It also laughable at all of the actual data Ship has refused to believe.

The straight vs breaking experiment where people made straight putts at a much higher %.

Then that amazing Tiger claim, that Tiger left himself down hill putts in a major because it upped his EV. Of course when Broadie came out with data that Tour players make uphill putts more often, with the reasoning being uphill putts are easier to read, Ship dismissed it and said Tiger is not an average tour player so the data is worthless.

Wrong of course, as all Broadie's data would indicate is that Tiger would be better at reading uphill putts rather than downhill putts. Therefore leaving himself downhill putts on purpose would cut down on his EV unless Tiger was better at reading downhillers than uphillers. That data does not support that claim tho, and it has nothing to do with Tiger being better than the average Tour player, it comes down to the science of actually reading putts and downhillers being more difficult to read.

This. I actually think all that extra experience can actually make them worse at assessing things. Because their head is probably full of more biased, emotional nonsense than a weekend hobbyist.

All you need to win this argument is a very basic knowledge of what a putting green looks like then the rest is physics and math.

But yeah I'm sure the guy who almost Monday-qualified for the John Deere knows the answer before Stephen Hawking.

I’m not saying you don’t learn from your experience, I’m just saying that you aren’t very observant since you disagreed with what you now state is in fact a correct hypothesis. Good news for you though, since you now agree my OP was correct 3 years later we can still hold out hope that in 3 years you will be able to see how truly stupid your drawings are ITT.

I was comparing the only data I had available to me to utilize to make a hypothesis. The data did confirm that better players are better ball strikers than putters, relatively speaking.

Since GIR was the only statistic available at the time I used it in combination with my experience (ldo) to come up with the conclusion that you now can see is correct. I’d say that is better than your using the same flawed stat to come up with the incorrect conclusion. Lucky for you though, only 3 years later Broadie who had access to undisclosed data wrote a book that had a few pictures so you could finally get it. Don’t forget, here is what your reasoning was originally:




Thanks for noting that, I didn’t notice that, just another data point that maybe I understand this game better than most….Although I like JT quite a bit.


I don’t refuse to believe this, in fact I completely believe it. I simply showed the scientific flaws in several of the experiments. Ya know, like performing the experiment in a setting that you couldn’t put a pin since the ball wouldn’t stop. Seems like a big flaw. I don’t remember what the other one was, but it was just as relevant. I’ve asked it a few times ITT, but do you even know what we are debating? It is whether you could find a breaking 100 foot putt that has higher EV than a dead straight one. Geeeshhh.

No, data about Tour averages DO NOT apply to Tiger on the greens. Not one bit. Tiger has the best speed control, green reading ability and balls of any player in history….so no, I don’t think taking a generic average of Tour players and applying it to him specifically has any merit at all. He is probably 2-3 strokes clear of the average Tour players handicap. That would be like taking your statistics and applying them to me, simply irrelevant as the class of players aren’t even in the same zip code.

It can make them worse at assessing things, however, it could also make them better. As for the “basic knowledge of what a putting green looks like”, another great point ARC! Most greens are completely similar in that fingerprint-y no two are alike kinda way.

Interesting, I guess I have to let you know again that the straight vs breaking putt experiment you are calling flawed was not flawed at all. It was performed on greens stimping at 12.5 with slopes of .9* and 1.8*. Both of which are within the acceptable range of slopes for that speed. But please continue to disregard actual data. Not everyone can be held to the same standards at which you conducted your world class experiment that proved funneling putts exist.


I guess to you that is what this about, and appears to be proof that you have no idea what is going on in here. Everyone in the world can find a putt that is easier than a straight/flat putt of equal distance. I don't think a single person disagrees with you and that question is completely uninteresting as its so simple. Why don't you see if Roger Clemens will weigh in on the funneling aspect of your putt.

Just Wow. Do you even understand what the data is showing? Broadie is just quantifying how downhill putts are more difficult to read than uphill putts. Green reading errors are amplified on downhill putts thus "Green-reading errors cause downhill putts to be more difficult than uphill putts".

Tiger's #s on that chart could be multiple % points higher in each column to show he is a better putter than the average Tour player.

HOWEVER, the relationship between downhill and uphill putts would remain the same. Tiger's downhill % would always be lower than his uphill % on putts of the same length, bc they are harder to read.

Are you following?

So how would trying to leave himself downhill putts increase his EV? Hint: It wouldn't.


To make this even more hilarious, your stance on this is akin to me posing a proximity to the hole chart that shows the average tour player hits it closer from the fairway than the rough at equal distances. Then you claim Tiger tried to hit it in the rough to gain EV and then say that the chart is irrelevant bc he's Tiger fricken Woods and average tour stats are irrelevant. Except Tiger would follow the same trend, closer shots from the fairway than the rough.

Just hilarious.

NXT already best me to the punch, but cite?

I'll spare you the back and forth actually. Essentially what you're doing here is claiming you've identified flaws in experiments that you haven't even read.

You know how I know you haven't read them?


Oh. My. God.

I literally have tried to understand this thread 3 times. Everytime i am more confused. but if it will help youguys....
i have never made a 100Ft putt straight or breaky.
i have never made a hole in one...in calm winds or windy windz.

funnel ... funnel ... funnel ... funnel

P.S. If any moderator has any compassion for human decency, they will lock this thread.

It's easier to dunk a basketball into a basket that is 12 feet off the ground than one that is 10 feet off the ground.

Oh did I mention the specific 12 footer I happen to be talking about in this blanket statement of fact has a ladder under it? That's why. Not sure how that affects my blanket statement or not.

Oh, I forgot that you don’t think things through so please let me hold your hand again. Yes, those are reasonable slopes and NOT the ones I was referring to about being unpinnable.

However, I will re-address the flaw in that experiment for you, again. What are those putts being compared to in the College Golfer experiment? It was a 10’ dead flat and dead straight putt. For an experiment to be both relevant and useful ALL components need to be accurate and flawless.

Remember our little lecture that greens need certain amounts of slope to allow water to drain off and that it is impossible to find a dead flat section of green 10’ in diameter? So yes, that experiment is not only flawed, it is completely useless as it is literally impossible for that piece of dirt to exist in reality. You can’t draw conclusions for reality from a lab controlled setting that is flawed. That is pretty basic science, or math, I’m not sure you understand the difference still so I’ll generalize for you.

Wait, wut? Need I restate your “stance” again?
I’d say that about sums up the thread. FFS NXT you are amazing.

For those that don’t remember, I’ll repost this one last gem from NXT earlier ITT:

Are you dizzy yet from spinning in circles? Honestly, reread from your bolded quote above through all your other posts one more time for impact. It’s truly awesome. How can one be expected to debate an issue with you when you truly have NO ****ING CLUE what you think? Especially when your crutch at the end of the day is "well, if it has higher EV then it is a funnel". So you state the dead opposite of yourself routinely, then as a catch all cop out you say "well, if I'm wrong then all other putts funnel".

But then again, you also said:

Can you see how hard it is to talk to you?


This about sums it up for me too.


I read them and let me know if you need me to further explain the flaw in the college golfer experiment. At least the Putting Zone paper admittedly was using dramatic examples to simply prove a point and drew conclusions accordingly. The college golf paper thought they had some sort of a-ha moment yet they simply didn’t know what they were proving was useless.

What you are thinking about my not reading was NXT's clueless posts about AimPoint. I did not read those as I already have that system of green reading mastered. I did not need to read the article that he was claiming as his proof because his reasoning was yet again incorrect. He was drawing a conclusion based on thinking that AimPoint only addresses single breaking putts, he was wrong about that too. I already knew he was wrong, told him, he admitted he was wrong after my teaching him about golf (again), and we moved on.

I really surprised you went with an immature post again. Go back to shooting marbles in your backyard…wait, there’s no way you have a backyard.

No further defense of Tiger's downhill putt strategy? I REALLY WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS

Also all of those quotes of mine above are under the assumption that "funneling" putts are excluded.

LOL that's your takeaway from that. As stated, all I ever said is I saw an interview where Tiger said he intentionally tried to hit it above the hole in a major with basic back to front tilting greens that were running slow. It struck me as interesting and I've always remembered that interview. Nothing more, nothing less. I truly don't know if that strategy would yield higher EV or not, all I know is he thought it would and implemented it while winning an event by a wide margin.

Now I'll ask you, no further defense of your "I'll take the straight putt all day"?

I guess you are so smart, you didn't realize the experiment used a rectangular flat artificial putting surface that they placed wooden planks under on the sides to create the different amounts of break. This was not performed on an actual green where your drainage factors would come into effect. But nice try.

So how is the experiment flawed? It showed precisely that make %s on breaking putts are lower than make %s on straight putts. There is not flaw in that.

Even more is if you never experience a truly flat/straight putt on an actual golf course, how does all of your experience help you in this straight/flat vs breaking putt debate?

As you would say, “is this real life?” No **** it wasn’t tried on a green, as I said, it was in a controlled lab. Yes the breaking putts had struts placed under the edges to facilitate a consistent break, and guess what, for the straight putt in the experiment those struts were removed creating a dead straight/dead flat 10’ putt. That 10’ straight putt (in a lab, on a fake green) is what is impossible in reality.

You can’t be this stupid. I truly can't say it any easier than: there is no place on a golf course that a dead straight dead flat 10' section of green exists. The water won't drain and the grass will burn. Thus a lab controlled setting which utilizes a dead flat dead straight 10' putt cannot be used to draw real world conclusions. Thus (again) that experiment is FLAWED AND USELESS.

Exec Summary: The experiment was run in a lab setting that can’t be replicated in real life. Thus the findings also cannot be applied to real life.

Or said another way (from about an hour ago):

Do you understand it now?

For real?

A straight and flat putt can't exist in real life, therefore the likelihood of ever making one is exactly zero, so by default any breaking putt is easier. Got it.

Wow. So the experiment proved that straight/flat putts are easier than breaking putts but the results are worthless because a straight/flat putt does not exist in the real world?

And all of your experience in the real world has led you to be 100% sure that breaking putts are easier than straight/flat putts despite the fact that you have likely never struck a straight/flat putt in real life? What good is all of your experience in this discussion if you never encounter straight/flat putts in the real world?

Do you?

Breaking single constant planar putts vs dynamic double breaking putts, how do they work?

No, that is not even close to what I have said. I never drew a conclusion like that although it reminds me of somebody saying "if it has higher EV it funnels".

A straight/flat putt can exist up to about 5' max.

Dynamic itt

Dear Lord. Stop digging.

You are obsessed with making up inflection points for everything.

You are completely wrong here. There is no straight, flat putt on any grass surface. PERIOD.

yes, there is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cR-tq9BPB0

whoooooooooooooosh

I just watched a 3 minute video about a SubAir system. In which no claim was made about straight flat putts.

Somebody take Ship's shovel away please.

ARC, that video shows you how it is possible.

Anyway, I'm still not really worried about what your opinion....