[JC Jones]

Kalen,

Any green hard enough to turn a bunch of Crenshaw one-putts into two-putts is also going to turn a bunch of your two-putts into three-putts and four-putts. That's the crux of the argument that you and Tom are advancing. You're imaging a situation that makes it hard for Crenshaw to play his usual game (eight one-putts and ten two-putts per round) yet somehow, magically does not keep you from playing your usual game (three one-putts, fourteen two-putts and a three-putt per round).

There is no such configuration of greens. It's going to take super, super, really amazingly tricky greens to cost Crenshaw more than a couple of putts per round. Any green hard enough to keep him having a single one-putt per round is going to take you 45+ putts if you even finish. It's pure bloody-mindedness to keep asserting that no matter how hard the greens might be, hackers like us will somehow manage to just waltz through with 18 two-putts, ho-hum.

Thank you for saying this because its absolutely true and Kalen and Tom are crazy to think otherwise.

[Dan King]

So the contention is the more influential putting is on the score, the more it works to the advantage of poor putters?

Do you see any flaw in that logic?

Cheers,
Dan King

Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.
  --Fyodor Dostoyevsky

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jerry,
Thanks for the reminder.
Tiger was tied for the 23rd 'best' putter in 2008, and 16th in GIR. John Senden was tied for the 127th 'best' putter in 2008, and 1st in GIR.

As far as I can see none of the guys who had birdie coversion numbers similar to Tiger's (33.25) even come close to his GIR stat.

So to answer Phil's question I'd say, without checking, that when the player not known for his putting prowess wins the big one it's more about his ball striking that week than it is tough greens. The guy still has to make the putts, but he's giving himself much better chances that week than at other times.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - never said Schmoe would waltz through with 18 two putts.

Dan - never made that contention, don't take it that far.

My words stand as is, and it's pretty simple logic, and I remain convinced it's correct.

Sorry boys.  Can we stop now?

[Michael Moore]

The last thread was fascinating, not because this is a point worth debating, but because it illustrated just how good the good putters are on severely contoured greens.

David Schmidt provided some fascinating stats indicating that one year Phil Mickelson took only one more putt per round at Augusta than he did at Palm Springs.

Dear reader, how big do you think this differential would be for you?

[Kalen Braley]

The logic is good as Huck explains and here's why.

Instead of crenshaw making all those 1 putts on flat greens, now he's having a lot more that burn the edge and is left with a 6-12 inch tap in, instead of a made putt.

And for me, sure instead of having that 12 inch tap in on a flat green, I have 3-4 footers left for the two putt.  But a two putt is still a two putt whether its a 20 footer followed by a 1 footer, or a 20 footer followed by a 3.5 footer.  And that is where the narrowing of the gap occurs.  I haven't become a better putter...its just the severness of the greens are just enough to get him to narrowly miss putts he would normally make...but i'm still making those 2 putts, even if I lose 2 extra strokes due to a couple of extra 3 putts.

In essensce the main contention is... he is now incurring more 2 putts over 1 putts, than I am incurring 3 putts as opposed to 2 putts.

[Wade Whitehead]

Good putters are always better than bad putters.

I'd actually argue that tough greens benefit great ball strikers.  I think.

WW

[Jud_T]

Kalen,

Bottom line....Crenshaw has 2 more 2-putts and you have 4 more 3-putts...you're discounting the holes where you leave yourself 5-10 feet on your second putt due to the severity of slope.  Plus as a "feel" putter, Crenshaw will dominate even a more mechanical pro on these types of surfaces...

[Scott Szabo]

Bottom line:  average putter two putts nearly all flat greens; Crenshaw one putts many.  Average putter two putts most highly-contoured greens, Crenshaw does also.

That's a huge generalization, but that's what it all boils down to.  And thus Crenshaw's advantage is less on the highly-contoured.  The rest is for you GCA-addicts to parse.  

TH

Huck,  I couldn't agree more.  I see it day in and day out when I'm fortunate enough to get out to Ballyneal.

Scott

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

Bottom line....Crenshaw has 2 more 2-putts and you have 4 more 3-putts...you're discounting the holes where you leave yourself 5-10 feet on your second putt due to the severity of slope.  Plus as a "feel" putter, Crenshaw will dominate even a more mechanical pro on these types of surfaces...

Jud,

Those numbers are far more likely to be..he has 5 more 2-putts, and I have 2 more 3-putts.

One only need to go back to Dove Mountain, site of last years Match Play championship.  Those guys were bitching and moaning the whole time...why?  Because they were making faaarr more two putts from 7-25 feet away than they are normally used to.  And that is the difference.

[Jud_T]

You line up Ben and I'll be there with a stack of cash....

[Kalen Braley]

You line up Ben and I'll be there with a stack of cash....

I would take that bet...

I may be a high capper, but I can putt decent...its the best part of my game!! 

[Tim Bert]

You line up Ben and I'll be there with a stack of cash....

I would take that bet...

I may be a high capper, but I can putt decent...its the best part of my game!! 

Let's get this arranged for Old Macdonald - right behind the Ran / Tom hickory match.

I'll be there with my stack of cash as well!

[Kalen Braley]

You line up Ben and I'll be there with a stack of cash....

I would take that bet...

I may be a high capper, but I can putt decent...its the best part of my game!! 

Let's get this arranged for Old Macdonald - right behind the Ran / Tom hickory match.

I'll be there with my stack of cash as well!

Mr. Crenshaw wouldn't have a chance..... 

[Jim Nugent]

The U.S. Open at Oakmont in 2007 suggests Huck is right.  

Tiger, the greatest putter of all, made next to nothing.  This reached a crescendo in the 3rd round, when he scored 69, with 35 putts.  

Cabrera even made a comment about this, to the effect that the greens acted as an equalizer.

So the contention is the more influential putting is on the score, the more it works to the advantage of poor putters?

No, the contention is that if the greens become too tough, the great putters don't make the putts that separate them from the rest.  

[Kalen Braley]

The U.S. Open at Oakmont in 2007 suggests Huck is right. 

Tiger, the greatest putter of all, made next to nothing.  This reached a crescendo in the 3rd round, when he scored 39, with 35 putts. 

Cabrera even made a comment about this, to the effect that the greens acted as an equalizer.

So the contention is the more influential putting is on the score, the more it works to the advantage of poor putters?

No, the contention is that if the greens become too tough, the great putters don't make the putts that separate them from the rest. 

Jim

Very well said.

It also explains how Vijay, a lifetime below average putter on tour, was able to win at Augusta...as well as El Gato. It nuetralizes the great putters from dropping all those 10-20 footers on you...

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Dan - never made that contention, don't take it that far.

Tell me why this is not what you are saying.

Imagine two identical golf courses, one with difficult greens, one with easy greens.

Course 1 in a tournament: Average 28 putts, Average 40 non putts. 41.2 percent.
Course 2 in a tournament: Average 34 putts, Average 40 non putts 45.9 percent.

Wouldn't course 2 give a bigger advantage to the better putter?
Wouldn't the numbers support that course 2 had tougher greens than course 1?

Tell me where my numbers are not what you are saying.

Cheers,
Dan King

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.
 --Joseph Wood Krutch

[Tom Huckaby]

Your numbers are not what I am saying.  I never put this numerically, nor did I take it off the putting green (I can't and won't do that as the variables are too huge).  I have stated several times what my contention is.  If you disagree, that is perfectly fine.  

Cheers brother.


BTW, as pertains to the 2007 US Open and what that shows, man I take it as a GIVEN that it works as I say among top-flight golfers... jeez if anyone can't see tough greens are an equalizer there, there's no hope for them.  I just do take it farther and say it works as an equalizer also between good and average putters.  Many disagree, of course.  But I can't see how anyone could disagree with the first part; that is unless you think you know more than Angel Cabrera.

 

[Will MacEwen]

The U.S. Open at Oakmont in 2007 suggests Huck is right.  

Tiger, the greatest putter of all, made next to nothing.  This reached a crescendo in the 3rd round, when he scored 69, with 35 putts.  

Cabrera even made a comment about this, to the effect that the greens acted as an equalizer.

So the contention is the more influential putting is on the score, the more it works to the advantage of poor putters?

No, the contention is that if the greens become too tough, the great putters don't make the putts that separate them from the rest.  

There is a bit of an apples and oranges thing here.  The lesser putters on tour are still pretty damn good putters.  While it may equalize a Crenshaw and Vijay, I think that the gap between Crenshaw and one of us would expand significantly.

[JESII]

Just out of curiosity, and I asked this last time...is putting the only activity in all the world in which, when the conditions get more difficult the historically better performer has a more difficult time adjusting?

The example given was me versus Barry Bonds trying to hit against a high school level pitcher or Roger Clemens...If Barry Bonds' average would drop from .750 to .300 doesn't and mine dropped from .200 to .010 he has gone from .550 to .290 better than me but also from 3.75 times better to 20 times better.

Obviously all hypothetical, but the first question is what I would like to hear answers to...what else works against the better performer as it gets more difficult?

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully:  I sure never maintained that putting worked that way.

The key here is that the measure is putts that go in the hole... make the measure distance from the hole after any given putt and it all changes.  What makes it work as I say is the fact a 3 foot make counts the same as a 6 inch make.

So anyway, due to the way we measure the worth of putts (do they go in the hole or not), it works as I say.  Draw whatever analogies you wish to baseball or anything else.

[Brent Hutto]

Jim,

Whether they realize it or not, they are implying that as greens get more difficult putting gets more random. That on really contoured greens Crenshaw's skill doesn't help because it doesn't matter. That's the only way for their argument to work.

As such, it can't possibly apply to any greens you're likely to see on a Tour event or major championship. It would have to be the golf equivalent of you and Barry Bonds trying to hit a 22-caliber bullet with a spaghetti noodle. Anything less random than that and Bonds outhits you. Likewise, any green where the ball can actually stop rolling at or near the hole and Crenshaw outputts any of us.

If there's skill involved, more skill beats less skill. These guys are just insisting that there's no skill involved on tricky putting greens.

[JESII]

Tom,

If you are only talking about first putt results than clearly the guy that makes none to start with cannot make any less than that...but that's not all of putting.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:  again that is not at all what I am insisting.  I love how "you guys" want to take my stance to extremes I do not, and make statements for me I have never made.  

I am insisting that given the measure is putts made, it works as I say.  How this translates to "skill required" is not my argument.  Golf just has an odd measurement where a 3 foot make counts the same as a 6 inch make.

THAT is why my argument works.  Puzzle that over before you put more words in my mouth.  Thanks.



Jim:  fine.  Not what I am talking about, but bully for you.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Likewise, any green where the ball can actually stop rolling at or near the hole and Crenshaw outputts any of us.
If there's skill involved, more skill beats less skill. These guys are just insisting that there's no skill involved on tricky putting greens."

Brent,
You are exactly right.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()