I answered your "question". Nowhere in your question did you ask how adding different breaks would influence the outcome.

All you did was ask me to crunch a bunch of numbers.


I also did not say my sample was anywhere near the real %.

The point of my sample was to illustrate that if the make % was as low as you say it is, my sample was fairly rare. 1% chanvce.

Question, do u think we are arguing about the ev or putt selection?

Question, where in this entire post where you requested an answer did you discuss a single thing about break?

To me the entire break discussion was completely eliminated by the paper YourBoss posted. Unless of course you have some new data to publish.

I will no longer be discussing this with you until you answer the following question....

How does introducing break to a putt at imaginary distance X, increase your make %? And how come this benefit does not appear prior to imaginary distance X?

Can you cite a similar real life example where your odds of accomplishing something increase for reason X, but there is no benefit to introducing X until another criteria(Y) is met?

Thanks

I'm out.

I agree. The paper which showed there was more than one launch cone on a breaking putt hit at the same speed.

Did you ever mention what you thought of figures 5a and 5b? The ones that showed if the greens were slow enough that there would be only one launch cone on some breaking putts instead of two. I am curious.

BO

I tried this today. Found the only hole on the practice green and used a tape measure to determine a spot exactly 100 feet from the hole. Putted exactly 100 balls from roughly the same spot and holed #18 and #85.

In my unqualified high-handicap opinion, this feat is not as hard as the + handicaps here are making it out to be. Anyone with any kind of coordination who pays attention to what the first few putts are doing should make at least 1/100. Whatever the make % is on the PGA tour is misleading, as the feedback gained from making many consecutive putts from roughly the same spot is infinitely more information than what the pros have access to when putting a random 100 foot putt during a round.

(Btw, what is the diameter of a normal hole? This hole looked smaller than normal, and measured slightly less than 1.5 inches.)

This is exactly what I've thought the entire time. Glad to see you giving this a shot and providing some more data relating to the prop in the OP.

Fwiw a hole is 4.25 inches across its diameter. 1.5 is actually not possible as a golf ball is 1.68. Do you mean radius? It's still too small in any case.

Well I'm not quite sure where you are coming from with the more than one launch cone.

The way I read it, and my reading skills are apparently pretty suspect, nowhere in that section of the paper or in the description of the figure does it say any of these putts actually go in. I understand that bc the lines cross the hole it may appear that way, but I don't think lines crossing the hole = putts going in.

What they are illustrating is the path of balls traveling at equal speeds along a slope. And how on fast greens, that at a single speed there are 2 different launch angles that will intersect the hole. It does not say that both of these putts go in.

IF(if because i don't think it is showing this) 5a was actually showing that the 2 putts that crossed the hole did go in, I would say that there is still only 1 shot cone and it resides between those 2 lines.

And if you look at figure 5b, only 1 line actually even gets to the hole.

So again to me it seems that is how they chose to illustrate that it takes relatively fast greens just for a putt of the same speed to intersect the hole twice, not that both of those putts necessarily go in.

Here is the section BO is referring to for anyone that hasn't read the paper.

[img][/img]

From the first paragraph in the portion of the paper you just posted. I may or may not have interpreted the statement correctly.


Since in the diagram there are many intersections of the various lines, I was assuming that the lone intersection that is circled is where both would actually be "captured" by the hole. But like you, I do not know this for a fact.

But I'm fairly certain that in 5a with the faster greens and multiple intersections it would be easier to hole a putt than the figure in 5b. Do you think this is indeed the case? Note I'm not saying putting average, just easier to hole the faster putt.

BO

Sorry, I don't know wtf I was thinking when I wrote 1.5 inches. It was slightly less than 3.5 inches in diameter. At first glance the hole looked smaller than normal, and I confirmed it with precise measurement (any idea why they would make the winter hole smaller?). So I guess I would have made at least 1 more putt, maybe more, that lipped out. Also, I would have kept putting but I couldn't feel my hands anymore.

So that's 2 made into a 3.5 inch hole by a freezing cold high-handicapper, nice.

Seems hardly anyone actually cares about the actual prop that started this thread anymore, which is unfortunate because I was looking forward to being all sorts of smug about it.

Brocktoon,

FWIW, I think the mods should have just separated it into two threads. I have a feeling that might have negated some of the animosity as well. WTF is up with a hole being smaller? (that's what he said)

In case anyone's wondering who Brocktoon is.. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9y...ere_shortfilms

I stated from the get go that I did not think he would succeed, and so far I am correct.

BO

Re: the paper I linked and the straight vs breaking debate. If I'm reading it correctly, the paper gives the data we need to determine which putt has more combinations of line/speed that result in a make.

The middle cluster in Fig 10 shows the combos for a straight and level 10 footer on the slower green. I count 155 dots/combinations.

Then Figure 14B shows the combos for a 10 footer on a 5 degree slope on the same green. I count 47 dots/combinations.

Figure 14A shows the combos for the breaking putt on the faster green. I count 67. It doesn't look like they have the same graph for the straight putt on faster green.

For 10 footers at least, seems pretty definitive.

Yes, for a planar 10' putt you certainly might be correct. I in fact would believe that to be true. That however is still not what the true debate is about. Nor have I ever said that would be impossible as much as A Rod and NXT continue to insist I stated ALL breaking putts are easier it still has somehow never been shown where I said that.

This is a tangent but I'm not sure you get the same benefit from a 100' downhill putt as you would from a short downhiller on a fast green. Here's where I'll use Ship's theory of inflection point.

A short, fast, downhill putt is going to benefit more from gravity than any longer or slower downhill putt imo. It is easy to imagine a very short, fast STRAIGHT downhill putt in which the putter ****s up the face angle of the putt and taps it either right or left of his intended line, and gravity takes command of the ball and pulls it "back" online. And due to the cup having a certain width, will likely yield a made putt, even with a relatively awful face angle. This putt requires (nay, demands..) a very small foot-pound of force applied to the ball for this to work out this way.

Your 100' downhiller I don't think benefits from this convergence effect much at all. It's probably a negligible amount. For two reasons. The putt is much longer and requires a much higher foot-pound of force applied to the ball at striking. And if the green is slower, the same thing holds true. (I'm not saying you suggested a slow green but I'm just pointing this out). So a long, slow downhill putt should not really benefit from this convergence effect much.

The original strike requires such a high foot-pound of force that I think if you are offline even just a little bit it power through that convergence effect and basically negates it almost completely. The ball has way more kinetic energy after strike and momentum. Gravity pulling it "down" toward the hole just isn't going to be a large enough factor like it will on short fast putts.

Can't "prove" this but I'm pretty sure it's right. So I'm not sure you saying you were a lucky squirrel here even makes any sense at all.

(in my best fat Bob from Office Space voice) Please, let me handle this one.

I'll take a stab.

Shocker.




If a breaking putt of X length is easier than a straight putt of X length, why wouldn't whatever nonexistent phenomenon that makes that true not apply to the 10 footer?

Is it safe to assume you think inside 10 feet, straight putts are ALWAYS easier then breaking putts?

If so, why is it such a stretch for you to understand that if straight downhillers are ALWAYS easier than straight flat putts of equal length, that the relationship between straight putts and breaking putts is similar.

Will you take it a step further and claim that at some ridiculous distance a breaking putt could actually be easier than a straight downhill putt of equal distance? If not, why not?

You are correct in that it is a negligible amount of convergence, but any amount is greater than a flat putt, and certainly more than an uphill putt that we now know diverges. So from this you must agree that a downhill putt gives some degree of advantage.

It was shown in the paper in figure 5b that a slow putt benefits less from convergence, that's why you want a faster putt, just not so fast and/or sloping where the hole cannot "capture" the ball.

So from all this I truly believe you have the best chance to hole a 100-footer on a somewhat downhill, somewhat breaking putt on a relatively fast green. That was my statement from the beginning just from personal experience, it's nice to know there is some science showing this is actually the case.

BO

[/QUOTE]

So

Much

Fail

Bo you're so close. Just drop the breaking part at the end and you have solved the 100 foot putt problem.

Straight/flat downhill is the easiest putt there can possibly be... at any length.

Because, in the real world, slopes/greens/breaks/speeds/undulation etc are not a constant plane or a constant anything really. The greens on a course all have subtle constantly changing pitch. You have played golf outside right? Even if not you have seen it on TV I would think?

Thus (and how the **** am I falling for this trolling) there is not a simple X vs Y equation as you think should exist in order to prove this. I agreed earlier in the thread the TV putting line prediction is pretty good, but flawed still. Do you think the program that analyzes the 3 D mapping of the greens takes all that data and plugs it into an equation from your 9th grade pre-Algebra book?

As for "so much fail", I actually thought my comment was great....of course it's easier to root for the villain when you are the villain. But again, since you are still using the word "fail" it is apparent you can't think on your own or create humor on your own....ldo.

AAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDD, how is it possible nobody has noted yet that what has turned into the most absurd golf forum thread ever centers around a putt that has so far yielded a combine expectation of "about tree fitty" (%).


Hey, NXT, you should get that one since it is a completely tired reference.

So again not even an inkling of quantifiable data/proof. Just more gibberish

And the X and Y thing isn't even an "equation"

So...

More fail.

Doesn't this render Aim Point's practical use worthless.

Correct me if I am wrong but when utilizing aim point you select a single grade of slope for your entire putt.

But since that sort of putt doesn't exist in the real world, isn't that a huge flaw?


My favorite argument from people when arguing complex things where models generally work better is along the lines of..

This is the real world, your theory bs doesn't exist.

It's a dead giveaway the person will likely never understand.

I think you've finally made it to this point.

Golf clap.

The break to the left at the end is meaningless to everybody but you. I mean if I constantly hit my putts right of the hole (and somehow couldn't correct this mentally) I'd want a break left at the end, too. But there is no science that shows your position here to be the case.

And yes, at a microscopic level, there should still be some super minor benefit of a 100 foot putt being downhill. I still imagine it to be almost completely negligible, though. Certainly negligible enough for you not to be able to thumb your nose at people and be like "See, I was correct all along!"