Your Boss,

Your assertion of just being able to count the combinations are correct. Obviously correct. The problem, however, is that the golfer isn't just randomly playing Battleship on that graph, randomly selecting X and Y coordinates. If the golfer is honed in on the X coordinate (speed, in this graph's case), the chances aren't the same as random. We need to see the distributions of speed and the distributions of spray to be able to say definitively what you just tried to say, or what I'm trying to say.

Again, I don't know which is true, but I'm not going to "lol no" my way through the argument like NXT is.

No, there is a gap between the two cones. Otherwise the paper would say 40 degrees THROUGH 60 degrees. This is the reason for the crescent shapes in Figure 14 and why at just above optimal speed there is a lower ranges of makes and a high side of makes.

Believe it or not I've read every post
Was mostly agreeing with Nxt and trying to explain it differently. I'm still of the opinion that if something is logically true in a certain situation, we can extent the solution to other situations and expect to see a consistent result. But I don't think your argument is even trying to do that or holds up to that scrutiny.

Thanks, yeah I am not sure what to conclude from that diagram either

I fully agree that, as I have stated before, providing you the exact amount of combinations that a 100’ putt could be made on is in all practical purposes. The figure is simply to large.

Calling something gibberish when I say there is not an equation as simple as you hope for is incorrect. I have always maintained there a many line the putt in contention can be made on, and no I do not have all of them. That is the reason I hoped to establish the expectation of your straight putt and then compare it to our results which all will take place on a breaking putt. If you are following along so far I would think you can understand that reasoning.

Well, for a beginning golfer such as yourself (kidding, just having fun in advance here) the Level 1 AimPoint does in fact only address planar putts from inside 20’.

So to directly answer your question of “correct me if I’m wrong”. Here, let me correct you. As you advance throughout their entire training program the address how to use the system to read double breaking putts. Since it is more complex and it’s Christmas morning I’ll just give you a quick idea. You read the putt to a fall line, you then read the putt from that point to the hole, you do a whole bunch of cool math and expectations in your head and sum the results. Of course you do have to do all of this in your head and remember a few things along the way so I’d suggest you just stick with Level 1 and planar short putts.

Mortal Comb………ehhh, what’s the point. I asked early on in the thread if your account had been hacked. I am getting nervous that ripping you to ****ing shreds is going to make it look like I hacked your account to post absolutely perfect layup questions for me.
not to mention as I think I have that all putts are not planar. To make NXT happy for the prior post I will agree that some putts are planar and it is likely that those putts quite often will fall on the harder to make side of the inflection curve due to the sum of their expectation being lower than that of its straight counterpart.

You often times can extend it to other situations that are the same or I’ll grant even VERY similar. However, a 100’ putt that is largely straight and then breaks at the end is not remotely similar to a 10’ planar putt.


Do you agree with that?

In all seriousness though guys, Merry Christmas. This has gone too far I agree. I will also agree that I aided in that. However, since NXT initially posted the nonsensical blow up gif, throw the microphone down and walk off stage gif, etc, and was wrong it was a tad annoying. Then to have the absolute majority agree with him, and be wrong, AND post “stop it he’s already dead”, A Rod with still to this day not being able to know what we are even talking about, and the fact that you are clearly not as good with the maths as you think you are. The fact is you can’t even understand the question when directly asked, so how can I expect you to understand something you don’t grasp.

I’ll leave your answer below that you gave as boom.gif so the “math guys” can see what I mean. As the T.A. say in Good Will Hunting, it’s ok professor, you’re still a brilliant man.

No offense, but I can’t make it any clearer without just giving you the answer, and I refuse to do that due to your hard headedness. Had you at least been open minded and try to learn, as I have with you. I did read the studies, watched the videos posted, contemplated your thoughts so I could either learn or disprove. But you have repeatedly not even tried.

SO I leave you with figure out where you are wrong in that post.


Again, not proofing this, it's Christmas!

Earlier itt you stated the reason the college players made more of the straight 15 footers than breaking ones was because the green speed made them uncomfortable with the breaking putt. The underlying assumption you were stating was that on slower greens, they would make more breakers than straight putts.

From the data we have, neither of those conclusions appear correct.

So are you changing your thought here? Which is if course fine when staring at new info.

Need to think about this some, but noted. Taking this out to 100 feet, I think the distributions become close to random.

I've been meaning to make this post. Some people have been reading too much into a couple of the graphs.

Fwiw, I don't think this is true. It's a really small number of combinations. See the difference in combinations on the 4 ft vs 10 ft breaker. 10 footer has less than half the combinations. A 100 footer, either straight or breaking, would have considerably less IMO.

Not even tried? Haha I can guarantee there is nothing wrong with my math in what you quoted right there. It's simply not that tough of an equation...

You said a bogey golfer would put it within 5' of either side of the hole.

5' = 60" on each side

60" + 60" = 120" total

Now add the hole width

120" + 4.25" = 124.25"

There is the total dispersion.

Now you do 4.25"/124.25" to see how often they hit the hole.

That's 3.4%

Once you get here, now you must add in speed. You said they get the speed right 20% of the time.

Now 3.4% x 20% = .68%

Feel free to point out where this is wrong. I'm eagerly awaiting.

Again, I'm not going to help you with this. Another math guy can show you your flaw, hint: it actually really helps your argument as it will yield a much higher make % for your straight putt.

I'd also like to note that I should be commended for this. I am literally giving him more equity for his putt than he is asking for, however it willl still be less than that of the breaker.

just read this a tad more...you are correct, the equation you are solving is not that tough, it's not remotely tough.

It however is not the equation you should use to solve the problem. There's another hint.

To avoid being told I'm avoiding,I'll address this when time allows.

Still failing.

The equation is a fine representation of the make % of each putt. How you don't understand this is hilarious.

On AVERAGE you are giving the person a 3.4% chance of hitting the hole, and then the times the ball hits the hole you are giving it a 20% chance of having the correct speed. That gives the person a .68% chance of matching up the speed with the line.

THERE ARE LITERALLY ZERO OTHER VARIABLES TO ACCOUNT FOR.

We are assuming they know the exact line.

Unless of course you want to prove how adding break will increase the amount of times they either hit the hole while no decreasing their accuracy on the speed an equal %, or that their chance of getting speed right will improve but the chance of hitting the line won't decrease by an equal %.

I would love to see you tackle this. BE MY GUEST.

Yes for straight putts this equation would be more dynamic, as I will repeat for the 1 millionth time, the closer they hit it to dead center the more leeway they get on speed. The closer to the edges they get the more precise the speed has to be.

You don't seem to understand that the above does not hold true for breaking putts. There are no lines you can hit a breaking putt on and have significantly more leeway on the speed. The below diagrams illustrate this perfectly.



And I've already pointed out the flaw in your "honed in on speed" argument, as Reid tried to make this point earlier. If someone hitting a breaking putt is "honed in" on a particular speed then they have an incredibly narrow margin for error on the line. If they miss that line, their speed doesn't automatically adjust.

Honey, I will be right there to open presents. Someone in the internet disagrees with me.

How you don't understand that I am telling you that you will in fact hole MORE putts than you are representing. I'm telling you that you have more equity than you think. I'm still just telling you that is less equity than my breaking 100' putt has.

So, back to advanced math (advanced meaning I did it in high school, not 8th grade where your math apparently stopped).....you know what, it’s Christmas, I’ll go ahead and tell you so we don't have to do this all day since you clearly won’t be able to solve it (again, I’m also noting that currently I can’t either thus the reason I’ve repeatedly asked the other math guys for help). I could in the day, but since it is not in my everyday line of work I don’t remember how to at the minute.

The best part is that you’re continuing to hold to the idea that you will on average with the dispersion you have described hit the hole 3.4%. This shows your clear lack of any even remotely higher mathematics education. You will hit the hole likely much more often than that and that higher % of hits * the speed you pick (I agree as you state my figure was hypothetical, but it was based on both my trial and YOUR picture) will yield the higher make rate, which will still fall below the expectancy of our actual trials. So, you pick a speed number, but in the effort of fairness try to make it reasonable.

Actually, I’ll assume you’ll tell us how high your math education is so I’ll just note in advance you must have been towards the extreme bottom of the bell curve. What a great segue to what you don’t seem to get about your answer of 3.4% (again, this helps you…pay attention).

The putts will not be evenly dispersed across the dispersion window. Meaning the outliers will not happen as often as the innermost area will be hit. In simpler words for you, the 4.25" wide hole will be hit more often than the outermost 4.25” of the dispersion. Your math implies that every 4.25” will be hit with the same frequency, this is simply not true. I believe we have all indeed said the dispersion will be a normal distribution, or to dumb it down for you a bell curve….you even said that, but you clearly don’t know what that means and just wanted to herd and use a big word.

****, I even posted a link to the Khan Academy video you need to figure it out. So, while I was attacked earlier for not reading the AimPoint article (which I’d say the post below shows I might already have a more advanced working knowledge of AimPoint and just might not have needed to read the article to realize its irrelevance) you apparently didn’t click on the Khan video, or your head exploded when you did and didn’t make it past the first minute or so.



(in my best Mike D voice from Rounders) I can keep busting you up all day if you want.

Nah, both my kids are napping so I had a little more time to address this. I bought all my nephews laptops for Christmas so I'm in the office putting Office and all the antivirus stuff on them anyway. So while they programs are running I've got free time.

And, like I said as pathetic as it is to admit, I'm really enjoying this. I mean REALLY enjoying it at this point. Couldn't agree more that is pathetic, but at least I'm honest!

Well, then Merry Christmas all! I do have to say the main participants are some of my favorite posters in this forum so this is like watching mom and dad argue.

Here is the distribution from flat 10 foot putts from Figure 10 appropriately re-sized (do it yourself if you don't trust me) to fit the graph on Figure 14.

These are the results given by the modeling from the paper. These are the distribution of "holed putts" and have nothing to do with distribution of misses.

We just have to crunch the numbers to see what's more probable. If you can't look at this and at least say "hmmmm....maybe he's onto something", then you're just not trying.




Pardon not putting lables on it. I just did it up real quick. I think it's obvious what we're looking at to anyone that has been following the discussion.

I should also note that in all the above argumentation about what the percentage chance of hitting the 4.5" out of a 120" window or whatever is flawed. It's not a random distribution around that 120" window. It's going to be a normal distribution. How can you just do 4.5/120 and call it 4% or whatever? For someone that prides himself with statistics, you're really going about this wrong. I'd also like to point out that you guys are using arbitrary made up numbers for speed and direction, so even if you do it right, it's not going to be right....


enjoy your holiday you heathens

I noticed you missed one of my posts so I thought I would go ahead and note it for you to save the effort.



Honestly, I fully recognize I am being immature scoreboarding so much, but the rest of you (Eurotrash, Schu, A Rod, CW, and I’d hope even NXT) who rallied with the immature gif’s and videos simply must see the comedic genius going on the last few days from the Villain.

As for the actual scoreboard we still stand at Main Debate: Ship = 1; NXT = 0

Derails, we can add:

6. Does AimPoint only reference planar putts. Conclusion: In the introductory level, yes. In the advanced levels, no. So the conclusion is that no, AimPoint does not only reference a single grade of slope for your entire putt. Ship tallies another win. Yay me.

What do you guys mean by 'planar putt'?

Don't forget to make sure they have calculators installed, please.

Reid, he means single plane putts, or those that break only one direction essentially. It's the Level 1 Aimpoint teaching.

Ah okay. I thought so but wanted to make sure.

Wait for it...

Thanks, but my math education didnt stop at 8th grade.

Wait for it....

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

No kidding, for simplicity sake I was keeping them evenly distributed along the dispersion zone because I thought that concept would be too tough for most people to understand.

You saying that it would be a bell shaped curve

IS

****ING

PERFECT

Let's again go look at the 10' putt bc the illustrations are right there.

Let's use the college golfers for fun. Can we all agree that a college golfer wouldn't miss a 10 footer by more than 6" on either side?

That means their face angle at impact is going to be within 4* either way of where they were aimed.

So that gives them a 8* dispersion in face angle.

OK

Now lets look at those distributions again



For a straight 10 footer, the ENTIRE RANGE of makes falls within a 1* miss in either direction or 2* total. That means the ENTIRE RANGE of possible makes falls within the college golfers possible error of 8*.



THIS IS WHERE IT GETS GOOD

LETS GO TO THE BREAKING 10 FOOTER

On fast greens, the ENTIRE RANGE of makes falls within a whopping 30* range. Of 15* on either side of the center of the shot cone.

However a college golfer will never miss their AIM line by more than 4*

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You have effectively eliminated more than 2/3rds of the possible lines the putt could go in, because the college golfer won't miss his line on a 10 foot putt ever by more than 4* on any side. Your missing out on 11* of makes on each side.

Convieniently, this about lines up with YourBoss' "flawed" experiment from earlier which showed the make % of straight putts was significantly higher than for breaking putts of equal length.

GOLFERS WILL SIMPLY NOT MISS THEIR LINE BY A LARGE ENOUGH ANGLE TO UTILIZE ALL OF THE POSSIBLE LINES OF A BREAKING PUTT.

AND ON STRAIGHT PUTTS, ALL THE POSSIBLE MAKES WILL RESIDE TOTALLY WITHIN EVERY GOLFERS MARGIN OF ERROR

With regards to Rounders, you must have been talking about the beginning at KGB's place where Mike has

A9

on an A 9 x 9 x board

Unfortunately for you....

Nah, they have some of my genes, they will be fine!

Maybe true on a 10 footer, but as the angle needs to be more and more precise as the hole gets further away, does this hold true forever? This is where the whole concept is being ignored. Looking at these graphs, there is very likely a point at which it is more probable that the golfer gets the speed right (and widening the make-range of launch angles) than it is for him to hit it straight enough to nail the straight putt, even with the cushion in speeds.

Over the course of this debate where I have repeatedly called you a simpleton and told you that your dispersion was incorrect and explicitly showed you that your 3.4% was wrong but your clung to it, quoted it, confirmed it was 3.4%. Even still you kept using the figure.

You were aware I was correct that 3.4% was wrong and low, however you didn't want to simply do it the correct way when asked repeatedly. I didn't even care if you did it, just simply wanted to see if you realized your error. You didn't. Not until I refreshed your memory of the class you failed when you were at the low end of the bell curve.

Gotcha. Never mind I guess.

Now I'm going to go fry some turkeys!

For arguments sake, who do you think brought up that ~3.5% first?

Hint: it was you

And i said that i purposely kept the distribution evenly distributed for simplicity.

And it would still make the equation I was using correct(which you said was wrong), all your doing is saying that 3.5% wouldn't be the actual odds of hitting the hole, that with a bell shaped distribution the % would just increase.