Bo,

Cardinal rule of life: anytime someone says "I don't know what your evidence is because I haven't read it but I know you're wrong regardless of what the evidence says", that's a good sign that they're not interested in having an intelligent debate on the subject and are basically just trolling.

(Yeah, I edited it to be slightly nicer. I probably shouldn't have. But it's the holiday season, so why not.)

It's actually too bad, because while this has the potential to be an interesting discussion if done right, one side here seems to at least be generally interested in looking at physics and evidence and stuff and Ship is just personally attacking and acting like this:



and frankly if he's going to act like that I really wish he'd take up his repeated threats to just leave, regardless of the other stuff he otherwise adds.

And before you ask, I'm a ****ty golfer so obviously I can't possibly know anything about life.

Again, and getting pretty close to “for the last time I hope” I do not reference 15’ as being my be all end all inflection point. I have stated NUMEROUS times that there is a different point for EVERY length putt based on the combination of degree of slope, speed of green, speed putt is struck, AND length of putt. Please stop saying otherwise, I would assume those agreeing with your side are even growing tired of how much you are clogging this up to establish that.



Regarding combinations, and I should note we all thank you for trying to “explain combinatronics to this thread” I doubt any of us have ever heard of such an incredible theory :
What this article does in fact show is that, as I told you, there are multiple lines and speeds that the same breaking putt can be made on. I have never said you are incorrect about combinations, if fact I have repeatedly agreed with you as it is the basis of my reasoning with regards to the actual debate of which 100’ to select. I have pointed out that you are incorrect by saying there are 5 lines with 1 speed vs 1 line with a huge window of speed, there are many combinations along the way for the breaking putt. I have even granted you the obvious that there is a much larger window of speed possibilities for your straight putt. I merely know that the combination of more “outs” to bring us back to poker, will result in greater expectancy.



Is your point that if your golf ball’s path is more accurate towards the center of the cup it has a higher variance of speed that will result in a make? Meaning, if I am reading you correctly, that a putt that is hit too hard and just inside the edge will lip out and not result in a make but that same speed hit dead center will go in? Wow, that’s pretty profound. Has anyone ever argued against that there are more speeds that allow a straight putt to go in or that putts do in fact lip out? I’m really not sure what your point is there.

Now, Fig. 14 (a) and (b). You state “Now by comparison, go to figure 14 and look at the 10 foot examples(the left box is average greens the right box is fast greens, the 10 foot example is on the right side of each box)” which is incorrect. Figures 14 (a) and (b) are actually representative of the opposite, here is the relevant language from the study:

“Figure 14a shows the launch conditions required for 4 and 10 ft putts to a hole on the y-axis on a fast green …… Figure 14b shows the same putts in the case of an average green”.

Reading, learn it. I guess this makes sense since you can’t read any of my posts correctly either though. My question is since your deductions are based on you reading the results completely backward does it change anything? I guess I’m being a nit by asking you that, but it seems relevant. I actually don’t think it matters since you are simply wrong overall, I just wanted to take a second and nit you up a bit in return to brighten my day.

What I take from figures 14 is a HUGE window of face angle allowing putts to drop on a 10’ putt within a tight speed cone (some putts were made with about 30* of face angle variance, holy **** that’s a ton). As much as that helps me, our debate is not that of a 10’ putt though, nor is it of whether or not the flat out pure science with perfect repetition results in more holed putts. It is whether or not a bogey golfer would best be served with a breaking putt (such as the one I described) vs a dead straight putt.


In depth logic to follow (eye roll), please think:

What we can actually glean from Fig 13 is that from 10 feet if you miss by about 1* you will miss the putt which implies a miss of about 2.125”, again, I say “about”, roughly, or approximately. We know from the Exeter study that college golfers missed a 10’ putt about half the time in a perfectly controlled setting. I’d say those two studies lining up is a pretty nice coincidence for me to take this next step. 10’ is 1/10 of 100’, shocking. And 10 * 2.125 is 21.25”, also shocking. So without even noting that the college golfer will obviously have a wider dispersion from 100’ than 10’ their total dispersion would be at least (21.25 + 21.25 + 4.25) = 46.75” if they performed exactly the same. Not to mention I’d bet that not every putt they missed hit the hole and thus they likely had outliers out to about 2.5”.

2.5” * 10 * 2 + width of hole = likely dispersion of 54.25” around the hole for the college golfers at 100’ (not taking into account the fact they will likely perform worse when hitting the ball with enough force for a 10x longer putt. I will allow this distribution to be normal.

Do you think a bogey golfer would perform this well)? I’d say the bogey golfer would probably be in the 4-5’ range on either side of the hole at best….have I said that before? I will note that originally I said 6-7’ but do agree that window is likely too large. Since an 8-10’ dispersion pattern will certainly result in few enough attempts that hit the hole I’m fine with settling there.

This all takes up back to the probability question I have asked you a time or two now for help solving. Sadly I do have to admit that I don’t remember how to solve the EXACT problem….apparently you can’t either. No biggie. ****, I even tried to go through a couple Khan Academy videos to get it done but when I realized I would need to spend a few hours on it I decided it really isn’t worth it. It really only takes a reasonable level of intuition for numbers to realize the result will be extraordinarily small. You then need to take that result and multiply it by the % of times the correct speed will be hit.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pro...l-distribution

I might try to get this done though (purely as a learning exercise for me) since you still don’t get it and I as I’ve stated am trying to regain my past form. The reason I have been asking you (or anyone) to do this is your dead straight putt can be solved for its expectancy. It CAN and HOPEFULLY will be a known value. From there it will be a relatively simple comparison of that expectation with what our results have already yielded as well as the future results since in reality all putts will break some. I am 100% certain those results will show that you would be better served finding the correct breaking putt for this trial.

Finally, a closing statement should circle back to the question at hand, since that is what we are arguing about. Forget all the ancillary derails that you have tried to use to cloud the debate, the actual question is what would be a better 100’ putt? The correct breaking putt, or a dead straight one.

See?

More along the lines of DeathDonkey pointing out how when your logic isn't able to be expanded, it's flawed.

No he did not gain equity be he was not leaving himself dead straight downhill putts.

The phenomenon of downhill putts converging towards the hole only occurs on DEAD STRAIGHT PUTTS.

The evidence is right in the paper.
The phenomenon does not exist after the apex of a breaking putt.

Let me explain. On a straight downhill putt if you miss it right a little bit it breaks left. If you start it a hair to the left it breaks right. This exists nowhere else.

If you have a right to left putt, the ball ALWAYS breaks from right to left. If you push it it breaks left and if you pull it it breaks left. Got it?

So unless Tiger was able to leave himself perfectly straight downhillers, again which you have proven doesn't exist outside of a short distance due to green design, then no he was not giving himself an equity advantage.

More 1 putts does not equal lower total expected putts be of the existence of more 3 putts.

Even after all the evidence in the paper you and Bo are both still making incorrect statements.

I will agree with you with regards to this. Did you notice where I said that I had limited time last night and Brocktoon's post was more important to me?

As for the rest of your post, since it is quite clear that I am correct and I have already spent literally 20 hours on this in the last week that I should have the right to finally rest? There is nothing in AimPoint that would be relevant to the question at hand....as BO states I've done every level of AimPoint and know it backwards and forwards.

For ease, if you were debating what 2+2 equals and somebody posted a link to the an article with the full concept of what is a number and addition would you read it or simply state "go **** yourself, I'm making some tacos".

Why then are downhill putts across the same degree of slope more makeable than its uphill counterpart?

Absolutely, the question I am saying maybe they didn't bother asking was whether hitting balls with closed or open faces and various paths defied the current views on shot shaping. I don't know this to be the case, I'm just wondering the same thing you are. Seems like it could have at least been considered.

Well, it's not clear to me that you're right at all, so pick one or more of:

1) despite my double minor in physics and math, I'm unable to comprehend basic physics as applied to golf balls rolling on a surface,
2) basic physics while useful, doesn't apply to golf balls rolling on a surface,
3) despite you being right, you're doing a ****ing awful job of actually elucidating your point in an intelligent manner because you're just appealing to (your own) authority,
4) you're just wrong after all.

And really, if you COULD explain, in a logical and physical manner and rigorously demonstrate it rather than appealing to your own authority and not looking at other stuff, I'd find it completely ****ing fascinating and amazing in a good way, and I'm completely serious about that, so I wish you'd do that.

Merry Christmas everybody

Damn! This thread just took an unexpected and welcome turn.

They are not. And the paper most certainly doesn't say they are.

Downhill straight putts being easier than uphill straight ones

DOES NOT EQUAL

Downhill breaking putts being easier than uphill breaking putts.

Please point to exactly where in that paper they made this point?

Gravity is wanting to pull (correct) any downhill putt (straight or breaking) straight down. So yeah if the hole is straight downhill then a putt that starts out deviated left or right (just a little bit) has time to correct and find the hole.

A downhill breaker means that "due south".... or "where gravity wants to pull the ball" is not into the hole, but is on one side of the hole. So it's not like the ball is constantly being corrected toward the hole.

Ship seems to think this is the case simply because the hole is at a lower elevation than the ball.

It appears you don't know it as well/ are not as correct as you think you are considering earlier in this thread you were arguing that a break across a slope can be easier than a straight/flat putt of the same distance.

We know a straight downhill putt converges towards the hole, a straight uphill putt diverges from the hole, and a straight flat putt does neither. I would like we could extrapolate that a breaking downhill putt converges towards the hole, but less so than a putt that is straight downhill. And a breaking uphill putt diverges from the hole but less so than a straight uphill putt.

BO

It does not work that way.

See my example above. Downhill straight putts can break both ways (I.e. converge towards hole)

Breaking putts don't benefit from this phenomenon. They ALWAYS break the same direction.

The only way the breaking putt "converges" toward the hole downhill is if it starts on the (a) correct line. If it's hit too soft, gravity pulls it down before it gets to the hole and it passes on the amateur side of the hole. Too hard and it passes on the high side. I mean, you know how gravity works before you hit the putt, that's why you aim a downhill R-L breaker out to the right. It's not like gravity is suddenly some new benefit you get once you've hit the putt. It doesn't magically carry your putt toward the hole.

Just because something wants to roll downhill, and the hole is somewhere below you, does not mean the ball wants to head toward the hole. It always heads to where kinetic energy, friction, and gravity take it. Eventually, with enough time and space, straight "down".

Even if they do always break the same direction, wouldn't a downhill putt tend to converge to a tighter cone at the end while an uphill putt would tend to diverge to a wider cone?

Again, just asking because it makes sense based on what we know about straight putts.

Trying to think about first hand examples which aren't always best based on confirmation bias, but I sure find downhill breakers easy to coax near the hole while uphill breakers just don't seem to gather as easily.

BO

1. I think you might simply be considering this as though I am talking about a single plane at a constant pitch for the putt. I'm not. I have detailed the exact nature of the putt I attempted and that I consider it to be relatively ideal. Also, welcome to the appeal to your own authority club! Is there a world ranking for physicist, and if so were you ever ranked inside the top 1,000 of all physicist in the world? Lol, I'm just kidding clearly, but that was fun. Again, I don't feel as though I appeal to my ability as being the root of my knowledge too often here. One must agree though that once you've done something a reasonable amount of times and are at least competent in logic, math, and at a minimum some physics, that your 40 years of experience might be helpful in thinking about a problem. As Ive shown a couple times already there are flaws in the Exeter experiment, and with somebody's quick fix to a 4* plane (which was perfect when the next experiment explicitly stated that a pin can't be placed above 3.7*. That is something that since he didn't even know to ask the question the study was flawed). Experience matters.

2. They do

3. I am and have even stated the only reason I've spent so much time on this is to work on my atrocious technical writing skills. So I am doing a terrible job simply because, yes I can admit it, I don't know how to word it correctly for a physicist to agree. I'd like to think the 30k view of what I a, saying makes sense though. If nothing else how I've tried to breakdown my reasoning for wanting to know what the expectation is for the dead straight putt. Surely with your background you can step up and solve the problem I've repeatedly asked. I know it's not that hard, I could do it in high school. I just can't right now and don't have the time during the holiday to figure it out

4. Not possible.

I'll get to the rest later I don't have time now
I hope to make it more clear for you.

If I recall correctly you attempted an uphill putt that had a little bit of break in it. Correct me if I'm wrong, not gonna try to find it.

Now we know from the study that is not anywhere near the ideal 100 foot putt. The ideal 100 footer would be dead straight and down hill.

It's also interesting to note the disconnect in your own logic, because a few posts ago you tried to claim that downhill breakers are easier than uphill breakers. Yet you still chose an uphill breaker for your "ideal" 100 footer.

This is what Death Donkey and I have recently pointed out is how your logic doesn't appear to work.

NXT, you always have access to a bunch of information that I don't know where to find. Do you have any piles of data or at least graphs of distributions of misses from various distances? I'd like to see the distribution of speed and of left/right for various distances. Perhaps there are multiple data sets for different level of skill?

I'm pretty certain at this point that there is a point (lol 15 feet j/k) where there is a greater probability to make a putt that breaks because the variability of face angle brings in some makes that you have no chance to make on shorter putts (because at a short distance you wouldn't realistically miss high enough to include those makes as part of your possible outcomes). If you inspect Figure 14 and consider what would be the bell shaped curve of distribution of speeds, it does look entirely likely that breaking putts actually have an increased probability of being holed.


I think it's a bit early to be holding your black and white stance as 100% correct and to say ship is 100% incorrect...I think I'm close to finding that grey area

DD,

If you look at the paper and head down to Figure 14, it shows the combinations of launch angle and speed that result in holed putts from 4 feet and 10 feet. It is entirely possible (and this is what I'm trying to prove one way or the other) that as putts get longer, the variance of speed/direction is more likely to find the hole on a breaking putt than on a straight putt. This means that there is a point at which this becomes true, and the distance at which that happens may vary depending on the left/right slope.

I could be wrong and it may not be true at all, but I'm not discounting it because "lol no it doesn't work like that". I want to see it.

Breaking putts don't have bell-shaped distributions.

Only straight putts do.

I explained this and specifically referenced fig. 14 not that long ago. On my phone so tough to research.

I thought the paper proved ship correct due to showing more launch angles were available to make a breaking putt. Is this not the case?

I would also like somebody else to comment on figures 5a and 5b showing that if the green is too slow there are fewer launch angles in which to hole the putt. This would seem to imply if there are more angles available on faster greens then more putts would be holed on them. And that's not saying averages putts would be less, just easier to make a putt.

BO

No, it is not the case. It did not prove him wholly correct, at least. He's been wildly incorrect about almost everything he's posted itt.

Like a lucky squirrel, he found a nut. But his original contention was far more expansively-wrong than what he's claiming now.