Yes, I created a dummy account to respond to this immediately and then bid farewell for good to 2+2. I will be changing my password to a random 20 digit number and not writing it down so where others often say they are done, well, I am truly done. I have never been a person to say that purely due to my +7 handicap that I am somehow better than others. I have *almost* always been a person here to help others get better at the game. Sure there are a few people here who are simply too toxic to get out of their own way, but that is not the average of the population.
However, when a post such as CW’s here tells me to stop being to thick headed and simply accept an INCORRECT equation as correct simply because it does work in a classroom that is where I simply don’t care to help anymore.
Obviously I know that some will celebrate this and am not simply saying this in hope of people begging me to keep posting. It will not be possible with the change I will be making to my password assuming my one day ban ends…I guess creating a dummy account might further that ban.
I do think that my past writings will help others get better at this great game. I also think that this post will hopefully inspire you guys to stop thinking that old people (lol I’m 40) are antiquated due to not growing up in the internet age. When you get a decade or two down the road I hope you remember this day and laugh at how smart you thought you were when you realize how truly clueless you are. That’s not a knock on intelligence, you are all incredibly smart, it’s more a statement that experience and seeing how a multitude of ideas and preconceptions play out of decades, not days, is vital to understanding life and growing as a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwicemvp12
See:
I really think the above two posts illustrate the point perfectly, yet you still insist on writing essays avoiding the simple fact that speed and line are related if you want to make a breaking putt vs. a straight putt, especially one of this magnitude.
Regardless, what incensed me the most about this thread was that a) this huge derail having nothing to do with the original prop discussed in the OP took away from what I otherwise found to be interesting topic, and b) the usual suspects again decided to assert their knowledge of the matter based not on the offered empirical evidence, but their personal, biased beliefs developed over years of selective memory. Newsflash: your brain is going to remember the time when you hit the putt on an imperfect line and you luckily also hit the putt with the right speed, but when you miss it pays no mind and you treat it just like every other putt that goes begging. This is the way the brain works, it is the way biases are formed, and it leads to long discussions that tard up the forum when something otherwise interesting is going on.
With that being said, less talk about this straight v. breaking putt nonsense, and more about how those with years and years of golf experience beyond everyone's wildest dreams have failed miserably attempting to handicap the bet so far. As far as I can tell, there have been three reasonable attempts, and all three have succeeded. Being so thick that you think skill alone is going to carry you in a discussion is something I've tolerated a great deal in the past, and it detracts greatly from everyone's forum experience. It's gone on too long, and this thread hit the boiling point for me. Please don't take this the wrong way; threads like your Q-School attempts, US Open runs, and US Mid-Am experiences are invaluable pieces to the forum and speak to parts of the golfing world many of us can only dream about. You can speak to the pressure, thought processes, and everything else involved with playing in these events, but it does not give you full reign to enter a simple probability problem, sling poo everywhere, and derail the thread to the point of no return because your confirmation biases aren't correct.
What is more, I know this may be way beyond the minds of the plus handicaps in this thread, but here's a tip: step back, consider the evidence, and evaluate your position. Maybe, just maybe, your predispositions and beliefs are incorrect, and you can learn something about the game and improve yours along the way. In the end, you are the ones losing out because you aren't the ones progressive enough to update your thought process in a way that will be extremely beneficial. When it comes to hitting a high draw to the fifth green at Pinehurst, you are truly the experts. When it comes to handicapping a simple putting bet, you're like the guy who hits two in the woods and picks up before he ever reaches the green in disgust. Stop looking down your noses at other posters, and help make the forum a better place.
So to respond to this more directly, rather than simply telling others to step back and accept that they are wrong maybe you should consider that real golf is not played on a video game. There is not a formula that will dictate a ball must be hit X way to go in the hole and any other way will simply leave the putter hoping due to their existing bias that it will go in due to some late break they have seen before.
Reid’s post below is incredibly timely for me. Clearly as I was reading your post I began fuming due to your calling me out and then not giving me the chance to respond due to being banned. The reason I was fuming is that your quoting NXT’s formula as gospel is simply laughable. As Reid illustrates below, not only does that formula not work in a lab setting, it REALLY doesn’t work in real life. I am not nearly as good with physics or writing as Reid clearly is so it actually hadn’t occurred to me how important one little detail about my putt was. However, as I was reading NXT’s formula this morning while ****ting I realized that the fact my putt actually was a tad uphill at the end as well as breaking right was incredibly important in creating its benefit. See there’s where being objective and considering the others views is so helpful, his all knowing formula is what made the last detail of what I intuitively knew to be correct come to light. I considered his point, thought it through, and it shined the path to the detail that I think will finally get your ****ers to get it.
I had it all planned out in my head to explain my MORTAL COMBAT DEATH MOVE was that as I was putting the putt that there were numerous speeds each putt missed left had to go in. There was not simply one speed for each line I as I previously thought all along in my life. A putt hit on the exact same line with perfect speed and a putt hit fractionally harder both could go in. The harder hit putt traveled slightly higher (apex, great word Reid, I’ll use it soon) and then broke harder at the end. This could result in 2 makes from the same line with different speed. So, not only does the breaking putt have the ability to go in on a perfect line/perfect speed, it can go in on a different line with completely different speeds. Again, the straight putt can go in with a wider range of speed on the PERFECT line, I understand and have never refuted that. But what you people seem to ignorant to accept is that NXT’s formula is flawed. We are not putting on a plane of glass in a controlled setting. My assertion has never been that all breaking putts are easier than straight putts. I have always maintained that if you want to win this bet you would pick up equity by picking the correct breaking putt. So you can only imagine my joy when I read the next post from Reid explaining this perfectly, and intelligently.
That is a fact, if you can’t grasp that between my comments and Reid’s below then you simply aren’t as smart as you think, nor is NXT, nor is A Rod. Not being smart is fine (kidding, I know you guys are smart, this is for effect) but being thick headed is simply unacceptable.
I will agree that I railed on A Rod simply for the sake of trolling and I’m not sorry for that. He seems to be bright, but he will not get anywhere if he doesn’t get the chip off his shoulder. He seems to have many skills to offer but if nobody will take him serious due to his attitude he will get nowhere. As for NXT he is clearly bright and often personable, but rather than always thinking he is right he should try listening and considering other options. Sometimes in life you will be wrong and the best way to learn is to learn from others who have experience. Should you take all things as presented? Certainly not, but when you are wrong the best way to stop being wrong is to be open to the possibilities being presented. To show your age and post gif’s and sweet internet sayings is simply pathetic. Is it cool in a different context or debate maybe I guess, but in an intelligent conversation it is out of place and awkward. To top it off the ” Seriously Ship, flat out embarrassing” is the best. I hope at this point you can accept how incredibly stupid you look. I get your continuing to think you’re right, but I hope in hindsight when you realize you are wrong you feel as foolish as you look. Learn, grow, prosper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReidLockhart
Why is everyone ignoring the physics of breaking putts? There's a reason pros would rather have a breaking putt, whether they know it or not.
That quote from the putting guru...whatever. Ignore it. I think that's more about misreads and psychological certainty than the mechanics of making a straight putt vs making a breaking putt.
Okay, what is my thought process on this? When you hit a breaking putt, it gives you cushion on both speed and direction, even if ever so slightly. If you know one of the combinations of speed and direction that will produce a holed putt, when attempting to perform the stroke, misses of both speed and direction will sort of 'autocorrect'. Please hear me out:
Let's take a 15 foot putt that breaks left (but has no elevation change from starting location to the hole). Let's assume the player has a read and speed in mind and that this speed and direction match one of the combinations of "PHYSICS APPROVED" lines that make the putt.
Scenario 1: The player applies the intended speed but misses slightly to the right of his line. He has now hit a putt that will lose speed faster than had it started on his intended line. This is because it is going "more uphill" through the break resulting in more negative acceleration to the ball (it will lose speed faster). The resultant loss of speed actually increases the amount that the misguided putt breaks (more break than the intended "PHYSICS APPROVED" line and speed would have seen). This increases the margin of error for direction to the right.
Scenario 2: The player hits the putt slightly harder than his intended speed. Relative to a putt with the intended speed, the ball will see a greater net loss of speed because the ball is travelling higher(farther?) into the break. The apex of the putt will be higher than the intended apex, which means the ball will undergo negative acceleration for a longer duration, resulting in a greater net loss of speed than the intended putt would have otherwise undergone. This loss of speed in the later portion of the putt will in some non-zero amount make the putt break more near the end. This putt increases the margin of error for having greater than intended speed. I'm not saying that this putt will be traveling slower than the intended putt when both balls reach the hole. I'm just saying that there is a built-in autocorrect for it. I will grant that this window for error sounds like it would pale in comparison to the margin of error for speed on a flat putt. This is not a central part of the point I'm trying to convey about breaking putts. I'm just being thorough and it's there.
Scenario 3 and 4: These are the opposites of 1 and 2 as far as speed and direction, and although my intuition thinks that these two scenarios provide a lesser increase of margin of error than 1 and 2, they still add more to the window.
After typing this all out and re-reading it a few times, I think my hypothesis is that the directional margin of error is greater for putts that break than for flat putts. Speed is obviously a thing that needs to be correct in either case, but the break itself will apply, in some non-zero amount, an 'autocorrection' to the misguided putt. I believe this is why most pros prefer a breaking putt.
CW, I'm truly sorry to keep this debate rolling, but I hope my efforts here aren't taken as a slight against your request to let this derail die off. I'm just trying to shed some light into a conversation that seems to have very little thought FROM BOTH SIDES of the argument. It seems as though everyone is locked into "at X speed, there is one true line" and that if you hit it offline, those putts that you remember making, well, you must have hit them harder than you wanted to... I'm saying that for each speed, there are several lines the ball can take that produce holed putts, which gives a much wider margin for error in direction than a purely flat putt.
NXT, I would like to see your thoughts and commentary on my ideas and feel free to shut them down and prove them wrong, but I really think you're not as absolutely right as you think you are. Your post about the combinations that CW just quoted above, I think it's backwards... I think that even on a longer putt, the error in distance control (even for a poor putter) is not going to be as wide as the directional error (with respect to how each variable factors into the success of a putt). So instead of thinking about the lines and their correct speeds, think about the speed of the putt and what lines are available to the chosen speed. I think that lends itself to a more realistic interpretation of the problem and the contents within this post can be applied appropriately.
This is very well written and completely accurate in the real world. I think my noting the gradual uphill nature of the end of my putt exemplifies this further for people to get it.
Anyway, good luck all. I hope the best for each of you, including A Rod. No reason to go through life mad it’s far too short and exciting.
