[Tom Huckaby]

Brent's first statement, nearly right, but taking it too far.

His second?  I wanna know what "these guys" he's attributing it to, because it's sure as hell nothing I've ever maintained.

But I do want to thank you all for the grim reminder as to one of the large reasons I stopped posting for so many months... dammit it's addictive and tough to resist responding, especially when people mischaracterize one's position.

In the end what the hell does it matter?

OK, you win, I'm clueless.  Back to my hole.

 

[Brent Hutto]

OK, Tom. I get your argument now.

Admittedly a missed putt followed by making a tap-in counts the same as a missed putt followed by making a 3-footer. Each is two strokes.

But what about the missed putt followed by a missed 3-footer? Or the badly missed putt followed by a missed 6-footer? These are the possibilities you're assuming will sort of average out or be negligible. But I'm pretty sure Crenshaw doesn't run the ball six feet past the hole as often as I do and if we're on greens so tricky that he does that, I know he misses fewer 6-foot comebackers than I do.

[JESII]

Tom,

Putting is about limiting misses, not simply makes...the better putter miss fewer than the lesser putter does.

"bully for you"?

[JMEvensky]

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.

This.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:  I truly believe that in the end, it works as I say.  I get what you are saying as well.  But in the end, I don't think I 3 or 4 putt enough to negate the advantage Ben has lost from the flat greens, because we both two-putt so often on the contoured.  Yes I could be wrong.  But I believe I am right; I have seen it play out this way, and the anecdote from Oakmont '07 is powerful to me as well (as much as I do agree it's a different argument).  Thank you for finally getting what I am trying to say, anyway.

Sully - you lost me.  

Guys I am not the moron you seem to think I am.  Who else would make an assertion that more skill fails to beat less skill?  
It quite obviously comes down to how golf is measured.  To me it's fascinating it works this way.  Golf was quite obviously never meant to be fair.

Thanks.

[Brent Hutto]

Honestly, this is my last comment...

In that case, Tom, you're proposing the existence of two different-but-overlapping putting skills. There's one skill of making 6-15 foot first putts and there's a slightly different skill of avoiding 3-putts. That strikes me as probably less true than you might think. I have trouble imagining the two abilities not being so closely linked as to be indistinguishable. But I don't know, it may work that way. Let's say for the moment you can separate those components of putting ability: maybe Crenshaw is 10x as good as you at making 6-15 footers but only 2x as good as you at avoiding three-putts.

But you're also saying that certain greens can be so tricky as to render the skill of making 6-15 foot first putts almost moot. Those putts are so hard that even Ben Crenshaw can't do it more than once in a blue moon so really, really contoured and tricked-up greens take the one-putt right out of consideration unless it's a tap-in.

Where I think you're wrong is by believing that greens can be tricky enough to substantially decrease the likelihood of making those first putts while at the same time leaving your skill at avoiding three-putts intact. I think that's what most of us on the majority side of this argument would totally disagree with. I just can't imagine characteristics of a putting green such that sinking a 15-foot birdie putt becomes nigh impossible for Ben Crenshaw while Tom Huckaby can still pretty much count on lagging it up there close enough for a sure thing 2-putt.

P.S. I do not take you for a moron. I would not be continuing the conversation if it were with a moron. I do promise that this is my last elaboration of my ideas on this topic. Even conversing with a fine, upstanding non-moron like yourself has its limits on what is a highly speculative and ultimately unfulfilling matter of discussion.

[Kalen Braley]

OK, Tom. I get your argument now.

Admittedly a missed putt followed by making a tap-in counts the same as a missed putt followed by making a 3-footer. Each is two strokes.

But what about the missed putt followed by a missed 3-footer? Or the badly missed putt followed by a missed 6-footer? These are the possibilities you're assuming will sort of average out or be negligible. But I'm pretty sure Crenshaw doesn't run the ball six feet past the hole as often as I do and if we're on greens so tricky that he does that, I know he misses fewer 6-foot comebackers than I do.

Brent,

I already said this hours ago this morning in reply #30.  A two putt is a two putt regardless of the length of that 2nd putt made.

And its true, no doubt someone like me would no doubt have 1 or two putts that I run by 6 feet and miss the comebacker....but Mr. Crenshaw would likely have 4 to 5 putts that burn the edge and don't go in on the 1st try that he settles for a two putt instead of a 1 putt.  And that right there is the difference.

As it concerns your previous post on skill, its not that someone like Mr. Crenshaw doesn't have crazy good putting skills....because of course he does.  Its only that the number of varaibles are greatly increased on hard, undualting 3d greens as opposed to a 2d flat green.  With the former its all about accouting for:

1)  Uphill or downhill
2)  Sidehill break, even 2 or 3 different breaks
3)  Getting the speed and line correct thru each portion.

Over 20 feet its much more difficult to get these factors exactly right so your ball goes into a 4.25 inch wide hole.

[Kalen Braley]

Honestly, this is my last comment...

In that case, Tom, you're proposing the existence of two different-but-overlapping putting skills. There's one skill of making 6-15 foot first putts and there's a slightly different skill of avoiding 3-putts. That strikes me as probably less true than you might think. I have trouble imagining the two abilities not being so closely linked as to be indistinguishable. But I don't know, it may work that way. Let's say for the moment you can separate those components of putting ability.

But you're also saying that certain greens can be so tricky as to render the skill of making 6-15 foot first putts almost moot. Those putts are so hard that even Ben Crenshaw can't do it more than once in a blue moon so really, really contoured and tricked-up greens take the one-putt right out of consideration unless it's a tap-in.

Where I think you're wrong is by believing that greens can be tricky enough to substantially decrease the likelihood of making those first putts while at the same time leaving your skill at avoiding three-putts intact. I think that's what most of us on the majority side of this argument would totally disagree with. I just can't imagine characteristics of a putting green such that sinking a 15-foot birdie putt becomes nigh impossible for Ben Crenshaw while Tom Huckaby can still pretty much count on lagging it up there close enough for a sure thing 2-putt.

Brent,

Its not about having impossible putts from 6-15 feet, its about having trickly ones.  Its about instead of Ben making 10 of these, he only makes 5 of them.  That right there is the difference.

Whereas for someone like me or Huckaby, from 6-15 feet on tricky greens, we would likely only have one or two extra instances where we three putt instead of two putting from that distances.  So he gains 5 extra putts, while we only gain 1 or 2.  I don't see why this is a difficult concept to grasp?

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:  I'll just go with Kalen's explanation.  And again this is not about extremes - not about Crenshaw NEVER making any - it's about him making less, such that two putts equals two putts, and it's like I said before, and like Kalen explained.

The things you and others have attributed to me previously, only a moron would state.  Sorry, but it is frustrating to not be given an ounce of benefit of the doubt.

I gotta get back to not posting.  Life is a lot better that way.

Cheers.

[Dan King]

Okay Tom, I guess I get your argument. You are saying on tough greens a poor putter isn't going to three-putt more times relatively  than a good putter is not going to one putt.

Since you have no evidence to back it up and are only going on your gut, there isn't much in the way I can say against your argument. Anyone using facts to argue your gut is not going to be persuasive.

The amazing thing is you have converts to your gut's misguiding opinion.

Cheers,
Dan King

Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support.
 --Stephen Colbert

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

That knife cuts both ways.....you as well are only going on gut instinct as you haven't provided any real world numbers or data otherwise either.

I think it would be a great experiment to try out and I highly suspect both the gut of Tom and I are in the right place! 

[Michael Moore]

Its not about having impossible putts from 6-15 feet, its about having trickly ones.  Its about instead of Ben making 10 of these, he only makes 5 of them.  That right there is the difference.

Whereas for someone like me or Huckaby, from 6-15 feet on tricky greens, we would likely only have one or two extra instances where we three putt instead of two putting from that distances.  So he gains 5 extra putts, while we only gain 1 or 2.  I don't see why this is a difficult concept to grasp?

It's difficult to grasp because you have failed to account for the putts that you would have one-putted on the easier greens.

[Jason Topp]

This could easily be resolved by actually having some putting contests.


Based on my experience, I think difficult greens give good putters a huge advantage over poor putters.

I play at a course with a number of severely sloping greens.  When dried out on a dry windy day, they pummel poor putters:  

First - A poor putter can't read the greens.  Sometimes they not only fail to play the correct amount of break, they also read the break in the wrong direction.  

Second - Even with the correct read, poor putters do not hit the ball solidly.  On a flat green a mis-hit 30 foot putt leaves a 5 foot 2nd.  On a severely sloping green a mishit can wind up farther away than the original putt.  

Third - the difficulty of making 5 foot putts increases exponentially.

Poor putters do not 3 putt - they hit it off the green.  After that they get so conservative that they cannot make anything.  
 

[Kalen Braley]

Its not about having impossible putts from 6-15 feet, its about having trickly ones.  Its about instead of Ben making 10 of these, he only makes 5 of them.  That right there is the difference.

Whereas for someone like me or Huckaby, from 6-15 feet on tricky greens, we would likely only have one or two extra instances where we three putt instead of two putting from that distances.  So he gains 5 extra putts, while we only gain 1 or 2.  I don't see why this is a difficult concept to grasp?

It's difficult to grasp because you have failed to account for the putts that you would have one-putted on the easier greens.

Michael,

Based on past experience, I'm 1 at best over 10 attempts, (assuming not all attempts are from 6-7 feet).  So even if you add 1, I'm still 2-3 strokes "better" in this scenario.

[Dan King]

Kalen Braley writes:
That knife cuts both ways.....you as well are only going on gut instinct as you haven't provided any real world numbers or data otherwise either.

The difference is Tom's response to every comment on here is that he is right because his gut says so.

I asked a question that I think demonstrates tough greens favor good putters. Tom's response was his gut tells him something and therefore he won't participate in any discussion that could go against his gut.

Taking out yours and Tom's experience, answer this:

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 of shots are putts.
Course 2 in a tournament: Average 34 putts, Average 40 non putts 45.9 percent of shots are putts.

Which course favors the good putter?

Cheers,
Dan King

Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic.
 --Charles Sanders Peirce

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - gonna let Kalen handle it.  I am tired of saying the same thing over and over.  Aren't you?  And I have to wonder who has any evidence here not "from their gut" as you say?  Your made up numbers sure aren't "evidence", are they?

So we're all going from our guts, our experience, how we think things go.

Do you really think you are treating it any differently?

In any case, you do seem to get it.  And yes, I think that's how it plays out.  I have no evidence one way or the other, though I have seen it happen in practice (at Pasatiempo and Ballyneal).  I use my small experience as nothing more than an anecdote, however.

Please present your "evidence" to the contrary if you so desire.  Your made up numbers do not qualify.  

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen Braley writes:
That knife cuts both ways.....you as well are only going on gut instinct as you haven't provided any real world numbers or data otherwise either.

The difference is Tom's response to every comment on here is that he is right because his gut says so.

I asked a question that I think demonstrates tough greens favor good putters. Tom's response was his gut tells him something and therefore he won't participate in any discussion that could go against his gut.

Taking out yours and Tom's experience, answer this:

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 of shots are putts.
Course 2 in a tournament: Average 34 putts, Average 40 non putts 45.9 percent of shots are putts.

Which course favors the good putter?

Cheers,
Dan King

Bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic.
 --Charles Sanders Peirce

Dan,

I understand your point, but the problem is, you still haven't provided any real data...those are made up numbers.

If we can find real data, from real tournaments, with real stroke and real putting averages, then that would be an interesting exercise.  But to just throw something out there you made up, that already supports your position is nothing more than fiction at best.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - like Kalen said.  Thanks. 

[Will MacEwen]

Honestly, this is my last comment...

In that case, Tom, you're proposing the existence of two different-but-overlapping putting skills. There's one skill of making 6-15 foot first putts and there's a slightly different skill of avoiding 3-putts. That strikes me as probably less true than you might think. I have trouble imagining the two abilities not being so closely linked as to be indistinguishable. But I don't know, it may work that way. Let's say for the moment you can separate those components of putting ability.

But you're also saying that certain greens can be so tricky as to render the skill of making 6-15 foot first putts almost moot. Those putts are so hard that even Ben Crenshaw can't do it more than once in a blue moon so really, really contoured and tricked-up greens take the one-putt right out of consideration unless it's a tap-in.

Where I think you're wrong is by believing that greens can be tricky enough to substantially decrease the likelihood of making those first putts while at the same time leaving your skill at avoiding three-putts intact. I think that's what most of us on the majority side of this argument would totally disagree with. I just can't imagine characteristics of a putting green such that sinking a 15-foot birdie putt becomes nigh impossible for Ben Crenshaw while Tom Huckaby can still pretty much count on lagging it up there close enough for a sure thing 2-putt.

Brent,

Its not about having impossible putts from 6-15 feet, its about having trickly ones.  Its about instead of Ben making 10 of these, he only makes 5 of them.  That right there is the difference.

Whereas for someone like me or Huckaby, from 6-15 feet on tricky greens, we would likely only have one or two extra instances where we three putt instead of two putting from that distances.  So he gains 5 extra putts, while we only gain 1 or 2.  I don't see why this is a difficult concept to grasp?

Kalen - what about the 20-40 putts that Crenshaw is going to consistently two putt while the lesser putter consistently three putts?  The sample may hold for 6-15 footers, but that is kind of a fine line to draw.

[Kalen Braley]

Honestly, this is my last comment...

In that case, Tom, you're proposing the existence of two different-but-overlapping putting skills. There's one skill of making 6-15 foot first putts and there's a slightly different skill of avoiding 3-putts. That strikes me as probably less true than you might think. I have trouble imagining the two abilities not being so closely linked as to be indistinguishable. But I don't know, it may work that way. Let's say for the moment you can separate those components of putting ability.

But you're also saying that certain greens can be so tricky as to render the skill of making 6-15 foot first putts almost moot. Those putts are so hard that even Ben Crenshaw can't do it more than once in a blue moon so really, really contoured and tricked-up greens take the one-putt right out of consideration unless it's a tap-in.

Where I think you're wrong is by believing that greens can be tricky enough to substantially decrease the likelihood of making those first putts while at the same time leaving your skill at avoiding three-putts intact. I think that's what most of us on the majority side of this argument would totally disagree with. I just can't imagine characteristics of a putting green such that sinking a 15-foot birdie putt becomes nigh impossible for Ben Crenshaw while Tom Huckaby can still pretty much count on lagging it up there close enough for a sure thing 2-putt.

Brent,

Its not about having impossible putts from 6-15 feet, its about having trickly ones.  Its about instead of Ben making 10 of these, he only makes 5 of them.  That right there is the difference.

Whereas for someone like me or Huckaby, from 6-15 feet on tricky greens, we would likely only have one or two extra instances where we three putt instead of two putting from that distances.  So he gains 5 extra putts, while we only gain 1 or 2.  I don't see why this is a difficult concept to grasp?

Kalen - what about the 20-40 putts that Crenshaw is going to consistently two putt while the lesser putter consistently three putts?  The sample may hold for 6-15 footers, but that is kind of a fine line to draw.

Will,

I'm glad you brought this up, because in reality, I very rarely 3 putt from 6-15 feet, unless I get myself way out of position on the severe high side of a hole with no prayer to stop the ball close.

So in a more realitstic scenario, BC would give up most of his putts to me in the form of 6-20 footers that he might normally make 9 or 10 1 putts, but instead only makes 4 or 5.  And on the flipside, I would give back putts to him in the 30+ range where I might three-putt 1 or 2 of them.

But the delta still works in my favor where  1-2 < 4-5.  And that is the crux of the arguement in a nutshell.

[Dan King]

Kalen Braley writes:
But to just throw something out there you made up, that already supports your position is nothing more than fiction at best.

What supports my position? I asked a question.

Assume you want putting to be a bigger part of the game of golf. Do you make the greens easier or harder? My opinion is you would make the greens harder -- I'm not going to put words into your or Tom's keyboards.

If you were to agree with me, that making greens harder makes putting a bigger part of the game, then you also seem to be contending that making putting a bigger part of the game works to poor putter's advantage. I don't get that.

Without resorting to your own game, how can making putting a bigger part of the game work to poor putter's advantage? Or do you contend that making putting more difficult makes it a smaller part of the game?

Cheers,
Dan King

While, on the whole, playing through the green is the part most trying to the temper, putting is that most trying to the nerves. There is always the hope that a bad drive may be redeemed by a fine approach shot, or that a `foozle' with the brassy may be balanced by some brilliant performance with the iron. But when the stage of putting-out has been reached no further illusions are possible.
  --Earl Balfour

 

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

I'm not sure where you are headed with your latest round of tangents, but I don't think either Tom or I even remotely addressed making greens harder or easier.  Thats completely out of the scope of this thread.

As for your question, you asked a question with made-up data....why would that be an interesting exercise.  I think it would be more thought provoking to discuss the Easter Bunnies handicap vs Santa Claus'.   

[Dan King]

Kalen Braley writes:
I'm not sure where you are headed with your latest round of tangents, but I don't think either Tom or I even remotely addressed making greens harder or easier.  Thats completely out of the scope of this thread.

Well I'm totally flummoxed. I thought that was the whole idea of this thread: Do harder greens help or hurt better putters.

I'm thinking I was under that impression because that is the title of the thread: Do Hard Green Help or Hurt Better Putters?" Did it morph into, "Do some unspecific sort of green Help or Hurt Kalen and Tom?" 

Or perhaps when you refer to hard you are not specifying difficult, but rather penetration?

Cheers,
Dan King

Hitting a golf ball and putting have nothing in common. They're two different games. You work all your life to perfect a repeating swing that will get you to the greens, and then you have to try to do something that is totally unrelated. There shouldn't be any cups, just flag sticks. And then the man who hit the most fairways and greens and got closest to the pins would be the tournament winner.
  --Ben Hogan

[Phil Benedict]

Dan,

I'm not sure where you are headed with your latest round of tangents, but I don't think either Tom or I even remotely addressed making greens harder or easier.  Thats completely out of the scope of this thread.

As for your question, you asked a question with made-up data....why would that be an interesting exercise.  I think it would be more thought provoking to discuss the Easter Bunnies handicap vs Santa Claus'.   

I heard the Easter Bunny is a great ball-striker but has no short game at all.

[JESII]

Dan,

I'm not sure where you are headed with your latest round of tangents, but I don't think either Tom or I even remotely addressed making greens harder or easier.  Thats completely out of the scope of this thread.

Now it all makes sense...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()