[archie_struthers]

 

Huck , we are talking about putting , at least I am.  There is no way the average player putts as good as a scratch player (with rare exceptions) whether it be on easy or tough greens. However , slow greens with little countour certainly are to the poorer players advantage.  At the highest level it's even more important, Crenshaw was freaky good, from all distances , and the tougher the greens the better his chances to win......note his record at Augusta, where putting is paramount vs his record in the US Open, where ball striking rules the day.   ( this explains your Johnny Miller example, when he won at Oakmont nobody hit it straighter or closer than he did.... ditto for many Open champs.....eg Kite , Simpson straight consistent ball strikers win the Open...

Back to  the simple example of play in your own backyard....the better putter wants to play the golf course with the greens as tough as possible ....the guys in the weekly group will complain horribly when they start three putting and their scores go up five shots

[Tim Nugent]

I have a broader take on this.  The more segmented and/or slick the greens are, the more pressure is placed on my approach shots.  The farther my approach shots end up, the more putts I usually take.  Like a majority of golfers, I do not possess the ability to stop my approach shots wihth-in a 3' dia of where they land, so the more slopey or undulating green are, the more afffect they will have on my run-out on my approach.  Since Oakmont's have been mentioned several times here, the slickness of those greens forced me to play a completely different approach (because they scared the hell out of me).  Therefore, it is my contention that the level of induced difficulty extends beyond just putting once you are on the greens, but rather to the approach as well.
So, I'll  line up with Archie (and Jay F).
Also, I think some parameters on just what constitutes "Hard" are needed. Are Big 3-D undulations "harder" than say steep 2-D cross-slopes.  Green size, and speed along with receptiveness (how firm) the green is are also factors. Those Oakmont greens got in my head because not only were they very quick (11-12+), they were very firm and large.  Talk about confidence killers!

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck,

I apologize for causing so much aggrivation by not knowing the parameters of the discussion...why would we ever debate ONLY 6 - 10 foot putts?

I see that you do acknowledge..."So, of course, differences occur in the longer putts, and perhaps in the end the lesser guy three-putts more enough to negate all of this. I just also haven't seen that take place"...but isn't that the hole point...to talk about the complete putting game in the context of difficult versus not so difficult greens?

Let's also look at your guinea pigs...one putter makes "alot" of 6 - 10 footers. Let's assume that means 6 out of 10, or about where the tour players fall according to Jim Kennedy's link. The other putter makes "none or nearly none" let's call that 1 out of 10. You've got to get to a pretty poor putter to find they make one or less of 10 from an 8 foot average.

So if they can't make a putt from 8 feet, why would you give them the 3 foot second putt so easy?

Sully:  I am not talking about ONLY 6-10 foot putts - they are just the examples where it stands out the most.  And since on the contoured greens for many reasons both players tend to have a lot of those, that is why it works.

And yes, as I say, it could very well work out that the lesser guy misses those 3 footers enough such that in the end the better guy's advantage is regained.  I just haven't seen that occur... because in general due to gravity those 3 footers are straight uphill most of the time.

Archie - you are arguing things I am not.  Nowhere did I ever match the skill level of the two players. nor make any value judgments on how this should be nor who likes it more nor any of that.  I just made what I believe is a simple observation... and I've explained it at least 50 times now.  I take it no further than an observation of how putting tends to work out.



Tom H.

[George Pazin]

There is nothing in the world that will affect Ben Crenshaw more than me, at least when it comes to golf. Even pure randomness, he will handle it better than me.

Kalen, you conveniently omitted the 4 and 5 putts you would have. And don't tell me you wouldn't - if you believe that, you just haven't played difficult enough greens.

There is no upper bound to putts; there is a lower bound. The winner at Augusta has zero 3 putts on more than a few occasions - how many incremental three putts do you think anyone on this board would have?

Feel free to believe whatever you'd like, that doesn't make it true or even likely to be true. Heck, it doesn't even make my points true.

Lastly, this is an argument that will never be resolved. Each time someone comes up with an argument that bolsters his side, the other side shifts the argument/example. Unless we could agree on some common ground for testing - an impossibility, imho - this "debate" remains but a flight of fancy.

Can't believe I got sucked into this one again, a sentiment I'm sure shared by many others on this thread.

[Kalen Braley]

There is nothing in the world that will affect Ben Crenshaw more than me, at least when it comes to golf. Even pure randomness, he will handle it better than me.

Kalen, you conveniently omitted the 4 and 5 putts you would have. And don't tell me you wouldn't - if you believe that, you just haven't played difficult enough greens.

There is no upper bound to putts; there is a lower bound. The winner at Augusta has zero 3 putts on more than a few occasions - how many incremental three putts do you think anyone on this board would have?

Feel free to believe whatever you'd like, that doesn't make it true or even likely to be true. Heck, it doesn't even make my points true.

Lastly, this is an argument that will never be resolved. Each time someone comes up with an argument that bolsters his side, the other side shifts the argument/example. Unless we could agree on some common ground for testing - an impossibility, imho - this "debate" remains but a flight of fancy.

Can't believe I got sucked into this one again, a sentiment I'm sure shared by many others on this thread.

George, 4 and 5 putts?

I've played 4 Engh courses in the last couple of years that are hands down the craziest greens I've every played....very wild.  I don't recall having had even 1 4 putt much less a 5 putt.

The wildest green I've ever played on was the practice green at Pacific Dunes and even with the most wicked placement was always able to at least 3 putt everything.

P.S.  The only green I think this ever happened was the 16th at Pasa IIRC...

[George Pazin]

Ask Jeff Brauer how many 4 putts he had his first round at Oakmont.

One of the many flawed premises in the original argument was that highly contoured/pitched greens had to have slow greens. I cite Oakmont and Augusta as but 2 examples of "difficult" greens that are not at all flat nor slow.

P.S. Re: Cabrera at Oakmont, the only things that proved were that he's a better putter than he thinks, and that many pros are streaky putters, which tends to invalidate both sides of this argument (or at least make it damn near impossible to test, as opposed to invalidate).

[Tom Huckaby]

"Can't believe I got sucked into this one again, a sentiment I'm sure shared by many others on this thread. "

You said it brother.

Just this:  I sure as heck have never shifted my argument.  I've made the mistake of responding to the 250+ different ideas people keep telling me I have, though.  I'm so stuffed with words in my mouth from this I am nor sure I can ever speak again.  Perhaps that's a good thing.

 

[George Pazin]

Shifting the argument was probably a poor choice of words. I just don't know how to describe the shifting that has occurred. I don't know that either side has adequately explained its premises, logic and conclusions; that's partly why I think it's impossible to test.

I sure don't have the energy to explain my points all over again.

[Kalen Braley]

Ask Jeff Brauer how many 4 putts he had his first round at Oakmont.

One of the many flawed premises in the original argument was that highly contoured/pitched greens had to have slow greens. I cite Oakmont and Augusta as but 2 examples of "difficult" greens that are not at all flat nor slow.

P.S. Re: Cabrera at Oakmont, the only things that proved were that he's a better putter than he thinks, and that many pros are streaky putters, which tends to invalidate both sides of this argument (or at least make it damn near impossible to test, as opposed to invalidate).

George,

But Johnny Miller very well could be the one of the top 10 worst putters in PGA history and he won there also...

And to boot he won at Pebble twice which also has very devilish sloping greens.

[archie_struthers]

 


As to Johnny Miller, before the  rule change on the caddy lining him up (Andy Martinez) his putting was much better.  Also the better ball strikers win the US Open , as noted by looking at the history of past champions  Heavy rough and  Rough and narrow fairways tend to weed out most of the non shot makes...perhaps Sarge Mooney might be the best example I can think of....

Contrast this with Masters Champs...where great putting usually rules the day...multiple winner Crenshaw stands out as the best example , as his us Open record is not near as good

Most of you guys play golf with your buddies or in the occasional tournament are you really going to tell me that cranking up the greens to warp speed doesn't help the better putters, typically the low handicappers  ??

[George Pazin]

George,

But Johnny Miller very well could be the one of the top 10 worst putters in PGA history and he won there also...

And to boot he won at Pebble twice which also has very devilish sloping greens.

Fortunately for Johnny, he is one of the very best ball strikers of all time, and his round was on a damp course. Also, I'd never characterize anyone who played on Tour, let alone won tournaments and majors, as poor at anything; they are streaky - such is the nature of the game - and they are only poor in a relative sense.

If we are to really have this discussion, the first thing I would ask people to do is define terms - what is a "hard" green? How would you define "better" putter? etc. etc.

[Kalen Braley]

George,

I never said he was a "poor" putter, just one of the worst all-time who played on tour.  I don't doubt for a second that he is still much better than the average joe out there.

I do think you ask a qood question though about defining what a better putter is.  Clearly its all relative.  Johnny may have been "poor", but only when compared to his fellow peers on tour.  Likewise, I consider myself a better putter compared to the average mid to high capper, but know I'm a lesser putter when compared to a pro or a scratch player.

But I do firmly believe that if you put someone like Ben Crenshaw and myself on two different greens, 1st flat, then secondly twisty, undulting, super fast greens...that the difference in putts would be closer on the 2nd set of greens as opposed to the 1st.

It would be pretty straight forward to test as well:

Have Ben and I each hit 20 putts from varying ranges on a flat green, and count the total number of strokes we each made to hole out all our balls.  Then do the same for a undulating heaving green and that differential between out total putts would be closer on the 2nd green...even though he would still obviously kick my butt on either green..it would just be lesser on that 2nd green.

[archie_struthers]

 


Kalen ...help me out and answer my question about playing at  your home club...it puts this into perspective IMHO

when the greens get cranked up ...the better players win  ...often by a lot (they typically putt better)

on normal days the higher handicappers tend to shoot the best scores relative to handicap

having caddied for Crenshaw many times at Pine Valley ....I'd guess you putting against him there would be a rout.(he'd whup me too lol)..while it might not be so bad at the local muni with slow greens and flat elevation

[George Pazin]

But I do firmly believe that if you put someone like Ben Crenshaw and myself on two different greens, 1st flat, then secondly twisty, undulting, super fast greens...that the difference in putts would be closer on the 2nd set of greens as opposed to the 1st.

It would be pretty straight forward to test as well:

Have Ben and I each hit 20 putts from varying ranges on a flat green, and count the total number of strokes we each made to hole out all our balls.  Then do the same for a undulating heaving green and that differential between out total putts would be closer on the 2nd green...even though he would still obviously kick my butt on either green..it would just be lesser on that 2nd green.

I'd happily bet on Ben at PV, Augusta, Oakmont, etc., vs. you or me vs. Ben at the flat green Bob Hope course where Duval shot the 59 vs. you or me. I'd bet his putting stats are much more level than yours or mine at each of the respective sites - ie. he doesn't 3 putt or 1 putt super often at either, whereas you and I, we will see a great increase in our number of putts at Oakmont, Augusta, PV, etc. vs. at the Duval BH course.

If only we could find some way to set this up...

[archie_struthers]

Bingo...   George Pazin.....we could retire with that bet

[Jud_T]

How about we just set up a match between a couple of treehouse guys? All we need is someone who is say a 3 HDCP or better vs. someone who is 15+.  Sounds like we could get a fair amount of action going and have a good event while we're there?

[Bill_McBride]

"Do Hard Greens Help or Hurt Better Putters?"

This makes no sense to me personally.  A really good putter is going to beat a mediocre to good putter on a regular basis.

Sloped greens, flat greens, slow greens, hard greens, soft greens.......the better putter is going to make more putts outside 10', he's going to two putt more in difficult situations, he's not going to three putt as often.  And he's going to make more snakes.  Think back to PGA tournaments and the amazing number of 30'ers that go down.

End of argument, time for a glass of sauvignon blanc.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()