The Great Debate of Our Time: Straight v. Breaking Putts
Nelson, please don’t say “so now” as though I’m changing positions, stop being such a dick if you want to try to talk. Again, how can you not grasp that even if I was wrong in this debate that it would be a reasonable thing for me to say that yes there is a point that a 15’ swinging putt from 40’ is harder than a 1’ breaker from 40’? I’ve been more than consistent on the notion of “it depends”.
What is amazing to me is that you can’t visualize ANYTHING. The putt I described is 1” off the dead straight line. I didn’t say it was dead straight, I in fact said “and would break”. WTF man, come on.
Again, I don’t want to use this example as my Putt as I feel this would be an angleshoot, but to use an extreme example a 100’ putt 1” off a dead center line on a dead straight downhill putt at 1% grade. That putt would have higher expectation simply due to the decrease in energy required and would break about 1/1000000th of an inch.
I didn’t say it was dead straight
on a dead straight downhill putt
I also chose 1” inside the dead straight because that putt WOULD benefit from unique effect of gravity because the ball from 100’ away is still technically both within the width of the hole AND off dead center. So I can hit a perfect putt and it go in, or I could pull it up to an entire inch from 100’ and it still have the ability to correct and stay within the hole based on proper pace.
See how that is like a dead straight putt, while NOT being a dead straight putt. But, like I said, now that you have been shown that your original contention with that putt was WRONG you will say “oh, well that’s a funnel, ldo”.
See how that is like a dead straight putt, while NOT being a dead straight putt. But, like I said, now that you have been shown that your original contention with that putt was WRONG you will say “oh, well that’s a funnel, ldo”.
1. I’ll cut the b.s. yes I can
2. For a straight putt they must be narrower, that is the only way to hit the hole more often. For a breaking putt they do not have to be narrower because the break allows the normal distribution to cross the hole almost every single time. That in turn allows the hole to get in the way more often without its even trying to. Think of the distribution as a swarm of bee’s. That swarm moving across the line creates EV. Does that help?
3. The standard deviations do not narrow
I truly think what you are missing, again, is that it’s not necessarily the break that is helping the increased EV, it’s that the straight putt is simply just so hard. Those are my true feelings.
I’ll give you this increased latitude in the definition, but the distribution is not narrowed, it is shifted across the line. See: swarm, bee’s.
I’ll give you this increased latitude in the definition, but the distribution is not narrowed, it is shifted across the line. See: swarm, bee’s.
MY ****ING GOD, YOU ARE LITERALLY THE SINGLE WORST AT VISUALIZTAION….EVER. No, flat portions of greens do not exist anywhere. Now both myself and JOHN GRAHAM have told you that. But guess what does exist, OFTEN, planar slopes. Green’s are designed with break NOT TO MAKE GOLF HARD, rather the undulation is there to get water off the green. Drainage, how does it work? If water pools the greens will burn up in the summer due to the water effectively boiling the extremely tightly mown grass. Greens are not flat, but they do have perfectly planar areas that are (maybe this will make it easy for you to visualize) perfectly flat AND SLIGHTLY TILTED. Honestly, we throw this around a ton ITT, but you simply can’t be this stupid.
The thing that I find funny is that you can’t prove that any more than I can prove I’m right. At least I’ve tried too, AND my intuition and golf knowledge has proved to be so far past yours I’d say that more than takes care of any questions for me….I’m comfortable with it.
I don't agree with this.
If the entire line of this downhiller falls within the boundaries of the edges of the 4.25'' wide hole, then it stands to reason that these putts would benefit from the same effect where gravity narrows the range of offline hits.
If it had to be "dead straight" on an atomic level, then we would never be able to observe the effect. Even in a lab setting, the ball will never be lined up exactly with the slope, not if we measure precisely enough.
Thinking about this more I'm actually positive that specifically 1 inch to the side of dead straight downhill does benefit. I can even imagine a putt where the ball is an inch to the left of dead straight downhill (so breaking left to the center of the hole) where you can strike the putt 90 degrees to the left (the SAME way it breaks) and it would still fall in the left edge because the slope would pull it virtually straight down. This is never the case for a level putt
In fact, if the ball is resting precisely on the brink of the max downhill slope that it can remain at rest on, you could strike the putt backwards from an inch to the side of straight downhill and it could still go in!
If the entire line of this downhiller falls within the boundaries of the edges of the 4.25'' wide hole, then it stands to reason that these putts would benefit from the same effect where gravity narrows the range of offline hits.
If it had to be "dead straight" on an atomic level, then we would never be able to observe the effect. Even in a lab setting, the ball will never be lined up exactly with the slope, not if we measure precisely enough.
Thinking about this more I'm actually positive that specifically 1 inch to the side of dead straight downhill does benefit. I can even imagine a putt where the ball is an inch to the left of dead straight downhill (so breaking left to the center of the hole) where you can strike the putt 90 degrees to the left (the SAME way it breaks) and it would still fall in the left edge because the slope would pull it virtually straight down. This is never the case for a level putt
In fact, if the ball is resting precisely on the brink of the max downhill slope that it can remain at rest on, you could strike the putt backwards from an inch to the side of straight downhill and it could still go in!
Is it really possible that you two have not figured out that the PuttingZone paper that showed the straight downhill putts are easier than straight flat putts was performed solely on models?
That they didn't hit a single putt?
Originally Posted by The PuttingZone PDF
The first aspect of putting that will be considered will be the motion of a rolling golf ball on a golf
green. Models of the motion of a golf ball on a sloped green have been presented by Lorensen and
Yamrom [1] and Alessandrini [2]. These models, however, treat the motion of the golf ball as that of an
object sliding along a sloped surface and do not take into account the rolling motion. The model that
will be presented in this paper will assume that the ball is rolling as it moves over the green. The second
aspect of putting that will be considered is the capture of a rolling golf ball by the hole. Holmes [3]
presented a detailed model of the capture of a golf ball by a hole on a flat green. This model will be
discussed briefly along with a correction that will be required to account for sloped greens. The models
of the motion and path of a golf ball on the green and the capture of the golf ball by the hole will then be used to determine the launch conditions required for successful putts on various sloped greens.
green. Models of the motion of a golf ball on a sloped green have been presented by Lorensen and
Yamrom [1] and Alessandrini [2]. These models, however, treat the motion of the golf ball as that of an
object sliding along a sloped surface and do not take into account the rolling motion. The model that
will be presented in this paper will assume that the ball is rolling as it moves over the green. The second
aspect of putting that will be considered is the capture of a rolling golf ball by the hole. Holmes [3]
presented a detailed model of the capture of a golf ball by a hole on a flat green. This model will be
discussed briefly along with a correction that will be required to account for sloped greens. The models
of the motion and path of a golf ball on the green and the capture of the golf ball by the hole will then be used to determine the launch conditions required for successful putts on various sloped greens.
Originally Posted by Brocktoon
Thinking about this more I'm actually positive that specifically 1 inch to the side of dead straight downhill does benefit. I can even imagine a putt where the ball is an inch to the left of dead straight downhill (so breaking left to the center of the hole) where you can strike the putt 90 degrees to the left (the SAME way it breaks) and it would still fall in the left edge because the slope would pull it virtually straight down. This is never the case for a level putt
In fact, if the ball is resting precisely on the brink of the max downhill slope that it can remain at rest on, you could strike the putt backwards from an inch to the side of straight downhill and it could still go in!
In fact, if the ball is resting precisely on the brink of the max downhill slope that it can remain at rest on, you could strike the putt backwards from an inch to the side of straight downhill and it could still go in!
Do you see how detrimental this will be to any putt you start to the right of your ideal line?
Do you see how any putt started right will not break back to the left?
I think you are confusing what your eyes see as you watch your putt travels toward the hole with the actual holing possibility of each putt. The poker analogy is that if you are all-in pre-flop it does not really matter how the board runs out (like suck, re-suck); all that matters are the all-in equities.
For the purposes of our discussion, whether the putt is going to go in or not is determined the instant the ball leaves the putter face. All that matters is the speed and launch angle. The multiple lines argument, it seems to me, is something that matters in your head but not to the putt you just hit. The putt will go in if and only if the speed/angle combination is in the "holing zone".
By this way of thinking, we need to compare the holing zones for the expected speed/angle combos for the straight putt vs the holing zones for the expected speed/angle combos for the breaking putt.
For the purposes of our discussion, whether the putt is going to go in or not is determined the instant the ball leaves the putter face. All that matters is the speed and launch angle. The multiple lines argument, it seems to me, is something that matters in your head but not to the putt you just hit. The putt will go in if and only if the speed/angle combination is in the "holing zone".
By this way of thinking, we need to compare the holing zones for the expected speed/angle combos for the straight putt vs the holing zones for the expected speed/angle combos for the breaking putt.
I am not confusing what my eyes see at all, I understand that an overwhelming % of my putts will not go in. I have never once referenced the appearance of “it still has a chance” as being any portion whatsoever of why The Putt has increased EV. The Putt has increased EV because it goes in WAY MORE OFTEN. This isn’t bias or wishful thinking, The Putt has higher EV.
The only discussion that needs to be settled is the definition and application of the word funnel. My contention is that it is not a funnel, NXT’s is that “any putt with higher EV is a funnel, so lol ship, there is no putt that can avoid that!”. Thus my only contention back to his absurd modification in order to win the debate short of spending another dozen hours on this is “you said your stance a million times was ALL breaking putts are at least as hard as their dead straight counterpart so you lose, should have thought your stance out better before emphatically repeating it 100 times over the course of weeks, douche”.
I wish you were here a few weeks ago and could have participated more as it looks like you have a genuine interest. I’m sorry, but I simply can’t start from the beginning again and debate this all over again. I truly do have a ****load of work to do now.
There is an inflection point that you simply never hit your intended line often enough to result in many makes. That inflection point lies somewhere between 8’ and 100’ and depends on severity of slope for every distance along the way. My 13.75” SD results in my only hitting the hole 12% of the time, but my 35” speed SD has me hit a holeable speed 71% of the time. To make more putts we need to get the speed component more involved than the starting line component. Break is what CAN make that happen if it is an appropriate amount of break…..funneling break makes that happen more.
Originally Posted by Ship---this
I fully agree that at the moment of impact it is determined whether or not that specific putt has been hit with a combination of line and speed that will result in a make, barring wind, grain, bumps, etc.
If you agree that on a dead straight 100 footer that at the moment of impact we can determine that 3.58% of putts go in, however now if you take those exact same impact numbers, place them on a breaking putt, and watch the make % rise to 6%, WTF do you think is occurring?
Originally Posted by ship---this
Again, I don’t want to use this example as my Putt as I feel this would be an angleshoot, but to use an extreme example a 100’ putt 1” off a dead center line on a dead straight downhill putt at 1% grade. That putt would have higher expectation simply due to the decrease in energy required and would break about 1/1000000th of an inch.
Honestly, this is so ****ing stupid that in order for you to see something in your head I have to take it to an absurd example like that…..and you still can’t see it.
how much money would you like to bet that I can send a surveyor out to you 10 foot plot of land and prove that there exists different degrees of slope in different areas of your "planar slope"? I’ll tell you what, put together $50k and I’ll take that bet IF you put together $100k for the breaking vs straight putt debate.
Look, I really have **** to do now. We aren't budging so feel free to carry on as you see fit, but I need to go the way of Reid now. Without us actually on a green watching balls roll this will just be an infinite loop of crap.
I'm out.
You obviously do not, because if you did this thread would have been done a long time ago.
If you agree that on a dead straight 100 footer that at the moment of impact we can determine that 3.58% of putts go in, however now if you take those exact same impact numbers, place them on a breaking putt, and watch the make % rise to 6%, WTF do you think is occurring?
If you agree that on a dead straight 100 footer that at the moment of impact we can determine that 3.58% of putts go in, however now if you take those exact same impact numbers, place them on a breaking putt, and watch the make % rise to 6%, WTF do you think is occurring?
Originally Posted by ship---this
Again, I don’t want to use this example as my Putt as I feel this would be an angleshoot, but to use an extreme example a 100’ putt 1” off a dead center line on a dead straight downhill putt at 1% grade. That putt would have higher expectation simply due to the decrease in energy required and would break about 1/1000000th of an inch.
How can you not understand AGAIN that I said 1” off a dead center line. Visualize (**** me) a clock that is 100’ from the middle to the 12 (12 is at the top of a clock Nelson, since you can't visualize maybe you should google "grandfather clock"). That exact line would be a dead straight putt, right? Now move 1” off that line. Once you are off that line the putt will have an absolutely microscopic break (like I said, 1/100000000th of an inch). However, you are still within the 2.125” radius so I have room to both hit a perfect putt that has a microscopic break AND pull it a microscopic amount and still get the gravity benefit.
Honestly, this is so ****ing stupid that in order for you to see something in your head I have to take it to an absurd example like that…..and you still can’t see it.
Honestly, this is so ****ing stupid that in order for you to see something in your head I have to take it to an absurd example like that…..and you still can’t see it.
Here is how the lines would look on the putt that you and Brocktoon are describing...
See how that is different than the straight downhill putts shown here...
You obviously do not, because if you did this thread would have been done a long time ago.
If you agree that on a dead straight 100 footer that at the moment of impact we can determine that 3.58% of putts go in, however now if you take those exact same impact numbers, place them on a breaking putt, and watch the make % rise to 6%, WTF do you think is occurring?
If you agree that on a dead straight 100 footer that at the moment of impact we can determine that 3.58% of putts go in, however now if you take those exact same impact numbers, place them on a breaking putt, and watch the make % rise to 6%, WTF do you think is occurring?
But if that was true, why the crescent shape of makes in Figure 14? Like, my side of the argument could end up being "A sidehill breaking putt is preferable to a flat putt of equal length because of a funneling effect" and it doesn't make my argument invalid...I don't know any other way me and Brock can say this.
And your argument to this specific post will be "But it doesn't!" and that's not valid because as much as you "know" it's true, it doesn't make it true.
Doh I cannot read apparently.
I apologize. But the point that the putt does not act like a straight downhill putt remains.
I apologize. But the point that the putt does not act like a straight downhill putt remains.
NXT,
Your drawing is incorrect and you are wrong.
If the ball was one inch left of dead straight then putts aimed at the left edge would break right and putts aimed right edge would beak left.
Putts aimed one inch left of the center of the cup would travel dead straight, and this would be the line that all other putts would condense around.
Sorry but this is rather clear and I doubt you'll get any support on this one.
Your drawing is incorrect and you are wrong.
If the ball was one inch left of dead straight then putts aimed at the left edge would break right and putts aimed right edge would beak left.
Putts aimed one inch left of the center of the cup would travel dead straight, and this would be the line that all other putts would condense around.
Sorry but this is rather clear and I doubt you'll get any support on this one.
NXT,
Your drawing is incorrect and you are wrong.
If the ball was one inch left of dead straight then putts aimed at the left edge would break right and putts aimed right edge would beak left.
Putts aimed one inch left of the center of the cup would travel dead straight, and this would be the line that all other putts would condense around.
Sorry but this is rather clear and I doubt you'll get any support on this one.
Your drawing is incorrect and you are wrong.
If the ball was one inch left of dead straight then putts aimed at the left edge would break right and putts aimed right edge would beak left.
Putts aimed one inch left of the center of the cup would travel dead straight, and this would be the line that all other putts would condense around.
Sorry but this is rather clear and I doubt you'll get any support on this one.
You say a putt aimed one inch left of center would travel dead straight, I can assure you that when you move away from dead straight you cannot possibly hit a putt that travels straight.
We can agree on one thing tho. It is rather clear.
Can we get yourboss to arbitrate?
NXT answer me this, in your diagram with the ball 1 inch to the right of the center of the cup, why does the putt that enters the hole one inch to the right of the center curve?
It would be traveling directly down the fall line.
NXT answer me this, in your diagram with the ball 1 inch to the right of the center of the cup, why does the putt that enters the hole one inch to the right of the center curve?
It would be traveling directly down the fall line.
To be fair, you don't know if it's because of the break or because of a true funnel/downhill phenomenon. You're just assuming that a sidehill break just laterally shifts the paths to the side and that the lines for makes are identical in percentage makes....
But if that was true, why the crescent shape of makes in Figure 14? Like, my side of the argument could end up being "A sidehill breaking putt is preferable to a flat putt of equal length because of a funneling effect" and it doesn't make my argument invalid...I don't know any other way me and Brock can say this.
And your argument to this specific post will be "But it doesn't!" and that's not valid because as much as you "know" it's true, it doesn't make it true.
But if that was true, why the crescent shape of makes in Figure 14? Like, my side of the argument could end up being "A sidehill breaking putt is preferable to a flat putt of equal length because of a funneling effect" and it doesn't make my argument invalid...I don't know any other way me and Brock can say this.
And your argument to this specific post will be "But it doesn't!" and that's not valid because as much as you "know" it's true, it doesn't make it true.
You are very close to getting this right.
Because the ball that enters the hole 1" right of center was not aimed 1" right of center? Is this real life? Do you think a planar putt that breaks from right to left has a putt that travels dead straight? That 1 putt is not effected by gravity?
"Sigh" is my only response....
The ball travels the same way it would if the hole was shifted 1 inch right. The putt only breaks right if aimed at the center of the cup. If aimed 1 in right of center, dead down the fall line, it travels straight. If aimed at the right lip of the hole, it breaks left.
If I were you I'd tone it down with the condescension, you're on the wrong end of this one.
You said "you don't know this", I showed you specifically how yes, I do know this and exactly why I know it.
It literally is as simple as this.
Reid do you think you can calculate a putts make % using the observed standard deviations of line and speed at the hole?
You seem intelligent and able to understand math, so I assume your answer will be yes.
Ok, could you then calculate the make % of a putt with a line SD of 14" and a speed SD of 30"?
I again assume you would answer yes.(notice how I don't say whether the putt is straight or breaking?)
Now just answer this one question...
Is there anywhere in your calculations where you would need to clarify if there is any break or how much break there is?
Or more specifically since Ship already did the calculations on his own putt(which conveniently wasn't straight, it broke a few inches) was there anywhere in Ships calculations where he had to specifically input that his putt broke 4"?
It literally is as simple as this.
Reid do you think you can calculate a putts make % using the observed standard deviations of line and speed at the hole?
You seem intelligent and able to understand math, so I assume your answer will be yes.
Ok, could you then calculate the make % of a putt with a line SD of 14" and a speed SD of 30"?
I again assume you would answer yes.(notice how I don't say whether the putt is straight or breaking?)
Now just answer this one question...
Is there anywhere in your calculations where you would need to clarify if there is any break or how much break there is?
Or more specifically since Ship already did the calculations on his own putt(which conveniently wasn't straight, it broke a few inches) was there anywhere in Ships calculations where he had to specifically input that his putt broke 4"?
NXT,
Your drawing is incorrect and you are wrong.
If the ball was one inch left of dead straight then putts aimed at the left edge would break right and putts aimed right edge would beak left.
Putts aimed one inch left of the center of the cup would travel dead straight, and this would be the line that all other putts would condense around.
Sorry but this is rather clear and I doubt you'll get any support on this one.
Your drawing is incorrect and you are wrong.
If the ball was one inch left of dead straight then putts aimed at the left edge would break right and putts aimed right edge would beak left.
Putts aimed one inch left of the center of the cup would travel dead straight, and this would be the line that all other putts would condense around.
Sorry but this is rather clear and I doubt you'll get any support on this one.
What are we talking about now?
What is this on the right supposed to represent? Describe the slope this is representing.
In the breaking putt (figure 14), there are putts that vary in launch angle that would otherwise miss on a flat putt that go in on a breaking putt. There are putts that that vary in speed that would otherwise miss on a breaking putt that go in on a flat putt.
You can't know if a putt will go in if you don't know the dynamics of the terrain it's crossing...
I'm just waiting for you to go "Oh ****, I see now", but I'm not holding out much hope at this point...
scroll up to the post he was replying to?
Thanks. I did that. Don't really understand. Want clarification.
If it is supposed to represent a straight downhill putt then that image is all ****ed up.
The green lines going to the right wouldn't move like that. And the green lines left of the cup would curve until they started going straight down the break line.
But before I typed all this I wanted clarification. Because it would surprise me NXT would mess that image up that badly if that was what he was going for.
Arod,
Please carefully read and consider the last few posts between myself and NXT about putts hit straight downhill aimed 1 inch to the side of the center of the hole and give us your thoughts.
Please carefully read and consider the last few posts between myself and NXT about putts hit straight downhill aimed 1 inch to the side of the center of the hole and give us your thoughts.
Yes, you do need to clarify? Otherwise Figure 10 and Figure 14 distribution of makes would look identical, no?
In the breaking putt (figure 14), there are putts that vary in launch angle that would otherwise miss on a flat putt that go in on a breaking putt. There are putts that that vary in speed that would otherwise miss on a breaking putt that go in on a flat putt.
You can't know if a putt will go in if you don't know the dynamics of the terrain it's crossing...
I'm just waiting for you to go "Oh ****, I see now", but I'm not holding out much hope at this point...
In the breaking putt (figure 14), there are putts that vary in launch angle that would otherwise miss on a flat putt that go in on a breaking putt. There are putts that that vary in speed that would otherwise miss on a breaking putt that go in on a flat putt.
You can't know if a putt will go in if you don't know the dynamics of the terrain it's crossing...
I'm just waiting for you to go "Oh ****, I see now", but I'm not holding out much hope at this point...
Here are his calculations right here. I did them as well and I can guarantee that nowhere in this entire spreadsheet did he have to input how much break the putt had.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE