I bolded it above when I quoted you, but I'll do it again:


If you miss on a higher or lower line from "ideal" but get the speed right, the ball still goes into the hole. You don't need to change the speed. That's the entire point.




If hit between 2.4 m/s and 2.5 m/s you can almost shank the ball and it still goes in. Hyperbole, yes, but point made.


Now, if you've read any of my last 4 or 5 posts, I'm saying "We need to look at the data" just like you just suggested in the post (766) directly above this one that I'm typing now. Go read my post 759 and you'll see you're saying all the stuff I just said...but you're still wrong about what I just bolded in the quoted post. That's not what the graph shows. I'll grant that if you miss it by 15 degrees (lord have mercy), you need to hit it harder for it to have a chance, but that's not in the realm of normal misses. All your stuff about the "weight" of stuff is summed up, and better put, in post 759 above. I agree that we need to do some homework to get an answer.

I agree it's not perfect. What I am going to try to draw next is that box I put around your image. It's a little tough to explain but I will do it more in depth when I finish the drawing. I also agree the red box in my drawing, needs to be completely moved down because the dead center of speed probably represents trying to hit it 10' 9" and obviously some putts that you hit slower than that go in.

The diagram also does not contain any putts that don't go in. All red and blue areas are makes, so not sure what you mean by how often you hit a dead center 10 footer so hard in the center it doesnt go in. The next diagram I draw will address this tho.

The red part is the middle part of figure 10/14 rotated 90 degrees, just like the blue part is the 10 ft version on figure 14b rotated 90 degrees. They were not drawn to scale and I cut a lot of the extreme edges of 14b that would fall outside of a normal putt distribution. I.e you never miss your line on a 10 footer by as far as the graph goes outwards.

You can, you just have to find the center of each which above I admitted I botched for the red area. It needs to be lowered. But for the blue breaking putts, there is an ideal line and speed you are trying to hit it, that becomes the center.

It is the image, just without the red rectangle influencing it at all. Each color represents the speed and direction that work from each distance on a normal distribution. Your right the total area isn't important, the area is weighted based on how close to ideal line/speed it is.

You seemed to have missed that my diagram includes both of those distributions. Maybe this is what is messing you up? The horizontal line would be the normal distribution of speed, as you move higher(faster) that speed becomes less likely and vice versa. The vertical line would be the normal distribution of line, as you move left or right from 0* that becomes less likely.

I think everyone has already agreed that each distribution of line and speed would more than likely be a normal distribution. No matter if the putt is breaking or straight, you are only going to miss your aim line by at most 8*(4* either way) and let's say speed wise on a 10 footer your speed varies from 9-13 feet(does that seem ok to everyone?) I will use these value in my next diagram unless people think they are somehow outrageous.

Again this seems to be the missing piece for breaking putters. You seem to be discounting how wide the dispersion of lines is at certain speeds for a breaking putt, without doing the same for straight putts with relation to how wide the dispersion of speeds is on certain lines.

If you look at figure 14 the ideal line on the putt(or very middle of that distribution) seems to be ~2.5ms and ~18*. If you get the speed exactly right(and you don't have much room for error) then you may have makes all the way down a little below 15* and likely around 21* with a gap and then a few more combos at the very extreme of 25*.

Well the combos at 25* can be thrown out, bc you arent missing your ideal line by 7* in one direction. And as you move away from ideal at 18*, each of those launch angles becomes much much less likely.



We can get somewhat close, but it's very hard without knowing the standard deviation of launch angle and launch speed.

Off to draw.

yay it looks like me and NXT are on good terms I'm glad we can have civil discussion about this, btw. I'm genuinely interested in finding the answer.


Again, should I email Pelz? Do professionals in the field share data like that to some no-name forum warrior? I obviously wouldn't tell him what it's actually for lol.

Reid, I'm speaking in generalities, obviously. The hole has some thickness to it so yes the same speed putt on 2 different lines can fall in. I have never disputed that when we're being that specific. In fact, I've stated such way earlier itt. But in general terms, that chart clearly shows that the trend is that high or low putts require faster speed.

Sorry, I wasn't saying every single putt. But the overall trend. The "ideal" speed trends upwards (faster) the further you get form intended line. I find this interesting and wonder if we should be hitting our sidehill breakers harder than we think to increase luck on our mis-hits?

I'll read these other posts. But your sentence here was already mentioned by NXT where he said a lot of the misses that go in simply aren't practical as combinations. It would be like someone hitting the Faldo putt at Augusta that I linked itt. Sure it will go in but nobody would miss it like that.

That's why we have to look at expected misses for certain line+speed combos and see what the probability is that those putts go in. Then compare it to the same exercise with a straight, flat putt and clearly see that you wouldn't expect to make the side-breakers any more often than the straight, flat putts.

I just read your post 759 Reid. You are talking about the same things I am. But you aren't proving anything. You're just saying that you expect the side breakers to be made more often. I'm saying the straight ones would. I also have trial and error data on my side.

So we're at a standstill. Because I don't have the time to do what I said we have to do in my post 763+766. Hell, maybe I will. I'm just not sure the charts are as clean as I'd like them to be.

Does it state Standard Deviation data for lines and for speeds in that paper? For different levels of golfers? That's what we need to start with.

Or we can just skip all this and resort to the Eyeball Test.

I don't think I can be much more clear. You're wrong. Even NXT will say you're wrong. If you're speaking in generalities and ignoring the data that you're actually commenting on, then it's not worth listening to what you have to say because you're ignoring factual information to just keep going with "what you think"

I'm talking about math. I'm trying to find answers. Judging by your posts today, I can only assume you haven't been following the thread. That's mostly understandable since really, who wants to read all the blubber that's ended up in here, but it's clear you're not up to speed with what me and NXT are talking about at this stage in the conversation. My last couple posts before we started this exchange today pretty much summarize my entire thought process. Feel free to go back and read what I've already said. I'm not going to spend more time catching you up so you can make more relevant dialogue.

I'm not saying I've proved anything at all. My whole thing is "I'm uncertain" and I'd like to get closer to certain. Refining my wording and ideas are helpful to the discussion...I'm not going to magically convince everyone to side with me without proof. I understand that.

*edit* man i sound like a dick. Can you please provide your set of trial and error data? Or are you talking about anecdotal "I like straight putts better"? Because to be fair, you couldn't read a simple graph and you still disagree with my factual statement about that particular breaking putt...I said nothing about the probability. I merely said that if the speed is right, the left/right window is wider. And you're arguing against that...So why should I listen to anything you have to offer?

I'm not wrong. You thought I was talking about every single putt when I clearly meant in general terms. Stop being Internet Dick-Waver Guy. Or would you like me to go back and quote myself from earlier in the thread where I said that 2 putts hit at the same speed on different lines can both find the hole?

Look at the curvature on fig.14. The trend is that if you get TOO FAR from your ideal intended line, you are REQUIRED to hit the ball HARDER to find the hole.

You are thinking TOO FAR here means THE SMALLEST AMOUNT POSSIBLE AWAY FROM. Which clearly is not what I'm saying. Stop.

Do you not see in post 767 fig.14 at the top of the curve it starts heading back to the right (faster)? Really? You don't see this? I'm talking about the trend, which is what my intuition told me earlier in the thread when I was talking out loud about how you had to hit both faster (in general).

Clearly I have never said or meant to imply EVERY SINGLE PUTT. Knock it off.

The stuff in the paper was computer modeling. You're trying to tell me what we need like you're coming up with how to proceed but I've already said all this. This is what I'm talking about.

This is as good as I am mentally capable of doing. Hopefully no brainfarts.



Red are straight putts, Blue are breaking putts. Overlap is purple.

Assumptions:
Face angle dispersion range on a 10 foot putt = 8* total, or a little over 6" outside each side of the hole. (To me that seems generously large, on a repeated 10 foot putt, even for a bogey golfer. Maybe someone has SAM data for face angles on 10 foot putts). Obviously if the margin for error of angle is more or less that will change the the scale of the graph. I have a feeling that it is more narrow than 8* for a repeatable putt and that would make the red area appear quite a bit larger.

Speed range is from 9 to 13 feet. This one was a bit tough to chart as the ideal speed's are different for each putt, but that is why I used %'s on the speed.

For the breaking putt it appears ideal is ~2.5ms and makes range from 2.4 to 2.6 roughly. That's roughly 4% on each side of ideal.

For the straight putt i just used 11' as the ideal speed. Roughly 10% short would be 10 feet and then 20% too hard would be roughly 13 feet.

So that's all I got, and about as far as my math skills will take me. Determining the total area of each color while weighting that area based on how close it is to the center is insanely difficult.

Man I really feel like I'm being a dick. I'm going to go to bed. I'll be back later. Sorry if I sound like a jerk. I'm not trying to be.

Nice job NXT. After you explained it I looked at it again and understand exactly what you were showing. I still think it's a little misleading without the weight of the distribution but it looks a LOT better and you did a very good job on it.

Thanks for doing that work. Like I said, I'm going to go for a bit. I'm on monkey tilt for some reason.

If I had to create a 100 footer, I would want the first 80-90 feet to be downhill (straight) and then move uphill R2L at the hole. I would want to FEEL like if I just fed it down there a little outside the hole it has a shot to fall. Well, I actually I'd like the straight line from the ball to the hole dead flat with slope on each side, but thats minature golf.

It's kind of crazy that with near 800 posts in this thread that no one has mentioned that golf is a game played by humans and not a math formula. Everyone has shots that "don't fit their eye" , and because they are uncomfortable with them, they execute that shot poorly relative to their ability. There is no logic or formula to it, it is just life, just golf. On the other side of the coin there are times when you step up to the ball and you just love the shot and over perform.

I tend to have pace brainfarts when I get to caught up in thinking about a precise line. A dead straight 100 footer would give me brain cramps thinking about how perfectly straight I have to hit it.

Somebody else might think "roll it over that one blade of grass and I'm money". To each their own.

If I was to wager on what the majority of the top 25 right handed putters in the world would want, my money would be on a little R2L at the hole.

Hi, ntnBO.

It's funny you say nobody has mentioned golf is played by humans and not computers, when ntnBO has said this multiple times.

He also wants a slight breaker at the end for some reason not found in science. You should PM him, you probably have a lot to talk about.

UPDATED with bell curves on each side that represent the distribution of line and distance.

I'm quite sure I can just fit the bell curves like that, but it's possible that's wrong.

If it is the case I added the "orange" box for clarity. That box represents ~46% of ALL putts(68% of your speeds lie in that box, and 68% of your lines lie in that box). Shows you just how unlikely some outcomes are as you move away from the center of the distributions.

And for clarity I feel like I need to add my stance again.

My stance: Straight putts are always at least as easy as breaking putts (lone is exception being dead straight downhill putts, which I admitted to being wrong about)

I wish I knew what the area was of the cones in fig.10 and fig.14 for the 10-footers. It appears to the naked eye that the make area is larger for the breaking putt. It looks like about 30 degrees by .05 m/s or so (width of band). That might be a little generous but that's an "area" of 1.5 "degree-speed". The flat putt looks about 2 degrees by .5 m/s divided by 2 (triangle roughly). Which is .5 "degree-speed" area.

So it appears that more combos go in the breaker. However, we still need to discount these.

We know that there is more variance in speed than in line (this is why when lagging they say speed is way more important than line). We (humans) **** up speed much moreso in putting than we do in line. That's why we need SDs for both speed and line.

Because LOL @ people missing their line by 15 degrees on a breaker and having it go in. That is not going to happen on a 10-footer. NXT has said this. The speed on these breakers looks to be about 10 times less forgiving than that on the straight putts (.05 m/s compared to .5 m/s leeway). That is not easy to nail. The line (2 degrees) on the straight putt is a lot harder to hit than the 30 degrees of leeway on the breaker but again, nobody ****s up this badly on a 10-foot 5% breaker so it's moot. It's like the Faldo putt at Augusta. It's not applicable.

We need accurate SD information before this debate can be "proven" either way, assuming we all ignore the trial and error data already posted that showed the straight, flat putt being easier to make. We also need to discount the likelihood of even starting the breaking putt on the correct line+speed seeing as when taking the human element into account (BO should like this), we know it is harder to read a breaking putt than a straight putt.

I'm glad somebody finally acknowledged we need SD data. That's part of what I did this morning.

And yes, we will ignore that data since it is based on a planar putt.

I've got the first bit of my post done. Should have the rest later or tomorrow i hope.

Serious question:

If somebody did a poll of the top 50 putters in the world, and 70% wanted a little break at the end, would you not think that they might know something that your not seeing?

Maybe its not in a science book that you can pull the R2L alittle and still have a chance to make it. You can block the same putt a touch and still have a chance to make it.

How on earth can you scientifically quantify that it might be easier for a human to visualize the flow of the breaking putt, increasing confidence, leading to a better stroke and better pace?

THERE is no such thing as a dead straight 100ft. putt anyway! This thread is a heated debate over who would win in a fight, Bigfoot or a grizzly bear, and the math / science guys are on the side of bigfoot!

Wouldn't you guys need a SD for the actual putts themselves? A perfectly tuned robot with a lazer sighted line and perfect pace isn't going to get every 100footer to drop. That would be interesting to find out. On really nice private club type greens, could a machine get 15% to drop? Could it hole 80%?

The more variance in line that occurs from the putting surface, the more it would help the breaker side of the debate. 100ft gives a lot of oppertuntiy for a rogue blade of grass or grain to nudge a ball off-line.

Fun thread!

Nxt/ARC,
I think with better tone choices ITT, you would have had ship--this agreeing with you about 500 posts ago. I think ship--this has a genuine desire to learn, not just be a dick (unlike some others), and the misunderstandings could have been worked through. It's not important who instigated what. Posts on both sides have detracted from the conversation, and I'm not sure it's possible to salvage at this point.

I would think they were all wrong, yes. Why they would want this break at the end? No idea. Probably because they are biased wrt memory or their golf skill (maybe they always push or pull their putts just a tad?) dictates that they'd want some kind of ridiculous break at the end. Doesn't mean the scenario applies to everybody (overall probability).

I agree for the most part.

And I know you are very good with statistics, do you have any opinions one way or the other?

Funny thing about this is that if you had polled the best PGA Tour players and Instructors in the world around 2000, I guarantee way more than 70% would disagree with the TrackMan ball flight laws which are now widely accepted as the true laws.

This is the flaw with thinking just bc someone is good at something means they understand it to a point where they can explain it even remotely well.

I think a lot of it comes down to how you define "easier". And I think that human intuition, whether informed by expert experience or not, is really really bad at dealing with low-probability events. Furthermore, I think there has been a lot of misuse of words that have specific technical meanings that belies an only superficial understanding of the subject by those who use them. Additionally, I think that ship--this was leading himself astray by mentally conflating the driver-aiming thing (which is legit, and something I learned from him and put to good use on the course) with this putting example, when in fact there are at least 2 major differences -- z-axis spin and launch vector distribution shape -- that completely invalidate the comparison. Ultimately, I think that overlaying the launch distribution on top of the make-vector distribution, as you did, should pretty much end the discussion.

Overall, I think that I would show a little more restraint firing shots that make me look very bad if I'm wrong, regardless of which side I'm on here. It's not inconceivable that either side could be missing something subtle in their analysis. That all said, if I had to lay odds on which side was correct, I'd lay extremely long ones on you, Nxt.