Bump

Bump



So much for Ship's theory that Tiger gained a ton of EV by purposefully hitting the ball above the hole and leaving downhill putts

I AM SHOCKED BY THESE FINDINGS

But did they break?

Is there any room in your feeble brain to understand that on certain greens there could be benefit? I don’t think I ever said that downhill putts are easier. I said that on a specific course Tiger made a decision that he would benefit from being above the hole on greens that are basically flat and tilted from back to front. Tiger also at the time had the best speed control in the game so the “average” Tour pro’s statistics don’t apply to him at all.

Yay subjective arguments trying to disprove objective data

According to Broadie, green reading errors affect downhill putts more than uphill putts, which is where the difference in make % and total putts comes from. So no, there is no room in my feeble brain to understand that on certain greens there could be a benefit, unless every putt on said green is perfectly straight and downhill which they are not. If Tiger gained an edge on the field by leaving the majority of his putts above the hole, he could have gained an even larger edge by hitting them underneath the hole.

Bump.

but seriously

LOL, I've never seen that one. Don't worry, we aren't going down this hole again.

My favorite part of this drawing is that it is not nearly as incorrect as Ship is portraying it to be. All the lines I drew based on the angle they start at would break right, they would just never break farther than a line parallel to the red line that runs through our starting point. (aka just inside the right edge of the cup)

All of the lines I drew were launched slightly to the left of dead down hill from the ball so they do all break right, I just over drew the amount of break on the right side.

Honestly, I'm not going down this road again, but how the **** can you say your drawing isn't that bad? It is absolutely horrific. You literally drew something that defies physics and any golf IQ. I honestly think my 4 year old could look at your drawing and tell it is wrong.

How can it not be "as incorrect"? It is either correct, or not. It can't kind of break uphill.

You defended the drawing showing that you thought/think it is correct and not that bad:

Then you resort to your standard condescension even when grossly incorrect (keep in mind these responses were to Brock and Reid since you were getting flamed from all angles, even ARC):
And follow it up with the quote that clearly removes any credibility you have in golf.
I’d say keep reading that book, hopefully it has a few graphs and drawings you can understand. God knows if it is text heavy you will have zero chance of visualizing the information and grasping what it all means.

Classic

My god, I just found this thread and read the first page. I feel like I must be the smartest person in the world now. Thank you.

Suit, run while you can!

The easiest putt to make with normal variance of speed, face angle, etc., is a STRAIGHT putt on a slightly downhill plane with no grain whatsoever.

I will leave it to Nxt to draw out the bezier curves substantiating this.

If the above is true then it should also follow that a similar putt with a very small break will be easier than a straight putt that is not on a downhill plane, i.e. "flat". But increasing amount of break will eventually reach a point that the putt on flat plane will be easier.

Interesting proof. Would require statistics, infinite series, etc.

holy ****, here comes the inflection point wormhole again. Good luck Rog, nobody here seems to be able to grasp that some breakers are easier and some aren't.

Let magnitude of difficulty for slightly downhill straight putt = M, and for flat straight putt = M + e. I should be able to find a slightly curving downhill putt with magnitude of difficulty between M and M + e.

What Roger is talking about is quite different than the inflection point argument you have been parading around in this thread. He's comparing 2 putts that travel across different straight/down slopes. You have been talking about putts across the same elevation change with varying amount of side slope.

Your inflection argument is as follows:

3 examples of 8 foot putts that experience no elevation change from ball to hole.

1. Straight = X make %

2. Right lip putt = Y make %

3. 5 feet of break = Z make %

Your conclusion is that adding side to side break to a putt makes it easier up until some magical point, thus Y > X > Z.

However, you don't even believe the above argument until you get outside of X amount of feet(5-10 ft or whatever number you make up now).

Because for some reason, the phenomenon that increases the 8 footer right lip putt's make % to be higher than it's straight counterpart does not exist on a 4 foot putt.

You have claimed 2 inflection points exists with absolutely zero proof.

It should be pointed out that a breaking putt will never be on a "flat" plane, assuming no grain.

Forgetting about an uphill breaking putt (which is intuitively more difficult than a straight flat putt), a putt that breaks will follow an asymptotic path along the fall line. If the ball follows a 100% downhill path, I believe it can be proven that putt will be easier to make than a flat putt, if the amount of break and slope can be chosen.

It is possible a downhill putt will not follow a 100% downhill path, and in this case I think it can be proven that this type of putt will be more difficult than a flat putt.

I believe a breaking putt could be easier than a flat straight putt even if it goes uphill for part of its path, for example a breaking putt with no elevation change. This would be due to the asymptotic nature of the ball's path as it approaches the hole (i.e. guiding effect), along with the amount of friction on the putting surface (reducing borrow). Without sufficient friction the necessary borrow probably introduces an error component that will not compensate the asymptotic guiding effect, thus making a breaking putt more difficult than a flat straight putt.

This thread is the Gaza strip of the internet.

The only thing I am claiming is that you are a clueless about golf and that is not worth debating any further.

LOL the "whatever number you make up now" as though I flip flop. All I have said is that some breakers do and some don't nothing more. You are the only one who has to flip flop when you repeatedly have to admit being wrong about almost everything ITT as well as the "Drive for show putt for dough" thread.

Careful, that sounds like compressed hole SD's or whatever other bull**** term NXT will have to make up now.

NXT, I'm still waiting on an explanation of your diagram in order to understand how it isn't that bad or inaccurate, I mean aside from being completely inaccurate.

Dear sir,

I must insist that you immediately cease and desist in this scurrilous slander of my client or we will be forced to take further legal measures.

Sincerely,

The Gaza Strip's lawyers

Surprised I haven't seen this thread but it's way too long to read but this is the clear answer:

For a right handed golfer a right to left putt with the break being from around right edge to a cup or 2 out is the easiest putt. It's simple because we don't always make a perfect stroke however when a putt lines up that way it is easiest because it gives the largest room for error.

A putt that is pulled is almost always hit slightly firmer. And thus you reduced the break by hitting it harder. And ditto with a putt that a player pushes tends to be weaker and thus makes it break more and die into the hole.

/thread