If he disagrees with my position then I was wrong in my expectation. I still don't think he should attempt to make an instructional video "proving" that every breaking putt is easier than every straight, flat putt of the same distance. He can do that if he wants but I think it would be a mistake as I think it would be wrong.

Why don't you make the video? You'll unearth golf knowledge never before seen or understood. It would be amazing.

"it would still have a chance"

I've made this point a few times, just thought I'd bring it up again.

I think this is one of the reasons that long breaking putts are preferred whether they are easy or not. If a straight putt goes slightly offline, it's obvious immediately that it doesn't have a chance. If a breaking putt's line/speed combo is off slightly, the player doesn't realize it until near the end.

Many breaking putts can feel like they have a chance and give the player the ability to "sweat the putt" until the last instance. Even though the vast majority may not be going in, if they are on the high side, it always feels like they have a chance. So even if high-side-breaking-putt misses by much more than the equivalent straight putt or a putt on the low side, it generally feels like a better putt.

What video? I'm more lost now than before.

Yup, every breaking putt is easier, 100% my stance.

Where is the vomiting gif Reid posted earlier?

Don't be. Earlier ARod thought that when you showed up that you would be 100% on their side and you have been 100% in agreement with BO and myself without your knowing. Even with NXT trying to lead you to an answer you didn't say what he wanted you to.

So now ARC is just being immature and magnifying my position to include all breaking putts are easier.

Don't waste your time.

Yep.

I just read it all. For starters, you are showing a line (not a cone) going into the straight putt. Face angle doesn't have to be completely square. It can be off a little (very little) and still go in.

Why aren't you showing a red cone dying into the straight putt?

Also, you are showing a huge red area on the breaker, as if those all go in the hole. I don't get it. The hole is the same size in both cases. You need to redraw that picture showing only the red bending cone that terminates into the hole on the breaker. None of the other putts matter as they are misses. It doesn't matter that you "feel" like those putts all have "a fighting chance" (your words) of going in. Remember when you said 87% of your putts had a fighting chance of going in, yet you were only making 13% of them? That feeling is over-rated. It is a psychological effect not related to the scientific act of striking the putt.

Please don't lump me into the PGA guy claiming my experience is worth more than science. I definitely believe in technology and "proving" the why & how of the golf swing. I've tried hard to say that I feel a certain way, but have never said my experience trumps science. NXT & I are close friends and he knows as much as anyone how deeply involved I am in the science of the golf swing and ball flight laws.

TRUE - although it was at our education faculty meeting. This is the reason I'm no longer on the education staff for the PGA. I got reprimanded for answering questions related to the "new" ball flight laws to a student who asked.

And...for the record, it was FLIGHTSCOPE who created the technology that discovered this - TrackMan took the technology (violating an NDA) and marketed it. A little humor that I point this out, because I am the Flightscope Representative for GA.

THANK YOU. It's a psychological effect that has nothing to do with the actual putt.

It's the reason why idiot footbaw coaches stave off having to go for 2 until their final score, because, if they lose the game, they want it to be decided in the 59th minute, not the 56th minute. IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE PROBABILITY. It's a fuzzy feeling they get "extending the game". But it's completely meaningless. That fuzzy feeling a putter gets when he watches a breaker is false. It's not linked to probability. It's linked only to his inability to see the line curving. Our eyes don't work like that.

I fully agree with the premise that it is set in stone (barring spike mark, wind, grain, etc) but wouldn't the fact that The Putt have higher expectation (funnel or not) also lend itself to this thought process? My putt literally crosses the line almost every time, usually around the hole within reason. So yes, that helps me hold out hope as I am not as good as NXT or ARC apparently and do not know at impact if it has been made or not. It's not the roll that is making me think it is more makeable, it is the fact that I am making it more often at this point than is physically even possible for the straight 100' expectation to yield. That said, I still miss over 90% so it's not like I'm being Tiger moaning about every putt as though it should have gone in.

Did you or did you not say breaking putts are easier to make than straight, flat putts? Like a month ago.

ok, ship, on the hypothetical one-sloped sloping green you would choose a putt slightly off-center (say at 6:15 on the clockface). That is consistent with your views in the thread, of course.

Why would you say that as compared to the straight-downhill putt? Possible answers could include:

1) easier to read

2) more consistent stroke (speed/launch angle)

3) a breaking putt is inherently more holable (something about the ball-hole dynamics)

4) other

I assume you probably believe 1 & 2 (I definitely agree with 1 and sometimes agree with 2). I assume you believe 3 also, but that is where we part company. I don't think the hole gives a crap about the slope, but I am willing to keep an open mind on this point.

That was NXT's drawing. All I was using it for was a visual about my "hurricane track" concept. I can't believe that you read that entire post and THAT is what you take away from it to ask a question about.

Directly, what do you think about the idea that The Putt always crosses the path around the hole and that the speed (even though you said otherwise) is not that big of a variable. Getting the ball to even hit the line more often is what makes this putt have value.

This is wrong.

A putt crossing a path around the hole doesn't mean anything unless it goes in. The increase in likelihood that it crosses the path is negated by the increase in likelihood your speed was wrong immediately upon striking. This "fighting chance" does not help the probability. It helps our brain feel warm and fuzzy.

Exactly what part of that is wrong? I'm running at 9.31% on The Putt and we have all agreed the MAXIMUM make rate for 100' straight and flat is 3.58%. Stuff in a SD of 1.2 to not let the lower range drop below the absolute least makes you can have (0%) and you get:

How about if on that exact putt it is running like the post above shows? Seems like htat should change something...

Ok, taco night, see you donkey's later.

Don't blame you, pretty sure the tacos have a better chance of comprehending this than the two donkeys. Smell better too.

BO

Yes - but that warm & fuzzy is confidence, which I believe is very important. I've seen great strokes never make putts and awful strokes sink tons, and I think this is one of those unmeasurable factors that is why players on here "prefer" a certain putt based on experience. My 9-year old got new basketball shoes last week, he's absolutely certain they make him faster and jump higher. He had his best game Saturday - he believes it's because of the shoes. Is it? Scientifically, no, but it raised his confidence, so in a way, yes.

Another thought -- is anyone on here a really good bowler? Or know one? Or watched one? How do they roll the first ball -- straight or curve? Why? It's a completely controlled environment, perfectly flat surface, and the same "shot" each time. Do they "see" curve or straight. I think this is similar to how a player sees full shots and putts. I may be wrong, as I can't speak for others, but it's how I see things. I can't explain it all with physics, but I know this thinking exists. That's pretty deep, for me at least.

I am a semi-pro bowler. Bowling is different because of the way the ten pins are arranged. After only a very short amount of time, a bowler quickly discovers that the best strike angle is in the 1-3 pocket (for a right-hander) with a fair amount of curve/hook/break.

If you are only trying to hit a single pin in the middle of the lane, then almost all pro bowlers use a straight shot. There are several reasons for this. One is the way that pro lanes are treated -- they do not exhibit "funneling" (if you miss your aim point right, the ball hooks more; if you miss left, the ball hooks less) the way that most league bowling lanes do. And straight shots eliminate the speed variable (sound familiar?).

You curve a bowling ball because the pins are arranged in a triangle. Rolling it straight (my method) results in too many 7-10 splits.

I know a guy who bowls 300 games and rolled an 814 series (299-215-300) within the last month but I didn't need to consult him to know this.

I know that. It's a comparison, I'm a bowler, and I understand how it works. I'm comparing to your post regarding crossing the path. What if the bowling alley was tilted? Would it be harder? Or easier? Just thinking out loud.

Golfdoc,
I understand where you are coming from here, if a right edge putt gives someone more confidence then it could have a higher make % for that individual than a straight/flat putt even if there is no funneling. But that would be the result of him making a better stroke on the right edge putt compared to the straight putt bc of his confidence level.

However, for this discussion we are trying to remove all variables such as psychological effects(because they are nearly impossible to quantify) and green reading ability.

We assuming that if someone steps up to a straight putt and then up to a breaking putt of the same length, they are going to make the exact same stroke, like an Iron Byron putting machine.

Now if you would give your opinion on the following, I think it would help the discussion.

Comparison of two putts
There are 2 100 foot putts that the Iron Bryon putting machine is going to attempt. 1 is a straight/flat putt and the other is a breaking putt.

Iron Byron launch conditions
Iron Bryon always launches putts within the same range(say between 1* closed face angle and 1* open face angle to his intended line, and hits putts with speed to travel between 98 feet and 106 feet)

Putt #1. A straight/flat 100 foot putt

With the above launch conditions, at the hole his ball would always travel with 20" of either side of the cup. When combined with his speed, let's say this results in a make % of 15%.(not an exact calculation)

Putt #2. A breaking 100 foot putt

He again launches the ball with the previously mentioned launch parameters at the "ideal line" since we assume that he knows this.

However this time when we measure his distribution at the hole, all of his putts travel within 15" of either side of the hole. When combined with his speed, this results in a make % of 20%.

Would it be fair to conclude that it was the slope that caused the distributions at the hole of the breaking putt to be narrower than the straight putt? If not, what else would be responsible for the effect since the balls were launched with the exact same parameters?

If you agree that the slope caused the narrower distribution, then we are on the same page. I am just extrapolating what I have shown above. That if 2 putts are launched with the exact same conditions, if one putt has a higher make % than another then the slope had to condense the distribution at the hole. Thus the "funneling" part of this entire discussion.

That is why my stance is straight/flat putts are always easier than non-funneling breaking putts. Because for a breaking putt to have a higher make % than a straight putt, the distribution at the hole has to be condensed and funneling has thus occurred. And if no funneling occurs, the distribution at the hole cannot be condensed and the make % cannot increase.

Why is everyone so bad at debate? I'm sad, now. Rob, get out while you can. They're going to take every instance of the time you used the word "feel" and "confidence" and tout it as "proof" that the breaking putt side of the debate has been shattered....


Contrary to what ARC would think I'd say, ARC is one of the only people here that said what needs to be said and is a genuinely honest portrayal of where we are at the moment:

Of course, I think most of everything else he has posted doesn't help anything at all and is mostly off topic asides.



ARC, what is your opinion of NXT's assertion about if a breaking planar putt ends up with a higher make % than its flat counterpart that the breaking putt must be a "funnel by definition and thus doesn't count"? You can still agree with him that flat is easier AND think that his current statements are ridiculous, btw. Like I said, I'm like 70% flat and 30% breaking right now, but the point is that I don't know for sure and I am reserving judgment until more information comes in...


...What's wrong with just not knowing? Everyone is so gung-ho about having an opinion. I just don't get it.

If this is a plane that is tilted to one side with no elevation change...just one big giant plane being tilted either left or right, and the results are that a breaking putt goes in more often...how in **** can you just say "lol funnel" and then still say flat putts are easier? Like, if the data shows this to be true?

How can you not see how this is disingenuous??? Even if everything goes like your hypothetical, which putt would you choose afterward? The breaking putt. Call it "funneling" if you want but it doesn't change the fact that it was just proven that a planar breaking putt is easier to make than a flat putt of the same distance (knowing the line).


You are incredible if you can't see objectively how you look right now.