speeds. At this point, there is enough stuff here for me to at least say "It's foolish to think that all flat putts are easier than breaking putts".

Straight down hill putt of X length

IS ALWAYS EASIER

Than straight flat putt of X length

IS ALWAYS EASIER

Than uphill/breaking putt of X length


I haven't "tried" to explain combinatorics to the thread. I have done it, you don't understand it bc you still think that adding any break magically increases the amount of combinations that go in.

Again if this is the case, then you would want break on EVERY putt because just adding break improves your chances.

SERIOUSLY, HOW OFTEN DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THE FLAW IN YOUR LOGIC HERE.

Your poker example is hilarious.

To create as ridiculous of a poker example as you are portraying in your golf thinking it would look like this.

Standing up at a poker table magically gives you a better chance of hitting a flush on the river after you get all in compared to sitting down.

Well then you would ****ing stand up every time you are all in with a flush draw on the river...

but you would only stand up if the pot was larger than X.

See how that is ****ing ******ed and not how stats or combinatorics work?

You don't magically get a few extra flush cards by standing up.

Yes i specifically already made this exact same example to you already. How the break of a putt has no effect on a players stroke.

Certainly players margin of error in their stroke falls on a bell shape.

You guys still keep circling back to somehow allowing more error on face angle (which breaking putts do, at the expense of being more demanding on pace) makes a putt easier.

The absolute bottom line is that the only thing that can make a putt easier than a straight/flat putt is converging break or a putt that can break back right if you pull it or break back left if you push it.

Since this phenomenon does not exist on a single breaking putt it is impossible for a breaking putt to be easier than a straight putt of equal distance.

The putt (I will film it after the holidays) was uphill the last 8 feet or so. The first 80 feet of it was actually downhill. I didn’t really find that too relevant and still don’t think it is other than I didn’t have to hit it as hard, but I don’t think for my specific putt it mattered much. The first 80 feet were basically slightly downhill and dead straight from where I chose to putt. I selected that putt purely due to my experience and with no thought of where this debate would lead, it was not even a debate at that point. Simply a “which side has the edge” question. The thing about my putt that I liked was it was dead straight for a long time and then turned right at the end while, yes, moving slightly uphill as I’ve stated before….acting as a parabolic microphone I believe somebody called it (I have no idea if that is a valid statement, but the break did act as a cushion, catcher’s mitt, handy helper). FWIW I could have putted from the hole I chose to a hole I was standing by while I was putting and had virtually the exact same putt as I had except it would have been uphill. However, since I didn’t need an experiment to tell me that is not ideal I chose my putt and in hindsight pretty much nailed the ideal putt on the first try. I could make a small tweak to the putt, but considering it was a completely realistic putt to find on any course and the first thing I tried I am content with it.

Clearly this is simply about being right at this point so I must point out that IMO it can’t be grey with regard to the actual debate. Again, please fight through all of NXT’s derails and remember what NXT and I are actually disagreeing on. Even if I were wrong on every single one of the other derails (I’m not, ldo) it would not change what this is actually about, here’s a refresher:



Please show me in the posts above what I am massively wrong about. Bearing in mind that NXT was the one who brought all the other length putts into the discussion. As we now have experiments to clearly show the other points of contention are pretty much in my favor. I’m not going to go through the thread AGAIN and pull out the derails but the ones that stick out in my head were:

1. A breaking putt can have multiple lines and go in. Conclusion: True

2. A dead straight uphill putt of any length is more difficult than a dead straight and dead flat putt of the same length. Conclusion: True.

3. A Rod can’t visualize a putt that is dead straight and up a 45* angle without thinking I’m referring to a putt on a roof along the spine of a ridge trying for an angle shot. Conclusion: I’ve already been banned for this one.

4. Tiger used a strategy that has now been proven to gain equity to win a major. Conclusion (unknown as Ship won’t waste more time trying to find this, however,): Ship either got really lucky that the ’06 PGA had really slow, relatively flat, and slightly tilted front to back greens that would prove that strategy could be implemented by one of the greatest lag putters of all time to gain equity and win a tournament by 5. Or that Ship decided to simply make up a quote in hopes that nobody would check it out (clearly a reasonable idea since nobody has been nitty ITT). Also he would need advance knowledge that multiple studies would later be found on the web by his opposition which would prove this strategy gains EV.

5. A Rod has a higher IQ than Ship. Conclusion: Possible, although since I did post the test results from a test and he didn’t snap post back his IQ we can assert that his is below 151. I will grant you that I did take that test online, but it did line up with prior results from my youth. So maybe the test I took was poor and mine is really 141, I doubt it would be much further off than that. So this one is undecided as well, A Rod is clearly under 151, but mine could also be marginally lower thus allowing his 145 to claim victory.

6. Ship is a lucky squirrel. Conclusion: Clearly yes.

I think so. Can you cite your source?

Do you have me on ignore? Can you actually see my posts?

Again, I've actually enjoyed this debate as an exercise to this point, regardless if this is trolling or not. But at some point don't you either have to acknowledge my actual position or something? I guess I don't really know how trolling ends, is it simply a beating until the person who is correct throws their hands up in disgust? Like I say, I've enjoyed this until this point, but now that we've solved the problem for the most part this skit will get old real quick.

See bolded.

The first bolded, the fact that you still think the length of the putt is important as to whether or not you want break shows a laughable misunderstanding.

Probably not. I can't do maths and my real world putting experience means nothing here. All I know is that in post #30 I stated for the 100ft putt I would want a downhiller breaking to the left at the end. Therefore it appears we are both lucky squirrels.

BO

No, it shows that you have continually derailed this to bring in various length putts but the original question involves the 100' putts.

I have said a time or two at this point that it is a combination of length, break, and speed. Please post more.

Can you tell me what is more probable?

a.) Golfer starts the ball within 0.4 m/s of the intended speed of 4.5 m/s

b.) Golfer starts the ball within 0.05 degrees of the intended launch angle

c.) Golfer starts the ball within 0.8 m/s of the intended speed of 9.8 m/s

If you cannot tell me, then you cannot sit there and assume that it is equally likely that a player will miss the speed and/or launch angle. Your commentary in the last few posts is making assumptions that is it just as likely for a player to miss his intended launch speed by 0.1 m/s and to miss his launch angle by 0.05 degrees. I'm not making any assumptions. I want to get to the numbers and the facts. I want to see the distributions, and if you don't want to, I have to make an assumption about you. I have to assume that you are being religious in this discussion and that you will ignore any evidence that might make you question your beliefs.

I know you're not, so what's the hurt in breaking this stuff down?

I'm really surprised by this. Truly. I am generally interested in the physics of this and know they are on my side. I certainly have not been able to communicate this very well due to not having the technical vocabulary, but it would be irrelevant anyway since he won't even consider that he could be wrong. Now that true physicist are asking the questions correctly he is simply digging in more.

Do you really not take away from this thread that they have repeatedly told me I am dodging questions yet I have addressed every one of them. If I did miss one due to this being the holiday season and they point it out I have addressed it every single time. However, the one, literally the only ONE question I have repeatedly asked for several days concerning where either my logic is flawed on the probability and dispersion on the 100’ trial or for somebody to solve that problem. Nobody has, NXT originally simply ignored the question and then luckily for me due to a typo had to at least acknowledge that question is out there. I have since asked that question in almost every post I’ve made and nothing but crickets. To be honest, I can’t believe I’ve been this patient. As I’ve stated, I actually started this as an exercise to help me, but it really has been amazing to watch him cling….and let’s not even mention A Rod.


As for your conclusion about Tiger, I disagree that on the correct speed greens that it is not proven that you can hole more putts downhill. You can hole more breakers downhill breakers than uphill, but the Mortal Combat Move is that over the course of 72 holes by trying to keep the ball above the hole you will have at least a few dead straight downhilll and avoid a few uphill, thereby gaining equity from the strategy. I do not contend this is the reason Tiger did in fact do this, I'm simply showing how much of a simpleton you are that you can't figure pretty basic **** out.

Show me the distribution of face angle and launch speed on various putt lengths.

Just because there are more combinations of makes in one does not mean those combinations are equally as likely. Without the distributions of speed and face angle variations, we cannot know the probabilities of making either putt.


You guys seem to like extreme examples, so here we go:

Golfer 1 has terrible aim but supreme speed control. He can almost always be within 0.01 m/s of his intended speed.

Golfer 2 has terrible speed control but near-perfect aim. He can almost always be within 0.01 degree of his intended launch angle

Golfer 2 will prefer the flat putt, whereas Golfer 1 will prefer a breaking putt. Simple game.

Can you not see how miss-distribution is very important here?

Where is your proof that downhill breakers are easier than uphill breakers?

That proof does not reside in the Paper.

But you can call me simpleton who can't think however I will point out this hilarious fact again.

You "think" downhill breakers are easier than uphill breakers.

You then said your 100 footer was uphill at the end and it was close to ideal.

LOL.

In before you say it was downhill at the start to counter me. That fact is irrelevant.

Wow.

With regards to golfer 1 preferring breaking putts...

Do you realize that every time he misses his aim point his speed HAS to change for the ball to go in? If he ALWAYS hits the ball a certain speed he is going to miss a crap ton.

You act like every time golfer 1 misses his line, his speed is going to adjust to his new line. Except it's not. And here is the flaw in all your thinking.

With regards to speed vs line being harder to attain. Let me ask this.

Would you rather hit every putt the ideal line or ideal speed? Which on average would produce a better putter?

Here's a deal, I will teach you this. It is something that can indeed be taught.

However, I am pretty much done here as it has grown old unless you can tell me where the logic below is either flawed, or give me the answer I have requested. The answer needs to yield a result that the expectancy is greater than 3.5% (our current forum make %) of 100' putts will be made in a dead straight and dead flat setting, I will even let you have a 2* downhill grade if you can figure out the change in implications with regards to the dispersion. Although not directly mentioned below I think we have agreed that 15-20% is the appropriate speed cone....I'll give ya the 20% buddy.

If this probability is solved I will tell you the answer to your question AND cite the source. If you can’t do this then I will assume that you concede that the original debate is settled. That’s really about it. I'm sick of being told I dodge questions while not getting this one answered despite asking it about 10 times in the last 4 days. I think for the sake of all this has run its course. The initial bet is indeed a good bet and it has spawned a great debate IMO. I could have stated things more clearly in the beginning and you could have been wrong less often and more open minded, so I guess it's a wash.

So yes, as of right now I am pointing at the scoreboard and telling you I am correct, as juvenile as that is…yay me.

Boom.gif, Stop it he’s already dead, lol math kills NXT, lol NXT is a +3, etc.

For the record, that is sarcasm.




****, wait, one last point….

Ship, you never answered the question regarding the expected make percentages in that study of college golfers I linked, with the addition of an uphill component.

Breaking putt gets made higher percentage of time iyo?

Figure 14.

10 foot putt on a fast green: at 2.0 m/s launch, the face angle range of makes is like 10 degrees wide (5 degrees of face angle cushion on each side).

10 foot putt on a medium green: at 2.5 so about 10 degrees wide

As a player hones his speed control, it widens the window of makeability on breaking putts. Do you know the distribution of launch speeds, or are you just assuming they're really wide? I'm not assuming anything. I could be totally wrong. But I'm not just shutting it down blindly.

I'm nearly 100% certain that previously you have stated the bolded % above as 25%. Moving the goal posts much?

Also the answer does not have to be >3.5%. Why would that be? Bc of over a tiny sample our forum has hit 100 footers at an incredible 3.5% rate?
I don't think that's anywhere near the true make %, why would I need to prove it?

To bring this back to poker, this is like watching 3 people in a row hit a flush on the river and then asking someone to prove that the chance of hitting a flush is 100%

LOLOL

You are literally asking me to prove something that is not possible to show you are somehow right in this hole discussion.

Exactly how do these to studies line up? You are saying that from 10 feet you have a 50% chance of missing your line 1*? If you miss the hole 50% your make % is going to be less than 50%. DUCY?

You are, incredibly, failing to take speed into account you know since putting isn't only about line.

The dispersion likely looks more like this...

You have a 70% chance of getting the line right

and 70% of the time you get the line right, you hit it with a speed that matches that exactly line. (this scale is not static like this, it's sliding. Meaning the if you hit a 10 footer on the exact right line you likely have a 95% chance of getting the speed right, and if you hit it right on the edge you have a 5% chance of having the right speed. Were taking the average.)

So 70% x 70% would result in a 49% make % from 10 feet. Close enough to 50% for me without having to get exact #s

So right here you are incorrect in their dispersion. Why are you adding the width of the hole? At 10 feet you are saying that they were within 2.5" of center, that creates a total dispersion of 5". You just multiply that by 10 to get to their dispersion at 100 feet.

This would now be 50" not 54.25"

A college golfer using the above correct range dispersion, and even your goal post moving 20% speed correctness.

Would mean they have a 1.7% chance of making a 100 footer on 1 attempt.

4.25" hole/50" dispersion pattern * 20% correct speed = 1.7%

FUN FACT-
This would give a college golfer an 82% chance of making at least 1 100ft putt in 100 attempts. Insanely + EV in the challenge.

With the orginal 25% speed correctness measure they would increase to 88% chance of completing the challenge.

Back to bogey golfers. You saying they are gonna be within 5' of each side of the hole means their margin for error is 5.82* on either side with regards to face angle. Now since you just expanded college golfers error from 10 feet to 100 feet, lets do the opposite with bogey golfers.

At 5.82* of error in face angle from 10 feet that means bogey golfers total dispersion would be 12.23" on each side of center or about 10" outside the cup. Do you see how little credit you are giving bogey golfers? Missing a flat 10 footer by 10 inches on either side? That is absurd.

But lets forget about how little credit you and your elite friends give to bogey golfers, especially on the putting green where the skill difference is much smaller.

At 5' feet on either side of the hole that means at 100 feet their dispersion is 124.25". Divide 4.25" by that and we get 3.4% of the time they hit the hole.

20% of the time(again goal post shifted # first) they get the speed correct.

3.4% x 20% = .68%

Which would make them the absolute slightest underdog to complete the challenge as they only make 1 out of 100 49.5% of the time.

LOL but now I see why you have switched from 25% speed correctness down to 20%.

Because at 25% * 3.4% they would have a .85% chance at making a 100 footer and that would give them a 57% chance of completing the challenge.

A post about the original bet, awesome. Where are we getting this 20% number as an estimate for putts with a "holeable" speed?

With the instant feedback and one after the other repetition allowing for constant fine-tuning, I would bet that most bogey golfers would get their speed much more consistent than that.

What are we calling an acceptable speed, 0-7 feet past the hole? Only 1 in 5 in that range over 100 identical putts sounds unrealistic. People may be pretty bad at putting, but they're good at adjusting.

Ship made that # up.

Just a quickie…ya know Christmas Eve.

Not going to quote either. The 25% was always in reference to myself, and I always maintained that was optimistic. I’ll find the citation tomorrow. I believe I recently had solid reasoning for 10-15% (I’ll find that too) but was being genuine when trying to give you 20%. I do not think there is any chance whatsoever of a bogey golfer exceeding 20% with regards to having the correct speed to make a putt from 100’. That will be something quite simple to prove.

As for moving posts, your trial was lol simple and left handed and you used that to emphatically show that this was a no brainer. Between yours, mine, and whoever else did it I figured 3.5% was looking reasonable. If you want to amend that as more results come in I am certainly in agreement that more data is better, but I had to go with what we have.

As for your thoughts on the studies lining up I will have to think about it at a later time. Lo siento.

I am adding the width of the hole as it relates to the entire distribution pattern I am creating. The entirety of the dispersion is the sum of our misses on either side of the hole as well as the width of the hole. The absolute center of the hole is the geometric center of the dispersion. I haven’t seen many curves that would ignore the entire scope.

I actually will quote you on this one point though:
It is now completely apparent that through your blind fury you don’t even know what we are debating. We are not debating whether the bet is +/- EV. We are debating whether or not the golfer would best be served by a breaking putt of optimum realistic conditions, or a dead straight putt.

Here you show that the odds you came up with are .68%. Fine move the posts back to 25% and you get .85%. Do you argue that even though we are currently running at 3.5% we will actually run under .85%?

Actually, a cool point is that even with 100% speed control we will hit a total of 3.4% running slightly behind.


That is actually relatively well written, I’ll commend you on that.