Agree with the reasoning for not posting much…well, that and a newborn. I see no evidence that you are clearly implying you have provided to show your position.

As for speculation, yes. You took a completely irrelevant PGA Tour statistic (due to one trial nature) and then made a random assumption about how a bogey golfer would fare based on speculation.

Yes I agree a bogey golfer will gain from repeated putting, but they will hardly ever hit the line and speed correctly enough to profit.

As for the idea of a straight 3 footer vs a 6 inch breaking 3 footer, that is clearly a dramatic and absurd example. But I will counter with a relevant question. Would you rather putt a straight 6-8 footer or one that breaks perfectly from the lip? I’ll give you a hint, a straight putt of that length actually breaks AGAINST you if you push or pull it. Meaning you have to hit a better putt for a straight putt to go in than a slightly breaking putt. So, back to the 100 footer, you have to have such a precisely aligned face to make the putt it is literally virtually impossible to nail the line perfectly. When you do happen to nail the line you also must have the correct speed for the putt to drop.

The wind analogy is not comparable at all. I will agree that I could word introducing more luck is not ideal, but I think you should be able to get the idea. Furthermore, I don’t think I said that a 100 footer has a similar luck component to a hole in one. Simply that they both require luck.

I did not know the exact line after 4 attempts, but I did know the general area I felt the putt needed to start on after 4 attempts. Apparently you are not as good at golf as I thought you were if you find that hard to imagine. So to counter your “hint” of there is no such thing as an exact line, I agree, and that is why I said as much. Read my comment again, I said “I had the exact line I wanted to hit it on” which is not saying I had the exact break, more that I knew where the putt needed to start to get the funnel to the hole as perfect as possible....you know, because on a breaking putt there are infinite more ways that the ball can go in the hole vs. having to hit an absolutely career perfect putt. Simple stuff.

Given that it takes place first week in Jan, he has a TON of time to get better at putting.

Ok. I guess we'll just have to take your word on that since you didn't provide even a shred of reasoning on why it's not comparable.

I think it's apt because, you know, on a shot with wind there are infinite more ways that the ball can go in the hole vs having to hit an absolutely career perfect shot. Simple stuff.

Well, wind makes the shot harder. Break does not make the putt harder. Is that simple enough? How are there more ways a ball can go in the hole due to wind? Do you not agree there are more lines a putt can go in on if it breaks? Do you understand the reasoning I gave that a straight 8 footer is absolutely harder than a slightly breaking 8 footer? That statement is truly not debatable and once you see the light you will understand that. Extrapolate that to 100 feet and you will both understand and learn something about the game.

However, I will say that in a dome with absolutely perfectly controlled wind under 10 mph I don't think a hole in one would be harder than or require more luck than if there was zero wind. But there is no logic why it would be easier, nor did I ever say it was.

lol

Taking the friend here is free money

Also, since you asked me to show my work on why it is not comparable can you please explain why you think it is a good analogy?

Yes. I already did, and I used your own words to do so. I'll try it again in my own words.

You've argued that the straight putt is harder because there is only 1 line, which has to be hit precisely perfect. But when you introduce a variable, in this case beak, you open up multiple lines and bring in factors that can result in a putt going in that was not struck absolutely perfectly on an intended line.

This same logic is entirely applicable to a full shot from a tee.

In a dome, to hole out from over 100 yards the shot must be hit precisely perfect. But if we introduce a variable, in this case wind, we open up multiple avenues for the ball to get in the hole even when it is not struck absolutely perfectly on our intended line.

Basically whatever advantages you are ascribing to break on a putt can be applied in the same way to wind on a full shot. You're simply taking ideal conditions, which require ideally struck shots, and introducing variables.

Btw ship, I'm finding it hard to even imagine you don't see the similarities between the two when you of all people wrote this earlier today:

Seriously read that again, and tell me what introduces luck into a hole in one more than wind?

Again, I defer to your superior golfing abilities, but some of the things you're saying aren't making sense on their own merit.

If you can't even make it past this, your chances of seeing the light seem dim.

The stat's one trial nature is does not make it irrelevant bc I was just illustrating that I think it is pretty unlikely even a PGA Tour putter is 4-6 times better than a bogey golfer. If you disagree with either of my assumptions say so.

I still stand by my prediction that a bogey golfers can hack 8-12% of their 8 footer(compared to 50% for Tour players), and 1.5-2% of their 25 footers(compared to 10% for Tour players). Do you not think a bogey golfer can manage these numbers?
[/QUOTE]

You act like putting is impossible.

It is not a dramatic and absurd example, it is 100% relevant.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL at a straight putt breaking against you if you push or pull it. MY GOD.

You have a straight putt. If you hit it dead straight on line, as long as you have an OK range of speed(aka somewhere between it's dying in the hole and maybe would run 3.5-4 feet by) it's going to go in. Every variation of face angle brings down the fastest speed the putt will go in. If the face is pointed towards the right center of the cup, now your speed range can be from dying into the cup to maybe 2.5-3 feet by, any faster and it will lip out. As you continue to stray from the center of the cup towards the edges the same phenomenon occurs until you reach the very edges of the cup and only a putt that dies at the hole will fall in.

There is no "break" involved. Just geometry and physics as the ball has to have enough time to fall below the level of the cup before it hits the back of the hole otherwise it will lip out.

Breaking putts on the other hand have many more lines, but each lines' speed requirements are much more exact. There is not a single breaking putt in the world that you can hit on a single line and have it die into the hole or ram into the back. Not gonna happen.

Instead the breaking putts would break down into different lines that all have speed requirements that are much narrower.

For example, take your 6-8 footer that breaks off the lip.

You play it way outside the hole but with very little speed so it dies into the side of the cup. Try to ram it in on that line and you will miss horribly. For it to go in on that line it has to die in or maybe go just a little past the hole. On the contrary, you could play less break and hit it a bit harder but you minimize the hole a little bit bc at your speed there is a better chance of lipping out.

The bottom line is that if all putts have the same amount of combination of speed + line that will go in. Straight putts put more weight on the line, while breaking putts require a better balance of the two.

Back to your question, I will take the straight 6-8 footer because again I remove a variable from the process. However if I were to know the ideal speed and line(yes this exists, say it was a chalk line on the green) there would be no difference between a 6-8 footer that breaks off the lip or a straight 6-8 footer. My hatred for breaking putts comes from the fact that if you misread it by even a little bit the consequences are dire and the increase exponentially as you get further from the hole. BO scoffs at this, but of course there is likely not a single task that requires 2 variables to match up properly that wouldn't be easier if one of the variables was made irrelevant.

No, it is not impossible. Is it unlikely? Sure but again you are making putting seem way more impossible than it actually is. It's by far the easiest swing in golf. If you think squaring the face on a 100 foot putt is impossible how does a bogey golfer or you or any golfer ever manage to hit any full golf shots directly at your target? How are you going to square the club on a swing that is much faster, with a longer shaft, and a target that is multiple times farther away?



Except one requires magnitudes more luck than the other.

You comparing a hole in on to a 100 foot putt is more like me comparing hitting the mega millions 2 nights ago to making a hole in one. They're not even close but again it's laughable you seem to think they are.

And since were on a poker forum, hitting an 8 out open ended straight draw is similar to flopping a royal flush. Both take luck, who cares how much each takes, luck is luck./sarcasm

It's apparently not simple stuff because you are dead wrong. I have no idea how good at golf you think I am. I'm currently a +3, so you and and especially BO don't think I even deserve to sniff your **** I'm sure.

I think wind would make it easier for the curving ball to pass the correct line than a straight ball yes. But the distance control which on a relative basis from a longer distance has to be exponentially more precise. This is also why it is easier to hit fairways when curving the ball than it is with a straight ball. However, it is easier to control distance with a straight ball than a curving ball. That is where your reasoning is flawed.

I should describe the exact nature of the break for the 100 footer I tried so maybe you can understand better. The green was gradually falling right where the hole was and that slope got more severe over the 5 feet just left of the hole. So the ideal correct speed line was about 1 foot outside left. But, if I pulled it the slope would become more severe and force the putt to break more and thus still have a chance of going in. This putt could be made if it started anywhere from about 1-3 feet outside left with relatively similar speed. But in the straight putt scenario you do not have that kind of cushion.

Does that make it any clearer? If not please sit down and really think about it. You seem smart and I just think it doesnt intuitively make sense to you and thus you can't wrap your head around it. But like I said above, once the light goes off in your head you will easily see what I'm saying.

Only reason I'm reading this thread (well, parts of it) is because someone PMed me and told me I'd get a kick out of it.

Looks like another thread where NXT (and others) uses math and logic to win yet another golf argument against BO and Ship. And Ship avoids answering direct questions which might incriminate his position and thinks people won't notice.

Putts that break have more line+speed combinations that fall in but you don't know ahead of time what exact line you are hitting, so you still have to match line&speed just the same as with the straight putt. Doesn't matter that more combos fall in when the likelihood of matching the combos is proportionately more rare. Like, how do you not get this?

Math. Learn it. Being good at golf doesn't make you smart. The "good" golfers itt would be wise to actually stfu for once in their life and listen to people like NXT and Brocktoon from time to time.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

BC BRO

"THERE ARE MORE LINES!!!! YOU COULD HIT A LOW SHOT( aka "firmer putt") THROUGH THE WIND(aka "play less break") OR YOU COULD HIT A HIGH SHOT (aka "softer putt") THAT RIDES THE WIND (aka "play more break")!!!!!!!!!"

Nobody in the def make category wants to take on my posts?

# of putts hit with holeable speed.
Width of shot cone based on path/face angle.
4.25 inch hole.

Easy peasy.

I think the cup 'becomes bigger' on a putt that breaks. You never back door a straight put.

It's not "back door" from the ball's perspective though. If you backdoor a left-to-right putt it falls in the left edge of the hole (from the ball's angle of approach - the ball doesn't know it's the "back" of the hole). This is no different than it falling in the left edge of the hole on a straight putt.

Your math appears wrong from earlier. You said .6 degrees is a miss from 15 feet, but .6 degrees offline from 15 feet is only 1.89 inches. That would still fall inside the 2.125 inches of error you are allowed on each side of the cup. So not all .6 degree faces would miss, but speed would be much more important to avoid lip outs. You don't miss the hole completely until .68*, so you were short changing us by almost 15% that's somewhat significant in this discussion.

Overall I agree with your formula, we just seem to disagree on how often a bogey golfer matches the speed up with the shot cone.

(Interesting note is that this formula shockingly doesn't ask or take into account whether the putt is a straight or breaking, something that should make Ship and Bo's head explode)

Exactly.

Here haters, this guy does a very good job of explaining physics and geometry as we experience them in the real world.

DISCLAIMER: This video will not do a very good job of explaining physics and geometry in the world of golfers with a handicap better than +3

This thread is starting to remind me of Mason Malmuth's performance in the AQ vs JJ thread

Ship,

Which box would you choose if your goal was to remove a red marble from a box with 1 attempt?

Box A:
Contains 6 marbles. 5 of them are blue, 1 is red.

Box B:
Contains 12 marbles. 10 of them are blue, 2 are red.

You'll probably choose Box B because twice as many red marbles!

If Tiger Woods was asked what type of putt he would want from 15 feet for all the hot skanks in the world, and he answered with a putt that he had to start a ball outside the right lip, would you all try to tell him he was in error and he should want a dead straight putt while hauling out a protractor and a slide rule to crunch the numbers?

BO

Why? Nobody is arguing(or at least I'm not) that breaking putts are HARDER than straight putts if you know the ideal combination of line + speed. It's the element of having to read break that makes them more difficult. You guys are arguing that breaking putts are EASIER because of the many different lines the ball can take to get to the hole and that is simply not true(see: physics and geometry).

If you gave Tiger a choice of a dead straight 15 footer with a chalk line, or a slightly breaking 15 footer with a chalk line showing the ideal line + speed combo he should be indifferent to them.

However if you gave him the choice of a dead straight putt or a 15 footer which he had to read, even if he thought it was a right edge putt, the presence of the chance that he misreads the putt is enough to make it a "no brainer" chose the straight one.

Notice I said is “like a hole in one” not “with the same odds of occurrence as a hole in one. I certainly understand that one is significantly more lucky/unlikely to happen. I don’t see the need to address the notion I said it has the same odds of happening as a hole in one.
I have a buddy who hit a hole in one in Vegas at Rio Secco where the ball landed in the desert and shot out of the bushes and into the hole. That seems luckier than wind. Again, I am surprised that you guys are taking the comment that both require luck and running with it as though I said emphatically that both a hole in one and 100 footer happen with the same regularity.

Again, in your first paragraph you say “I think” and that is your argument. Your assumption. So to answer your assumption as to whether a PGA Tour putter is 4-6 times better than a bogey golfer, yes I do.

Next, the notion that a straight putt breaks against you if you push or pull. Let’s take a real world look at this question. Can you find me a 8 foot circle that every single putt is dead straight? That answer is no. Greens are built with undulation and this thing called slope to assist with drainage. So, and I’ll preface this with virtually all, over 95% of straight 8 foot putts will either be slightly uphill or downhill. To give you an extreme example to simplify this, if you miss an 8 foot straight putt that is .2% grade uphill (fyi .2% is typically the least amount of slope that will supply drainage) by an extreme example of 1 foot right that putt as it rolls will break to the right. Now reduce that down to you only push it to the right lip, that putt will still be breaking ever so slightly AWAY from the hole. Thus, yes a straight putt in the real world when pushed or pulled absolutely will move against you. Now factor in a mi**** and it is amplified. However, if you have a right lip putt that you fan and hit to soft it will have a chance of breaking more than anticipated and still going in. Same thing if you pull a putt but hit it too hard, it can hold the line and catch the hole. So both the straight putt and the right lip putt have the clear ability to go in if hit correctly. But the breaking putt does have the added advantage of a couple of backdoor outs to use a poker analogy for you. I will point out what you are probably fuming to use as a rebuttal that the breaking putt hit too softly or too hard can miss even when hit on the proper line, and I agree with that. However, the tolerance of the other positive factors 100% outweigh those mitigating factors.

As for how good you are, a +3 is great! Congrats. I do find it odd that as a +3 you don’t think that after 4 putts I would know exactly what I expect a putt to do.

For the record, do I think a scratch golfer sucks? Yes as BO noted, but I play with them every time I play and enjoy the company.

Did you read the description of the putt I was hitting? Does it make sense to you now how that particular putt had multiple lines that all had speeds that could make the putt go in? So, again I’ll use a poker analogy for you, I had one perfect line and speed combination that will make the putt go in just like the straight putt does. But I have the fortune of a couple backdoor outs because my putt actually has MORE THAN ONE line and speed that can go in. I could walk up and read my putt 1 foot outside right and since I am an aggressive putter I made a good read. However, my buddy is more of a lag putter and his correct line is about 3 feet outside the hole and dying in. There are literally a ton of combinations of line and speed from 1-3 feet outside left that make my putt go in. Sure I am trying for my ideal of 1 foot outside left, but if I happen to hit any of the others on accident I still get rewarded. On the other hand, if the straight putt isn’t hit perfectly there is no reason to not watch after about 10 feet into the roll as you already know it has no chance. I bet I was able to watch half of my putts for a decent amount of time with hopes they might work out. That was way above my expectations and also why I revised what I thought my odds as a +6 actually are in this experiment.

If you can’t see that logic then you simply aren’t listening and thinking and instead are just limited in your thought process.
A-Rod please show me where I avoided questions? I am pretty sure I addressed all concerns. Please read the parts about green design you may have never realized occur. 8 footers will not be straight and flat.

After that please read the portion again as to why having multiple combinations on a putt this long make it EXPONENTIALLY more makeable. If you don’t understand it, please read it again until it makes sense to you as it is correct. Sometimes things are counterintuitive and those are the times people with good logic and reasoning abilities can see what others can’t even grasp.

Golf. Learn it. Sometimes bad golfers should actually stfu and think through the reasoning a more experienced player is giving you and apply it to your game. I truly do think NXT's posts are great in the forum and certainly agree he is most likely smarter than me, but in this instance he simply does not see the light.

Here you are trying to make real world argument that it is harder to read a breaking putt. 100% of professionals will tell you that it is easier to read a putt that breaks than one that is straight. When you see a professional struggling with a read on TV it is ALWAYS a putt they perceive to be dead straight. In every one of your examples the player is furnished with the knowledge that the putt is dead straight but is left to read the breaking putt. That is all still irrelevant and I want to hear your thoughts on the putt I described that I was attempting and why that putt is so hard.

All that said, I'm going to bed now...until tomorrow my friends. In all seriousness, let's either discuss this intelligently or I am certainly not interested in it. I realize I may have started it by positing that NXT had a stroke, but I thought that hyperbole was extreme enough that the sarcasm would certainly be seen. That is why I then made my next comment wishing him a speedy recovery to ensure all knew I was joking around.

In before A-Rod bids me goodbye.

I'm still confused about the squaring the clubface argument. The putting stroke is by far the easiest stroke to square up at impact. It seems impossible that I'll square up my driver enough to hit a fairway 300 yards away, but it happens. Sometimes.