Your most unpopular Golf opinions?

[itsame]

Just now, larrybud said:

I understand it fully, I just don't agree with it. You even admit that an 8" hole will reduce the advantage of good putters. So how big do you want to make it? 36"??

 

Seriously? You say you understand it but didn't even bother to read the whole thing?

That's intellectual dishonesty, dude.

 

I said between 4.25" and 5" is probably the sweet spot given the current make percantages on tour.

 

 

[larrybud]

9 hours ago, itsame said:

 

Seriously? You say you understand it but didn't even bother to read the whole thing?

That's intellectual dishonesty, dude.

 

I said between 4.25" and 5" is probably the sweet spot given the current make percantages on tour.

I read what you wrote. You said a larger hole would give an advantage to better putters, then you said and 8" hole would reduce the advantage, so I don't know what you're saying anymore especially since 4.25" IS The current hole size. 
 

[itsame]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

I read what you wrote. You said a larger hole would give an advantage to better putters, then you said and 8" hole would reduce the advantage, so I don't know what you're saying anymore especially since 4.25" IS The current hole size. 
 

 

Here's a quote from my comment that you failed to comprehend:

 

"At 8" we'd be way past that, but something bigger than 4.25" and smaller than 5"  might be the 'sweet spot'. "

 

I explained exactly why I think that is. You can't say 'I understand it fully' when you clearly don't, and won't even bother reading. This is ridiculous.

[mshills]

This is definitely worth having a condescending fight over. 

[JimmyC59]

The Game's not broken. Don't try to fix it.

Besides, it was tried once before in the early eighties. "American Golf". 6 inch holes. Everyone three putted because they were trying to hole every putt.

[farmer]

Tiger needs to shut himself down.  Maybe by St. Andrews he can walk 72 holes, but he cannot right now.

We used to have a fundraiser and on the last hole used a coffee can for the cup.  Broom for a flagstick.  It was surprising how many people missed even relatively short putts.

[Umpire Strikesback]

I’ve never seen a golf meme that was actually funny.

 

Post-round social golf club banter is the worst. It’s basically a collection of the same 10 golf cliches said over and over again in different combinations, mixed in with guttural hypertensive laughing.

[Rocky Ball-boa]

12 hours ago, larrybud said:

I read what you wrote. You said a larger hole would give an advantage to better putters, then you said and 8" hole would reduce the advantage, so I don't know what you're saying anymore especially since 4.25" IS The current hole size. 
 

I think you've lost the plot here bud 🙂

 

He's saying that at 8", the hole is so big that even a bad putter can get the ball in. But at 5", a bad putter will still miss, whereas the lip-out a good putter would get will go in.

Things like these can't be argued about in absolutes. As with a lot of things in science (or whatever passes for science these days), research about 8" cups can't be directly applied to 5"

It can form a basis for a hypothesis, sure, but not assert a conclusion.

 

Imagine this conversation about anything else, like ice baths. A guy can raise his tolerance for extreme cold. But if we both compete in a vat of liquid nitrogen (4.25" cup), we both die and lose. If we compete in just above freezing (5" cup), the person who's trained his body will last longer than me and win.

Looking at someone dying in a vat of liquid nitrogen and saying "if only he'd practiced his cold tolerance.. the science says you can do that" won't work.

 

Just to note, I'm actually unsure myself, and ultimately I don't care all that much. But at least intuitively it feels like slightly larger cups would benefit players with better short game (they'd make near misses, whereas bad players will still miss, but just by slightly less). I'm open to having my mind changed though, I can see both sides 🤷‍♂️

[larrybud]

I understand what he's saying, but the logic doesn't wash. The larger any target, the less skill is required to hit that target. I can't believe anybody would reasonably argue otherwise.

Take a 5" target. The "good" putters distribution is tighter (regardless of hole size) than the "bad" putter (that's why he's a better putter, after all). So the increase in make % will be LESS than that of the "bad" putter. The good putter has less room for improvement. The increase or decrease in make % is the correct metric to use, because the discussion is whether the larger hole helps better or worse putters MORE. A good exact is from the PDF below on Broadie's research from page 2832:

 

For example, for a 3-foot putt, the one-putt probability for professional golfers increases from 95.4% to 100% with the larger hole, while for amateur golfers probability increases from 76.3% to 98.2%.

 

The larger hole helped the amateur (the "worse" putter) MORE than pros, so much so, there's almost no difference in the result between the two groups.

Take it the other direction. Ever see those small practice cups? I've never measured them, but I'm guessing they are around 2-2.5" diameter. The better the putter, i.e. the player who has a tighter distribution of putts, will have an larger advantage of the "worse" putter because the target is smaller. BOTH players make % will go down overall, obviously, but the better player's make % will go down less.

 

Take, for example, a putt of 3 feet long. Then take a hole so large that the "best" putters never miss (statistically), but the "worse" putters do miss on occasion. What that size is is irrelevant. However, making the hole larger cannot, by definition, help the "best" putters because we've already said that they NEVER miss from this distance and with this size hole. So making the hole larger helps the worse putters more, because the best putters cannot get better. You can extrapolate that out larger or smaller holes, or longer or shorter putts, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the "better" putts are better because they can 1) get the ball on the intended line more often and 2) get the correct speed to match the line and 3) get the optimal speed so the ball falls into the hole (rather than lipping out, for example).

A larger hole helps those with a larger distribution in line AND speed.

 

Your analogy of an ice bath only works when talking about a hole size so small that the ball won't fit, and 0% of putts can be made (ie. "dying")

By the way, here's the Broadie research paper (click on the "download full text" to get the pdf)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/This-figure-shows-how-the-expected-number-of-putts-changes-for-professional-and-amateur_fig1_221526644

Edited May 22, 2022 by larrybud

[rooski]

10 hours ago, Umpire Strikesback said:

I’ve never seen a golf meme that was actually funny.

 

I went ahead and made up a quick one to see if I could change your opinion, lmk how this lands

 

[Umpire Strikesback]

5 hours ago, rooski said:

 

I went ahead and made up a quick one to see if I could change your opinion, lmk how this lands

 

Jesus

[itsame]

10 hours ago, larrybud said:

I understand what he's saying, but the logic doesn't wash. The larger any target, the less skill is required to hit that target. I can't believe anybody would reasonably argue otherwise.

Take a 5" target. The "good" putters distribution is tighter (regardless of hole size) than the "bad" putter (that's why he's a better putter, after all). So the increase in make % will be LESS than that of the "bad" putter. The good putter has less room for improvement. The increase or decrease in make % is the correct metric to use, because the discussion is whether the larger hole helps better or worse putters MORE. A good exact is from the PDF below on Broadie's research from page 2832:

 

For example, for a 3-foot putt, the one-putt probability for professional golfers increases from 95.4% to 100% with the larger hole, while for amateur golfers probability increases from 76.3% to 98.2%.

 

 

1) I am definitely not arguing that a larger target is harder to hit.

 

2) I have already adressed the 8" hole scenario and made the same point about how too big of a hole makes the advantage disappear. Here's the quote:

 

"At the other extreme, [if] 95% of putts go in from 15'-25', which might be plausible with an 8" hole. Obviously there's very little room for the best putters to shine, as even at 100% that makes them marginally better than average."

 

Here's a quote from my first comment that is important to understand:

"PGA pros only sink 15% of putts from 20' and 7% from 30'.  Increase that to 25% and 12% and it would make good putting more likely to turn around tournaments."

 

The conclusion that a larger hole necessarily helps worse putters is flawed for three reasons: 

1) It fails to account for the relation between make percentage and average proximity to hole

2) It does not take into account how much putting affects the final score compared to other strokes

3) It compares pros to amateurs instead of better pros to average pros

 

On tour:

The average proximity to hole from any lie, any distance, is 37' 1". The average birdie distance is 9' 5".

The average make percentage from >25' is 5.48%. The average make percentage of the top-10 from >25' is 8.9%.

 

The make percentages from 37'1", which is the average proximity to hole, is therefore extremely small, even for the best putters.

The smaller that percentage is, the least likely it is to make a difference in the final score.

 

What this means is that hitting a good iron/wedge very close to the hole is a much bigger factor.

 

The very conclusions of 'Strokes Gained' are:

 

1) 'The long game accounts for roughly 2/3 of scoring differential. In other words, shots outside of 100 yards (tee shots and approach shots) are the biggest determining factor in why one golfer scores better than another. Broadie concluded that approach shots are where most scoring occurs.'

2) 'Putting is not as influential in scoring differential as we first assumed. Broadie assigned 15% importance to putting in determining any player’s score. It turns out putting is much harder than we all thought, and it’s harder for golfers to separate themselves from one another with the flat stick.

 

 

The reason for this is that the make percentage from putts is too small. Increasing those percentages could turn the game into a 'putting contest', where most strokes would be gained on the green, giving a bigger edge to good putters who could take advantage of a lot more shots on the green, instead of mostly those that land into the current 'birdie distance'.

 

Whereas if the hole was small enough that only tap-ins would go in, good putters couldn't take advantage of the smaller hole because they would mostly finish their holes by tapping it in like everyone else, as their make percentage from any distance would still be too small to be meaningful on the final score.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by itsame

[rooski]

4 hours ago, Umpire Strikesback said:

Jesus

 

I usually go by rooski but thank you

[mat562]

On 5/18/2022 at 2:37 AM, Umpire Strikesback said:

 

 I prefer a fluffy lie over a tight one around the green to be honest 😅

 

Pseudonym or not, it's good to see Martin Kaymer posting on the forums.

[Blaiser]

My unpopular opinion -- courses should have some sort of verification/tutorial process to make sure players know what they are doing before they are allowed to play.

 

It shouldn't be based on skill, hackers can hack away. Just know how to navigate the course to prevent slow play.

 

Tons of recreational hobbies make you sit through some sort of training to make sure people know what they are doing first. 

 

I know a lot of euro countries do something like this, and I'm all for it.

[hollabachgt]

On 5/19/2022 at 3:11 PM, larrybud said:

 

Do you think it takes more skill to shoot a target with a 1" diameter bullseye, or a 1 foot bullseye? More skill to bounce a ping-pong ball into a solo-cup, or a swimming pool?

 

The point is, when you make the hole larger, you don't NEED to be good to make putts. Think of a hole 2 feet in depth (so that speed isn't a consideration) which expands the entire width of the green (essentially a trough). The only "skill" would be to hit the ball hard enough to get the trough.

Now lessen the width of that trough by 50%, by 75%, by 90%. The smaller it gets, the more skill involved to hit that dwindling target.

By the way, Mark Broadie agrees with me (inventor of the Strokes Gained metric). From his book Every Shot Counts:

 

 

 

If you go beyond the quote in his book and actually read Broadie’s simulation  you should have doubts about the validity of his claims. His simulation is just math and statistics fit to a curve.  Some of the assumptions in that study are not very sound, but more importantly are not structured to actually compare how an amateur would putt vs a professional with larger holes.
 
This is because Broadie's modeled professionals putting on greens running at 11 ft, and putting from the places they usually put from, and compared them to a different model of amateurs on greens running at 9 ft at the places they usually putt from. They were 2 different simulations and he somehow tried to correlate the two.
 
You can’t make any sound conclusions about how hole size affects putters of different skill, when the study doesn’t equalize other variables, like greens speed and length of putts, when making the comparison.  That paper would be laughed out of any reasonable statistical review.

 

I find it humorous that Braodie References Gene Sarazen in his quote. Gene Sarazen did think that poor putters would benefit from a larger hole, and he was a big proponent of increasing the hole size.

 
In 1933, Sarazen was instrumental in getting the Miami-Biltmore  pro tournament  to use 6” holes instead of 4.25” holes.  So this idea has been tried in actual professional competition.
 
The result was Paul Runyan won.  Paul Runyan was likely the shortest player in the field, It’s been said that Sam Sneed would out drive him by 75 yards, however he is largely thought to have had one of the best short games in the history of golf.
 
Runyan didn’t just win, he won by 10 shots!
 
That’s where the idea that a bigger hole helps the better putter comes from.  An actual tournament where the best putter destroyed the field.

 

Actually it wasn't just 1 tournament, Because the larger hole didn't help the worse putter in the first tournament, they tried it again. Bob Rotella wrote about it in Golf Is A Game Of Confidence:

 

"In 1933 Gene Sarazen and some other touring pros decided that there was entirely too much emphasis on the short game, particularly putting. They wanted to redesign golf to favor “shotmaking.” So they prevailed on the organizers of some winter tournaments in Florida to expand the diameter of the hole from 4 ¼ inches to 8 inches.
 
The first tournament conducted with the big hole was called the Florida Year-Round Open. Most players began charging every putt. It didn’t work. Sarazen had several three-putt greens. Runyan had no three-putts. He played his normal game on the greens, and won by 11 strokes.
 
The advocates of the big hole decided this must have been an aberration. They staged another big-hole tournament, this one in Tampa, at match play. The finalists were Paul Runyan and Willie McFarlane, who was also a great short-game player. Runyan won again.
 
The experiment with the big hole ended abruptly that day. It proved only that there is no getting around the importance of the short game."

 

[Warrior42111]

2 hours ago, Blaiser said:

My unpopular opinion -- courses should have some sort of verification/tutorial process to make sure players know what they are doing before they are allowed to play.

 

It shouldn't be based on skill, hackers can hack away. Just know how to navigate the course to prevent slow play.

 

Tons of recreational hobbies make you sit through some sort of training to make sure people know what they are doing first. 

 

I know a lot of euro countries do something like this, and I'm all for it.

Isn't that on us more experienced golfers?

 

I know when I started my grandfather taught me somethings, but I was politely taught by many playing partners when I was at a course in the summer about the small things. Where to put a bag, when to pick up, where to stand etc.

 

Now sure some people won't listen, but I see a lot more B&^%^ing here and on the course, and no one politely teaching newcomers. saying pick up let's go etc, without explanation, than having a quick conversation and explaining why. It's like ignoring a toddler when they keep asking why. No adult likes to be treated that way. 

 

Jut my 2 cents

[Ty_Webb]

On 5/22/2022 at 1:38 PM, larrybud said:

I understand what he's saying, but the logic doesn't wash. The larger any target, the less skill is required to hit that target. I can't believe anybody would reasonably argue otherwise.

Take a 5" target. The "good" putters distribution is tighter (regardless of hole size) than the "bad" putter (that's why he's a better putter, after all). So the increase in make % will be LESS than that of the "bad" putter. The good putter has less room for improvement. The increase or decrease in make % is the correct metric to use, because the discussion is whether the larger hole helps better or worse putters MORE. A good exact is from the PDF below on Broadie's research from page 2832:

 

For example, for a 3-foot putt, the one-putt probability for professional golfers increases from 95.4% to 100% with the larger hole, while for amateur golfers probability increases from 76.3% to 98.2%.

 

The larger hole helped the amateur (the "worse" putter) MORE than pros, so much so, there's almost no difference in the result between the two groups.

Take it the other direction. Ever see those small practice cups? I've never measured them, but I'm guessing they are around 2-2.5" diameter. The better the putter, i.e. the player who has a tighter distribution of putts, will have an larger advantage of the "worse" putter because the target is smaller. BOTH players make % will go down overall, obviously, but the better player's make % will go down less.

 

Take, for example, a putt of 3 feet long. Then take a hole so large that the "best" putters never miss (statistically), but the "worse" putters do miss on occasion. What that size is is irrelevant. However, making the hole larger cannot, by definition, help the "best" putters because we've already said that they NEVER miss from this distance and with this size hole. So making the hole larger helps the worse putters more, because the best putters cannot get better. You can extrapolate that out larger or smaller holes, or longer or shorter putts, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because the "better" putts are better because they can 1) get the ball on the intended line more often and 2) get the correct speed to match the line and 3) get the optimal speed so the ball falls into the hole (rather than lipping out, for example).

A larger hole helps those with a larger distribution in line AND speed.

 

Your analogy of an ice bath only works when talking about a hole size so small that the ball won't fit, and 0% of putts can be made (ie. "dying")

By the way, here's the Broadie research paper (click on the "download full text" to get the pdf)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/This-figure-shows-how-the-expected-number-of-putts-changes-for-professional-and-amateur_fig1_221526644

 

 

For a given standard of player, you can plot make rates against distance and you'll get a line chart. The PGA Tour players will be around 98% at 3 feet and 50% at 5 feet. If you double the size of the hole, what you're effectively doing is doubling the x axis on that chart. The impact of that is the 3 foot putt becomes like a 1.5 foot putt. Clearly that's going to be a much bigger benefit to the worse player.

 

What about if you look at 20 feet though? PGA Tour players hole about 40% of their 10 foot putts I think it is and about 15% of their 20 foot putts. So their 15% goes to 40% (roughly speaking). Meanwhile for the average Joe 90, 20 foot putts go from about 6% to 20%, so the PGA Tour player is gaining 25% while the 90 shooter is gaining 14%. A scratch player's averages are about 14% and 33%, so he's gaining 19% from 20 feet. 

 

I would also imagine that the added speed control that PGA Tour players have would virtually eliminate three putting, while Joe 90 is still going to 3 putt a decent amount of the time. I think a larger hole shifts make rate percentages up the curve, which will benefit one group or other based on how often people wind up having those length putts. 

 

Anecdotally, when I've played with good putters, if they don't hole it, then they come really close. Poor putters miss by larger margins. Good putters are going to hole a lot of those putts. Poor putters will hole more, but I don't think it's clear that they'll gain more. 

[Rigby48]

We should never play lift clean and place. I don’t care how wet it is. 
 

Get rid of bunker rakes they should be hard to get out of and life isn’t fair neither should bunkers be fair. 
 

 

[GolfTurkey]

2 hours ago, Rigby48 said:

We should never play lift clean and place. I don’t care how wet it is. 
 

Get rid of bunker rakes they should be hard to get out of and life isn’t fair neither should bunkers be fair. 
 

 

 

You must be on the committee at my golf club

[Umpire Strikesback]

9 hours ago, Blaiser said:

My unpopular opinion -- courses should have some sort of verification/tutorial process to make sure players know what they are doing before they are allowed to play.

 

It shouldn't be based on skill, hackers can hack away. Just know how to navigate the course to prevent slow play.

 

Tons of recreational hobbies make you sit through some sort of training to make sure people know what they are doing first. 

 

I know a lot of euro countries do something like this, and I'm all for it.

What about the time and resources it takes to implement this process?

[Captain Hook11]

On 9/24/2019 at 8:48 AM, jjj912 said:

Putting is the least important thing to shooting low score. Wedge play is the second least important thing. The most important thing is driving. Iron play is the second most important thing.

I got into a fun argument with the FIL about this a few weeks back. I think at some point, the "drive for show, putt for dough" mentality morphed into "putting is more important than getting off the tee" and I can't understand why. I've had great rounds where I couldn't putt and horrible rounds where I hit multiple 12+ footers. To me it doesn't carry over like knowing you can drill a drive 250 (or just know it's probably going to be in play off the tee), or feel great about your 8 iron from 150 or get on the green from 50 yards, etc. Those skills seem wayyyy more consistent than how your putter feels from 8 feet that day. Especially considering the random greens amateurs can see week to week.

[The Pearl]

On 5/22/2022 at 9:32 PM, itsame said:

 

1) I am definitely not arguing that a larger target is harder to hit.

 

2) I have already adressed the 8" hole scenario and made the same point about how too big of a hole makes the advantage disappear. Here's the quote:

 

"At the other extreme, [if] 95% of putts go in from 15'-25', which might be plausible with an 8" hole. Obviously there's very little room for the best putters to shine, as even at 100% that makes them marginally better than average."

 

Here's a quote from my first comment that is important to understand:

"PGA pros only sink 15% of putts from 20' and 7% from 30'.  Increase that to 25% and 12% and it would make good putting more likely to turn around tournaments."

 

The conclusion that a larger hole necessarily helps worse putters is flawed for three reasons: 

1) It fails to account for the relation between make percentage and average proximity to hole

2) It does not take into account how much putting affects the final score compared to other strokes

3) It compares pros to amateurs instead of better pros to average pros

 

On tour:

The average proximity to hole from any lie, any distance, is 37' 1". The average birdie distance is 9' 5".

The average make percentage from >25' is 5.48%. The average make percentage of the top-10 from >25' is 8.9%.

 

The make percentages from 37'1", which is the average proximity to hole, is therefore extremely small, even for the best putters.

The smaller that percentage is, the least likely it is to make a difference in the final score.

 

What this means is that hitting a good iron/wedge very close to the hole is a much bigger factor.

 

The very conclusions of 'Strokes Gained' are:

 

1) 'The long game accounts for roughly 2/3 of scoring differential. In other words, shots outside of 100 yards (tee shots and approach shots) are the biggest determining factor in why one golfer scores better than another. Broadie concluded that approach shots are where most scoring occurs.'

2) 'Putting is not as influential in scoring differential as we first assumed. Broadie assigned 15% importance to putting in determining any player’s score. It turns out putting is much harder than we all thought, and it’s harder for golfers to separate themselves from one another with the flat stick.

 

 

The reason for this is that the make percentage from putts is too small. Increasing those percentages could turn the game into a 'putting contest', where most strokes would be gained on the green, giving a bigger edge to good putters who could take advantage of a lot more shots on the green, instead of mostly those that land into the current 'birdie distance'.

 

Whereas if the hole was small enough that only tap-ins would go in, good putters couldn't take advantage of the smaller hole because they would mostly finish their holes by tapping it in like everyone else, as their make percentage from any distance would still be too small to be meaningful on the final score.

 

 

 

 

Good discussion.   

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are arguing that it is possible to "optimize" the size of the cup to differentiate good putters from bad?  If this is the case, aren't you simply just moving the "distances made" out rather than differentiating good putting from bad?

 

I get your point that the at some size the hole can be made too small or too big so that no meaningful differentiation between good putting or bad putting can be made, but I am a bit skeptical that the cup can be optimized so bold claims can be made that Player A is a good putter vs. Player B who is a bad putter above and beyond what can be claimed at the current cup size.

 

My comments are more probing in trying to learn than combating your point.

 

 

[larrybud]

20 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Anecdotally, when I've played with good putters, if they don't hole it, then they come really close. Poor putters miss by larger margins. Good putters are going to hole a lot of those putts. Poor putters will hole more, but I don't think it's clear that they'll gain more. 

If the good putter already holes 90% of 4 footers, for example (I don't know the exactly number) and the poor putter makes 50%, the poor putter has more room for improvement. 

The make % starts to converge the larger the hole, which means the poorer putter is gaining more.

[iGolf67]

Forgiveness in equipment is overrated. Regardless of what type of club you play, you still have to put a good swing on the ball. 

[Ty_Webb]

9 minutes ago, larrybud said:

If the good putter already holes 90% of 4 footers, for example (I don't know the exactly number) and the poor putter makes 50%, the poor putter has more room for improvement. 

The make % starts to converge the larger the hole, which means the poorer putter is gaining more.

 

But why look at it like that? If you look at the point where both players hole 50% of putts, then who gains more? Let's say the poor player holes 50% of their 4 footers and then you double the hole size and now they hole 80% of their 4 footers. Tour players hole 50% of their 8 footers. Double the size and perhaps they now hole 90% of their 8 footers. So who has really gained the most here? I could easily see a situation where the tour player gains more.

 

If you have seen some of Scott Fawcett's videos, he talks about how from 20 feet tour players hole I think it's about 15% of their putts. The way they do that is basically by randomly having the ball pass through a gap roughly 7 holes wide at 20 feet. One of those holes is the actual hole, so effectively they're within 3 holes either side with every putt hit at good speed. Then 1 in 7 will go in. If that's actually the case (questionable) then doubling the hole size is actually going to double the make rate. It'll actually be a little bit less than that since it can't go to 100%, but for sake of argument I think it will be close outside of about 12 feet. If that's the case, then your potential to improve is actually your current make rate, so the higher your make rate the more you'll improve. That means that tour players will improve by more than an average hack from all distances outside of 10 feet. 

[hollabachgt]

2 hours ago, larrybud said:

If the good putter already holes 90% of 4 footers, for example (I don't know the exactly number) and the poor putter makes 50%, the poor putter has more room for improvement. 

The make % starts to converge the larger the hole, which means the poorer putter is gaining more.

 

The poor putter may have the potential to gain more but that in it self does not mean they will.

 

The big factor you're missing is the shot dispersion between the two players.

 

If Player A (Tour Pro) makes 46.8% of 8 footers and Player B (Amateur) makes 28.2% of 8 footers, another way to describe their performance on an 8 foot putt is Player A's dispersion interval at ~4.25 inches is 50% and player B's dispersion interval at ~4.25 inches is 25%. if you expand the dispersion interval to 6" or 8" what happens to their percentages? (negating the effects of speed on a made putt, in general since the dispersion's of a made putt is probably more like 3.4 inches, so at 8" it would be more like 7.2", but for the sake of this discussion the width of the hole is fine)

 

Better putters have more near misses and a tighter shot dispersion. this can be seen by examining the make rates as you near the hole. Player A's make rate from 7, 6, 5, and 4 feet increases by 7%, 8.5%, 10.7%, 11.8% In contrast Player B's make rate from 7, 6, 5, and 4 feet increases by 5%, 6.2%, 8.7%, 12.3%. In correlation, as the hole grows inch by inch, Player A's make rate will continue to outpace Player B's until which point the approximation of hole size to distance encompasses a saturated sample of Player A's shot dispersion.

 

Putting isn't binary. If you miss a putt you still have to hit another one. What happens then? From 1 foot away both Player A and Player B have a make rate of virtually 100%. From 2 feet those number shifts to 99.8% and 93.2%. From 3 feet those numbers are 95.4% and 76.3%. While Player A's make rate falls only 5% over 3 feet, player B's drops off 5x faster! What happens when they move from 2ft to 3ft, their shot dispersion begins to have a big impact on their make rate, not just for first putts, but for second and third and so on.

 

This is why at 20ft Player B's 3 putt rate is higher than their 1 putt rate, and why it takes until 40ft for player A's 3 putt rate to eclipse their 1 putt rate. If both Player A and Player B were to putt out from 40ft. Player B's second putt would be significantly longer than Player A's. Because the make percentage of a player is non linear, the boost in make rate generated by the larger hole would not overcome the distance advantage Player A would have over Player B.

 

 

[itsame]

7 hours ago, The Pearl said:

 

 

 

Good discussion.   

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are arguing that it is possible to "optimize" the size of the cup to differentiate good putters from bad?  If this is the case, aren't you simply just moving the "distances made" out rather than differentiating good putting from bad?

 

I get your point that the at some size the hole can be made too small or too big so that no meaningful differentiation between good putting or bad putting can be made, but I am a bit skeptical that the cup can be optimized so bold claims can be made that Player A is a good putter vs. Player B who is a bad putter above and beyond what can be claimed at the current cup size.

 

My comments are more probing in trying to learn than combating your point.

 

 

 

The more often something happens in the game, the more likely it is to have an impact on the final score.

Because the make percentages are so small from the average proximity to hole, it doesn't happen enough for putting to optimally affect the outcome of the tournament (note: I am not advocating for putting to have a greater effect in pro golf, I am merely saying that increasing the hole size to an 'optimal' size would do that).

 

Football analogy to make it easier to understand:

 

Intercepting a 1-point conversion is extremely rare (because it is too difficult). The teams that are better at it have an incredibly small edge: it simply doesn't happen often enough to have more than a marginal impact on winning games.

 

If the rules were changed so that intercepting the conversion was much easier, for example 30% of the time, then teams who are good at it would have a much bigger edge, maybe pushing it to 40-50%, thus making it a lot more likely to affect the final score.

 

And if the rules were made so that it was very easy to do, like 95% of the time (the equivalent of an 8" hole), then the best team would lose their edge again, as explained before.

Edited May 25, 2022 by itsame

[betarhoalphadelta]

Tee box selection should be based on your distance with driver, not your handicap. Don't keep telling us mid-high caps to "move up to the forward tees" to score better--of course I'll score better! Probably not much better in relation to course rating, so what's the point? I drive 260-270 and I'm comfortable in the 6000-6500 range--I don't need to play from 5300. 

 

Being fit for a shaft is FAR more important than what clubhead you use, but most golfers are more interested in the clubhead than the shaft. 

[hollabachgt]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Tee box selection should be based on your distance with driver, not your handicap. Don't keep telling us mid-high caps to "move up to the forward tees" to score better--of course I'll score better!

 

If your goal while playing is to hit more drivers and not to shoot the best score possible, why leave the driving range?