It's pretty easy to find a straight 100' putt. In fact, I did that today in my office into a coffee cup. There may have been slight (<1") movements left and right at various speed/line combos simply due to wear and tear of the commercial carpet, but you still just lined up right at the cup and tried to hit with the right speed.

for the record, I 'made' the putt on my 10th try and this was with one ball being putt back and forth with my employee. He was within a few inches on his 10 tries before we got back to work.

Obviously, this will be harder in real life, but I think I'm massively +ev in this.

Just learned? No. Haven’t heard them in about 17 years since college, yes. I think I’ve been relatively humble with regards the fact that I am less than impressed with my vocabulary as a result of years of doing nothing with my brain. You do realize that IQ is a measure of potential as opposed to learned vocabulary right? Simply having a high IQ doesn’t imply a massive vocabulary, it’s more of a predisposition toward certain field or general intelligence.

Of course I was kidding about his being fired (at least I think I was) just to light him up a touch on my way out the door. No biggie, I’m pretty sure he’s done that ITT.

First, let me say thank you for saying you get the context of what he’s saying. I mean that! There has not been very much that we could say without being nit’d apart.

Consider my sweet Paint drawing then. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the pitch of the green was downhill (since I said it was before the entire derail started) until about 15’ short of the hole (that area is actually what the horizontal line is indicating) and breaking right at the end. Would my blue line putt tend to correct toward the top of the graph as it rolls and loses speed throughout the initial 85’? I do agree that it is correcting in this instance to a line parallel of the “as the crow flies” line, NOT breaking actually back fully toward the hole. I don’t think BO thinks that either. Interestingly, that is the case even with the putt that is dead straight and dead downhill. It never actually returns to dead center simply corrects parallel….but that’s kind of ldo.

[IMG][/IMG]


So converging to the hole might not be the dead on balls accurate word, but as you say the context is pretty clear. So would you say that blue line putt is correcting toward the top of the absolutely brilliant illustration that is drawn with perfect scale? Or, would that putt simply continue off forever on its original path? I’ll make sure and point out what NXT thinks it will do below and let you know that it is ok for you to save face right now and disagree with NXT. It’s ok, come to the good side. Again, I remind you that you did say you “get the context of what BO’s trying to say”.
Your complete lack of ability to visualize is simply stunning. It has repeatedly shown itself for the last 3 days +/week (kill me). I do think that you get this concept, it’s just you can’t visualize what we are talking about without being on a putting green having your hand held and walked through it.

As for your comments on the figure, what are you talking about? That question makes no sense. It is even more clear from your question here you simply lack the ability to visualize. Again though, no worries, we all have our attributes.

Clearly not, have I ever said that?

Care to give your thoughts on what is wrong with my sweet Paint example? Aside from “there’s no way!” Directly, about the notion there is an area between the red and blue lines that all have lines and breaks that result in makes. Effectively making the task to hit that window and then hope that you get lucky with the right amount of speed and break….since you are putting from 100’.

That's good! I mean that, but just to note, I think the speed component of a hole in the ground vs a coffee cup might come into play a tad.

Yeah, I thought so as well. I wasn't going to count it if I 'jammed' it in the cup as that wouldn't have really been a make. We shall see.

Converge is a fine word, it actually does make sense because you can hit 2 different putts from the same spot (at different speeds) and they CAN converge at the hole.

And I never disagreed with your diagram, Ship. That diagram reveals what we knew like a week ago when we all agreed that there are more lines that find the cup on a breaker. I never said otherwise.

I still simply do not think that hitting one of the correct line+speed combos is easier than doing so on a straight, flat putt. It also does not stand to reason or actual trial and error data.

That is my stance and I cannot "prove" it, because, given real-life time constraints, I am not smart enough to be able to prove it nor do I have the time to even begin trying to do so. So I'm kind of at a stand-still, which is why I've posted a lot less the last few days than I did at the beginning.

A-Rod

Are you aware that every line on Ship's diagram goes in according to him?

It is a down hill putt until the red horizontal line, and then goes uphill(?) and breaks a little to the right.

But apparently you can still hit it dead straight and it will go in.

You agree with this diagram still?

Can you visualize that these are two independent putts laid on the same graph? That's a pretty easy one to picture so maybe it's a good starting point for you to grow from.

And greens are dynamic non planar surfaces when viewed over the course of 100'? Again, you have played golf outdoors right?

What in the actual ****

What you drew is not a god damn graph, it is a diagram of your 100 foot putt

Again I ask, is this real life?

These are the exact words you used "What that represents is a 100’ putt. The black line is dead straight and made. The blue line represent a line that the ball can be made on due to the gradually increasing break the further left of the hole you get if you pull it.The red line represents the lower end of the range that will have makeable speed if pushed but hit too hard. The Pelz ideal speed and line combination is just left of the red line. Since this putt was relatively straight the first bit and slightly downhill what you are left with is actually different starting points once the break starts to kick in (yes I understand that the first 80’ would want to tend to straighten, but with the pace hit the effect is negligible at the start)."

Ok i might not know what ships diagram is showing. I'm at cheesecake factor and will revisit later

I'm am sorry for that oversight, you are correct that is indeed a diagram. I apologize to the the entire 2+2 community for such an incompetent mistake that left NXT unable to answer the question at hand. There is clearly no way he could have know that was a diagram and not a graph. Therefore he was completely confused with regards to what the "diagram" shows or what I was asking him.

Again 2 + 2, please forgive me for my constant derails and lack of addressing the questions as asked.

Have a nice evening all.

Ship

This is the last comment I will make on this.

Maybe this will help, likely it wont and I will be completely done ITT unless more people begin participating again. You are too arrogant.

Yes, of course all of your makes converge towards the hole you moron. I agree your blue and red line converge towards the hole. However every putt you start to the right of your red line DOES NOT converge towards the hole. At some point they begin to break AWAY from the hole. Basically, NOT EVERY PUTT YOU HIT CONVERGES TOWARDS THE HOLE.


Now lets go back to the downhill, dead straight putt. EVERY SINGLE PUTT CONVERGES TOWARDS THE HOLE. AT NO POINT IN A DOWNHILL, DEAD STRAIGHT PUTT DOES A PUTT BREAK AWAY FROM THE HOLE.

Do you see the difference?

You literally are wrong at least once in every post. My red and blue lines don't converge to the hole in the sense you are describing, they break to the hole due to the hill. I never said anything about the lines right of the red line breaking toward the hole, I'm pretty sure I explicitly said that the red line represents my lowest possible line…wait, I’ll use this new quote feature:
So yes, I agree that putts below the red line will miss low…ya know, cuz I said it would.

Let’s circle back to your being wrong a time or two ITT. The downhill dead straight putt does not converge to the hole. It corrects to a line parallel to the dead straight line. It does not converge. Meaning you can not pull a dead straight downhill putt outside the hole and then have it break back into the hole. It can correct quick enough depending on the error, but that will be a lip in, not dead center.

Do you see the difference? Again, this isn’t simply that you are miss stating which graph is which in the experiment, your thinking is fundamentally flawed. You are using your own words to describe a situation that in in fact 100% incorrect.

Again, do yourself a favor and self ban for a day or two.

For how good you say you are at visualization, not seeing how it obviously converges is baffling.

OK this is too much of a lay up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FYP

/thread

If we define converge to mean having paths that will eventually meet at some point in the future, then I don't think downhillers "converge" either.

They get pulled into relatively straighter paths than a flat putt of the same distance would, and open/closed face angles of the putter at impact produce putts that are less off line than those same face angles would produce on level putts of the same distance.

That said, the different starting lines theoretically would never meet at any given point past the hole. They would be closer together than their flat surface counterparts, but the paths would never intersect. Carried out to infinity they would eventually become parallel.

[IMG][/IMG]

Question, do you think in a normal distribution the entire hole is the center of the distribution or the center of the hole? It’s kind of important with regards to what you are missing.

Just as the experiment shows, the definition provides, and basic understanding of the idea a putt that hits anywhere off of dead center in a dead straight/downhill setting has missed the exact target. It has instead corrected to a parallel line to the line that results in dead center impact. It has in now way converged. It is not converging, it will not converge. Do you see the difference???? The definition literally says "incline toward each other, as lines that are not parallel". Meaning that to converge the lines that are coming together are not parallel. i.e. in order for your fantasy downhill putt to be converging it would have to correct back to the center of the hole since it is the center of the normal distribution.

[IMG][/IMG]

How about that self ban for you too Twizzle.

if it helps you NXT to not say I was right, can you say that Brock was?

Or should I have just posted "this."

NXT, wanted to get back to the above for a moment that was buried a couple of pages back. Since it appears the faster green (5a vs. 5b) gives a wider cone for intersection of breaking putts, do you believe it's easier to hole a breaking putt on figure 5a vs. 5b?

BO

I will respond to you but this is some incredible nittery, especially coming from Ship who refuses to say that the "most likely" outcome in a normal distribution is the exact center line of the distribution.

Either way.

converge [kənˈvɜːdʒ]
vb
1. to move or cause to move towards the same point

Does the golf ball not move(break) from it's initial launch angle toward the same point(aka hole) on downhill, dead straight putts?

I think it does.

Regardless, the point was that this phenomenon(whatever the hell you want to call it, let's say break towards a single center line?) DOES NOT exist in Ships putt. He does not benefit in anyway from it on his 100 foot putt because it is not dead straight.

But to poke some more holes in Ship's little diagram, it is funny he tries to use the downhill phenomenon from the paper(which doesn't apply to his putt) to his advantage for the first part of his putt, without acknowledging that the end of his putt was uphill, which if using the exact same figure from the paper, would seem to make his putt more difficult(again it doesn't apply bc this part was also not dead straight).

Common sense would indicate if a straight downhill putt converges, while a straight flat putt does not, and a straight uphill putt diverges, then any type of downhill putt converges to some lesser degree based on slope just like any type of uphill putt diverges for the same reason.

You just can't say every non-straight downhill putt reacts the same way regardless of break or slope. Nor can you say any type of non-straight downhill putt reacts the same way as a flat straight putt.

BO

I still don't believe that just because the lines on 5a intersect at the hole means they both go in.
Why do you think that? Don't you think the paper would have said that if it was true, since they made a somewhat similar type claim in downhill, straight putts were easier than straight and uphill, straight putts.

I think they would have had a conclusion or statement in the paper saying something like "putts along slopes get are easier on faster greens than slow greens"

This conclusion can almost certainly not be reached just by looking at 5a vs 5b.

However I can almost certainly conclude that wider cone aka the always great to see "more lines" does not equal easier to make.

Why don't you or Ship take the straight downhill diagram, tilt it 1* to the right, and then redraw the lines.

I guarantee you will not end up with lines that remotely resemble the "convergence"/"break" you see in the original diagram.

In the dead, straight down hill diagram all putts break towards the "ideal" line. This is the phenomenon that makes downhill putts so much easier. No matter which side of ideal you miss on, your miss breaks back towards "ideal" and some balls that started on an angle outside of the "make" zone, break back into the make zone.

In the tilted diagram all putts will break to the right.

In Ship's putt diagram, not ALL putts break towards his Pelz "ideal" line.

I thought it did....

Also as seen in figure 5b, for larger values of Pg, which translates into greater ******ing forces, there may be only one launch angle, for any given launch speed, for which the golf ball will actually reach the hole.

BO

Incredible nittery? Lololololololol you have to be kidding. How the **** is it possible to misuse the exact word you railed on BO for TODAY.

I'm literally at a loss for words. I knew you'd have something to say, but I never considered I'd be called a nit for pointing out that you completely misused a word in this fashion. Even had you not been a dick to BO earlier I still would find it relevant to point out to you that a dead straight downhill putt will not converge to the original line...again, cuz, ya know, it doesn't.

Kind of important since we are discussing physics and all.

Don't worry NXT, this all will end tomorrow. I took some time today to illustrate the actual mortal combat death move. I just need to refine a graph, I mean diagram...wait, no its a chart, to show the final results.

Like a cat playing with a mouse and batting it back and forth it will eventually grow tired of it and kill it. I've been ready to do that for days now, but you have literally sucked all my time up with all these incredibly wrong posts.

Until tomorrow.

Right, but just because there is more than 1 launch angle for a given speed getting to the hole, doesn't mean the extra launch angles that get to the hole result in a make. The language is pretty vague and I think they would be more clear if faster greens = higher chance of making breaking putts.