It sounds like he agrees with us. Doesn't he get paid by an NBA team to do statistical analysis? I bet he's not very smart at all.

This. It's why being Ship or BO might actually hinder someone in this debate. BO is talking about this 100 footer based on what sounds like a 100 footer he made once. Because he kept saying things like "from experience". Well experience, memory, and bias are all highly flawed. I've never made a 100-footer so I don't have some fuzzy memory of a slight breaker at the end flawing what might otherwise be a rational debate.

Also I've been drinking and will be drinking more tonight so disregard anything I say from this point forward (unless it's later proven to be correct). Thank you.

Btw, my initial thought as to what the easiest 100' putt would look like was a straight downhill putt where the downhill angle was exactly such that the ball just kept rolling at a constant speed due to rolling friction and gravity canceling each other out. That takes speed completely out of the equation, as you just have to get the ball started. The angle dampening effect is real, but was only a negligible part of my analysis for a 100' putt.

I’m pretty close to having the science book ready to go

It has nothing to do with confidence, there are breaking putts that are have higher expectancy. Tune in tomorrow or Monday at the latest.

THIS, is actually a great analogy. Thanks! I actually completely agree with this. However, since NXT has insisted that ” 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)”. He has specifically stated simply prove one existence of the mythical inflection point. So I have. I don’t want that post to get nitted into oblivion and have him try to hide the truth like he has throughout the thread with derails and constantly wrong points. I had a nice family day today and have to take the family to do a couple more holiday things tomorrow so it MIGHT be tomorrow, but likely it will take until Monday.


With regards to my science book, I’m not sure that NXT will read it though since he will be in the math section looking for it. I’ve been holding this one back for the end of the thread and since we are close to it, why not now….. physics is a science NXT. A very common way this is explained is that physics is a science and math is the language of physics. I do think it is a nitty distinction, but since he posted these gems below I feel it is ok to point out that it is 100% a science, one with a heavy math component.
Physics is real world applications.
Please, at least one physicist has to be unbiased here.

Here we go. First of all, I will state the obvious and acknowledge that NXT will not accept these answers. If he wants to talk intelligently to each other about this I am a willing participant (seems like he and Reid have found common ground, I’ve tried an indirect peace offering, but here is a more direct offer). If he wants to continue to not consider that this is possible and continue with all the absurdities I will simply ignore him and speak with those who are willing to consider this is possible. I don’t mean that in an ugly way, just that I am willing to bury the hatchet and move on. If he doesn’t want to, so be it, this has obviously run its course and you are about to get your voodoo science proof. I have no problem with his questions regarding the results assuming they are reasonable, genuine, and friendly. I’ll try to do the same.

I went to my club this morning and was able to putt basically the same putt that I had last week. I did move a tad further right to further optimize my putt as is my right since it was still a breaking putt. The one from last week was well outside the inflection point of gaining equity, and this putt today was simply incredible. Again, please remember that when I went out last week it was prior to any debate whatsoever and I was in a massive hurry so I simply threw down some balls at a putt I knew was good enough to be on the right side of inflection and went with it. I was purely concerned with the OP’s EV, not a debate about whether a breaking putt or straight putt should be selected. Once the derail started I knew that I could actually optimize my putt better, but never really felt the need to point that out as I knew I would be told that I kept changing what my putt was. If you can imagine my original putt was a tad left of where this one was and the hole was actually a tad closer with regards to its placement near the slope.

Sadly, I didn’t realize how much the sun would wash out the video but you can clearly see the different starting lines and speeds.

So, how did it go? Will Z, my faithful protégé just happened to be at the club (shocker a 17 year old that loves golf happened to be there) and he putted first. I wanted to see how good he did with regards to the line I told him to begin working on what I expect the distribution to look like. I have stated before that he is not a good putter, he is currently a +3 or +4 in spite of that. He had a MASSIVE distribution. I mean like 12’ massive.

Then after watching him roll a few I stepped in. The relevant putts are at 2:52 and 4:09. You can’t see that balls go in due to the sun wash out, but you can see the starting lines and speed. Furthermore, to grasp the speed disparity the first make took :12 seconds and the second took :10. When I say I literally hit my blue and red putts I mean I LITERALLY HIT MY BLUE AND RED PUTTS, in 7 tries. I didn’t even go out there with the intention of that, I was just wanting a little more data for what my expectancy was on the 100’ putt.

The starting line variance on the 2 putts that went in was about 4.5’ wide. The first make (aka The Blue Putt in the DIAGRAM) takes so much longer because it is creeping down the slope sideways to the hole the last 6 feet and BARELY fell in the left lip. You can see its starting line in relation to the hole and that it is about 2 feet left, it then breaks left to get further left (again, I selected a marginally different putt to optimize my EV), before cresting into the ridge left of the hole and then creeps sideways and voila. The second make (aka The Red Putt) came off fast and right. Again, this time I moved a tad right from my prior trial which allowed the ‘design of the green’ to further assist an absolutely horrendous putt. I pushed the **** out of it while I was talking to Will about the prior putt. On the prior putt I was trying to throw it way right in hopes that the slope could grab it and bring it all the way back, it couldn’t….so I guess not ALL breaking putts just need to be hit and they magically go in, ****. However, the combination of trying to hit the prior putt up the right slope and then talking to Will while hitting putt #7 was perfect to have me shove that one way right, have it move back left off the slope to barely left of the hole and then hit dead center and drop. Yay.

Ok, ok, what does that prove? Well, for one, there is a big ****ing window that some specific putts can have to find the hole. Again, I didn’t cut a trick hole, that green is exactly like the greens on our course so it’s not some goofy design, and I basically picked the same putt last week prior to the derail with a slight optimization.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwzGC...ature=youtu.be

More to come, I just thought I’d tickle y’all with this one and let you shoot whatever you need to at this before posting the math.

Back to the original discussion. My opinion is that a bogey golfer is actually a 'decent' golfer. To get to that level they have put forth some effort towards the game. They probably neglect putting a bit, and could improve greatly in just a week or two.

Oh yeah...two other thoughts on this.

1. I can't believe I felt the need to shoot the video below, but I did this on the first shoot and made 2/7. I understand that is run good, but again, I like the path the breaking putts expectancy is on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWnK...ature=youtu.be


2. Yes ARod, I understand all of this….do you yet?

Is the Flat Earth Society going to speak at all to the fact that the breaking putt in diagram 14 has an extremely small speed window for makes? Looks like less than .05 m/s?

No? Just skip over that? Even though we know line is way easier to get than speed?

OK cool.

If I asked you to go hit a putt within .025 m/s of some intended speed could you? What about if we asked you to hit a putt within 1 degree of center? Could you? Which is easier? Why is lagging hard? Is it because of line or speed? I want to say speed. But not sure. Only 26 handicap.

Why is nobody on that side of the argument addressing this at all?

Be patient buddy, I've stated I will be showing my work within 48 hours.

At least I'm out trying to show something vs just pointing constantly to straight vs planar putts in an experiment you didn't even do.

I've pointed to the trial & error data several times. But you wanted us all to ignore that because it incriminated your position.

No, I want you to ignore it because I wouldn't look for a planar putt for the 100' bet. So it's irrelevant. Have you watched the video I posted yet? Does it look planar?

Obviously I'm including you in my peace offering if you want to talk about my testing today. But please don't insinuate that I'm asking you to ignore something simply because it hampers my position. As the thread has shown I'm trying to get to a basic truth and even showed NXT where to find maximum EV for your straight putt. If I were trying to ignore things wouldn't I likely not have brought that up?

I posted the below last night which perfectly describes why a right to left putt is easier when struck by real golfers in the real world. It was instantly laughed at by members of the straight faction.

But I feel this is a great example of why this is easier than a straight putt in the real world. Ship is about to show why this is true in a laboratory. The fat lady is warming up and it ain't gonna be pretty.

BO

@Ship,
I'm talking about how you said breaking putts are more likely to be made than straight, flat putts of the same distance and someone showed a trial and error where college golfers made the straight, flat putts at a rate far exceeding that of the breakers.

But you claimed it proved you were right because you would have expected the data to show you were much more wrong than we were suggesting. It was some weird anti-logic.

Yes, I watched the YT videos. One was some kid who wasn't you hitting a long putt. The other was the same kid talking about Jesus and saying you made a putt.

I've played golf at nice courses, I've played at munis, I've played TW07, hell I've even played GoldenTee 'til 6am with a 1-legged stripper and several pitchers of Schlitz, but I ain't never heard of no golfer playing no golf in no laboratory 'fore.

To ARC's credit, he did state he would be drinking heavily tonight. He ain't lying.

BO

First off, there are no "answers" in this entire post. Secondly, I am willing to intelligently discuss this topic as I have with Reid and others who are not flinging personal or elitist insults around. If you bring something other than subjective opinions and a 5 min youtube clip where you hit a few 100 foot putts, preferably some objective evidence, then I am all ears.

However if you don't want to discuss it with me, maybe you will be lucky enough that Kbfc will engage you in discussion.

It would also be great if you could address the diagram I drew, which Kbfc referenced in the below post.
Here's the diagram again, and for those unaware, I believe Kbfc makes his living in statistics. So, naturally, his opinion is worth a lot more on the subject than just about anyone else in the thread.




Of course his distribution was MASSIVE if he was hitting a 100 footer with a decent amount of movement to it.

I hope the below diagram can help. I have taken a dead straight 100 foot putt line on the left, and dispersed it across a slope to the right, based on it's different speeds(obviously not perfect but you get the point). Look at that range! And that is with absolutely 0 dispersion in face angle and only a 4 foot range in speed. You add a handful of degrees to either side of the ideal line, and a more realistic range from 100 feet of say 95-110 feet, and yes the distribution will be massive.

Also a cool thing to note below, is how it illustrates just how many combinations of putts are condensed into that single line on the left.



I have a question regarding the bolded above. You say the starting line variance was 4.5 feet between the 2 putts. Does that mean, your aim point up near the hole was 4.5 feet apart? That would mean your face angles were only 2.5* apart on the 2 putts. Well within a reasonable range, especially on a 100 footer.

I kind of have a feeling that is not what you mean tho. I feel like you are saying they were 4.5 feet apart very quickly, as in the first few feet of the putt, however the lines don't look that different to me...



A little further into the putt


Maybe it's an optical illusion, but it doesn't seem possible those two putts started on lines that were as different as you seem to be making them out to be.

Again, nobody is arguing that a breaking putt doesn't have a fairly massive window of different lines that go in. We just disagree over how many combinations of speed lie within that huge dispersion, as well as just how many of those combinations are utilized by a normally distributed putter.

I can't wait to see the math.

Post# 181, I think it's apt:

I think most will agree that there are breaking putts in the physical universe that are "easier" to make than straight ones, many actually. Any putt that has any "funneling" or "feeding" element to it, think of how a parabolic microphone works.

Conversely, there are putts where the overall contours of the green combine to push the ball away from the hole, these putts can range from slightly more difficult to make than a flat putt to virtually impossible.

Discussing planar putts does nothing to prove or disprove either of the previous statements, which anyone thinking about the problem should already know.

This entire breaking vs. straight debate is about planar putts, which basically don't exist in the real world at 100 feet, or else it it is moot. The reason it is moot is because when discussing non-planar real world putts, some breaking putts are harder and some are easier than their flat counterparts*.

*the above statements assume that a putter already knows the precise line and speed he needs to hit the putt to make it. Obviously introducing human judgement error regarding line and speed makes breakers more difficult in practice, but the debate at hand is void of these factors as I understand it.

I really hope Ship isn't trolling us all into his finale post being about a putt that experiences a "funneling" effect.

Best part of the 2nd video was all of the "related" videos YouTube shows you. Feel like somebody could get trapped for days.

Yeah I think it was you like a week ago (maybe the post you cited in this post) that said there are weird situations where a putt can funnel to a hole. Obviously a green could break like Lombard Street in San Francisco. If the hole is anywhere in that valley, and the overall slope is gradual enough that the putt won't hit the back lip and fly over, then that putt should be made by anybody all the time.

I'm pretty certain Ship was talking about planar putts at any distance. If he meant double-breakers (or more), or weird intricacies, then he should have qualified his statement much moreso than simply saying "breaking putts are easier to make than straight, flat putts". That to me means he meant a single-breaking plane. I mean, that has to be what he was talking about, because he's been arguing about 10-footers, which are typically going to be more or less planar for almost all intents and purposes.

I can't wait for him to come in and claim otherwise, though. After a week of arguing.

I'm not sure he was. Allow me to quote myself again:
I think the fact that he just posted an optimized version of that "particular putt in Texas" supports what I said many hundreds of posts ago.

Yeah, this whole tangent has felt like neither side was listening to anything the other side was saying, so it's not that surprising.

LOL at all of us.

Good question, and shows a point I overlooked since when I filmed this I didn't realize that the sun would wash it out so much. Obviously I know where the hole is in the video and it didn't occur to me after the fact to point out to you guys where it is. I thought the video would be clear enough that you would be able to see the entirety of the roll which is I why I posted from the mall yesterday that I had "some great video". At that point I didn't know it was hard to see. The picture below have the hole indicated as well as the related start lines.

Your pictures make it hard to see since they don't reference the pin at all, and I understand that obviously it would take effort to see the pin. Once I point out where it is though it becomes more visible.


Red Starting line and pin noted by red line
[IMG][/IMG]


Blue starting line and pin noted
[/IMG]

more later, but holiday time....but you are probably right, starting line is about 3.5 feet wide I'd guess.

Hello,

I read most of this thread last night and thought I'd say my thoughts. As for my background in golf, it is quite extensive but I don't think it really matters to anyone here so I will skip all that, especially since most prefer a statistician anyway.

I love course management and game theory discussions. I would like to incorporate it more into what I do with golf.

1. A question....As for the link on scientific study on putting that was referenced, I am a bit puzzled. I do understand how gravity works, but am not sure why it plays such a major roll in uphill/downhill straight putts. To me, if you have a green lets say rolling a made up number of 8 on the stimpmeter on a perfectly flat 10 foot putt. Lets downhill it is twice as fast, so technically the 10 foot putt is actually 5 feet. I would say that is why downhill is easier to make. If it is twice as slow uphill, you would have a 20 footer. A downhill is 5 feet, a flat putt is 10 ft, and an uphill is 20 ft in terms of your swing. Consider a field goal kicker from 20 yds and 60 yds. Both are straight but the further away makes it more difficult. How is this not the same. I am sure that is off base, but can someone please tell me why this isn't true?

2. For my reason above, the easiest 100 foot putt would be a straight downhill putt which takes a single 1 inch tap of the putter. The ball would pick up speed going downhill and flatten out enough at the cup to which the ball had the perfect speed to go in. By perfect speed, I mean it would not only go in the direct center but also catch every lip as well. I don't think that can be argued against as the perfect putt aside from a funneling miniature golf hole as someone pointed out.

3. I understand both arguments on which is easier to make, a flat putt or a slightly breaking putt. Judging from any and all pro golfers I might know, almost all prefer the straight putt.

3a. From the golfing standpoint, most top golfers look at the apex of a putt, and putt to a straight line anyway, no matter how much the break. That is why then you see a ridiculous breaking putt, yes you do see the pro look at the hole, but he is mainly looking at a spot to putt the ball right before he hits it. It isn't like they look at the hole and then try to guesstimate the slope. so let's say we have the ball breaking 1 cup right. We wouldn't aim left and hope it found a line. We would aim exactly 1 cup left of the hole and try to hit a perfectly straight putt to that.

3b. Probably doesn't help much but here is my attempt to put it to something similar in math. There are many numbers to multiply to get to 12. With a straight putt you are given a 1 (1 refers to the line). Pros know they need only multiply by 12 (12 is speed here) to get to the correct answer. Now, if you include slope, you can get there 1x12, 2x6, 3x4. Yes, there are more chances to luck it in now. However, the fact remains you are still trying to get to 1 specific number. And while we were given the Y variable on a straight putt, "Y", we do not know the x or y in the breaking putt. In this case, you have 3 times as many chances to luck it in, BUT each one of those would factor in 1/3 of the times at best.

I do not think anyone would argue that if you know for sure the Y is 4, then you are equally just as likely to make the putt as to when the Y was 12 for a straight putt.

4. Driving a golf ball is not similar at all to this in my opinion. There are 2 reasons to work the ball off the tee, other than you just hit a certain shot.
1. Trouble on one side of the course. If there is OB left, yes you might take it up the left fairway and play a cut. Now you eliminate the trouble. There is no OB on a putt, so this does not work. A miss is a miss, left or right.

2. A dogleg. If the hole is a dogleg right, you would want to start the ball up the left side and cut it into the fairway. I think everyone realizes the benefits to this as opposed to a draw with a dogleg right, yes? This gets into a more complicated discussion and would like to defer until after the 1pm nfl games

Welcome to the insanity of the 2+2 golf forum!! I mostly lurk here and quite enjoy killing time reading the many debates, or are they train-wrecks?, we have here. Hope you stay around.

Welcome. With regard to your #1... I don't think it's that the downhiller gets there quicker and thus it feels like a shorter putt. It's taht you get a convergence effect that you don't get with a flat putt.

Because the hole is much wider than the ball, you can hit your downhill putt offline to the right OR left a little bit, and if the green is fast enough, then gravity plays a larger role and friction plays a smaller role, so the ball gets "pulled" back to a straight path down the hill. And because the hole is much wider than the ball (relatively), the ball can still sneak in left or right edge. Converge is not the ideal word because these 2 putts won't actually meet at a future point, but we're using it to mean they can both meet at the cup.

The uphill putt has a diverging effect if struck just a little offline. I think everything else you said makes sense.

Thanks for the welcome. I was here long ago in 2005-2008 but don't have that email anymore to retrieve my password.
I appreciate agreeing with everything else but I do still disagree with the downhill putt until more evidence is shown.

If a 10 foot putt on a flat surface requires a certain stroke, a downhill putt that requires 1/2 amt of stroke would require much less, infact it would require a 5 foot stroke. I don't think anyone would disagree a 5 foot putt is easier to make than a 10 foot putt. This is on a miniscule scale, but its the same reason why a straight tap in putt is easier than a straight 300 yd drive to the hole.